< 20 November	22 November >

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rikkir[edit]

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

Puff piece written by apparent founder of company. References do not appear to meet the definition of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Rikkir inc. The best of the given references is the bylined Huddle item, although it is a typical start-up piece: discussing how they got started, their hopes for funding, etc. My searches are finding nothing better. At best WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only a hasty attempt at advertising, it was never fully completed, let alone with the necessary improvements, it shows this is only existing for advertising, so the clear solution for such blatancy is deleting. These matters are not complex at all especially when it's been simplified to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Huddle.today article is a press release from an unreliable outlet. This source is good, but it's the only thing out there, and its local and brief. Not nearly enough to meet WP:CORP. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Muhammad Zarif[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable academic/researcher with no independent secondary sources discernible. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent PROMO created in July by new editor who also created the similar Ishaque Ahmed Ansari, which has a parallel dearth of WP:RS. A couple of quick searches offered no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undoubtedly worthy person but zero notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. sami ^talk 22:15, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavan Kushwaha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no in depth coverage. Too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly promotional. Sources are local, self-published, blogs or procedural. The most promising refs are actually published by his employer, MNNIT, when he was hired to speak for them. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kratikal#Kratikal and the associated talk pages. User:Ankitforwiki appears to be a sock, as he suddenly appeared to defend both articles despite never editing this one. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 22:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kratikal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP only passing mentions of Kratikal in the sources no significant indepth coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the CEO of the company Pavan Kushwaha for deletion as failing WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusing images-of-text sources are only tangential mentions, third source isn't a mention at all. I wonder if they know how cheap it is to buy a blogspam article in Hindustan Times or The Times of India. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 20:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Meets A7. Class455 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom'd. I didn't want to leap to it, but yeah. It's functionally unreferenced regardless of the news scans. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aaaand there was already a contest from a while back putting up the same nonsense sources. Sorry. We'll do this the old-fashioned way. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an AfD on its founder. Should these be merged? Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

or linked to each other, somehow. Can you normally merge AfDs? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a group nomination, which I would have done if I knew how. Not sure if it's possible with Twinkle. Adam9007 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABCnews.com.co[edit]

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

~~I'm just not sure this one is notable.~~ Good faith attempt by article creator here. ~~But do we really have in-depth discussion? It seems like all this page will ever be is a bunch of brief examples.~~ Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep absolutely notable: coverage in many mainstream sources, gets lots of traffic, and people are looking for information on it. This site in particular has been the subject of wide-ranging discussion and coverage this fall, and is by the standard of any other subject certainly notable and worth an article. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems to have sufficient references to be notable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's not give any attention to a site whose notability is based merely on a typo and propagating complete garbage news. We don't have an article about Gooogle.com, this shouldn't even get the time of day. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Withdraw my nomination. Change to Keep. After seeing creation of page Liberty Writers News by Sandstein, and seeing also existing page for National Report, I see the encyclopedic value of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - SwineHerd, a nomination cannot be withdrawn if someone else has supported deletion. As deletion discussions are typically contentious spaces, please spend more time participating in discussions before trying to close them. Only in the most obvious cases should a non-admin do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to List of fake news websites or Paul Horner. There are many sites which participated in the same sort of activity, often covered together. There's coverage of a few specific stories it has posted, but I'm not seeing much coverage of the site itself beyond one-two sentence descriptions and the coverage of Horner. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of significant coverage. Also, a wikipedia page on the subject provides a valuable service. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In an age of fake news, hoaxes, and propaganda, this is necessary for our core readership. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayWay[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPORATE criteria the only sources are primary. Domdeparis (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only notable game is Car Mechanic Simulator, which probably should have an article. PlayWay is a shovelware/cloneware publisher, and based on the tone, this article was almost certainly written by the owner. Let's not give them a vanity article for the devs' hard work. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 20:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talked to the article creator because I suspected COI, but he's just a fan of CMS15 and seems well-intentioned. I made a draft, if anyone is interested. There's still nothing useful in PlayWay. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article creator has now created another page for a game by this company that hasn't even come out yet ...looks like he really is a COI editor after all Domdeparis (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Gestrid (talk) 22:03, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soumyadipta Banerjee[edit]

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

Enritely WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO. User attempted to use WP:AFC and was denied so they just went ahead and created the article. Loaded with WP:PEACOCK. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's such a blatant piece of spam that I'm tempted to G11 it. However, chose to not interrupt with afd, so we could deal with any further attempt of creation of this topic. Subject at best can make a claim of one-event notability (for writing a stupidest piece of article). Rest coverage are by him, not about him. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly referenced and existence for only promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. This could have been marked for CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Classic spam.Should have been ASD-ed.Suppport comments by User:Anupmehra.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A11 RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CMS, Rajajipuram Branch[edit]

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

Does not fulfill notability WP:NSCHOOL Domdeparis (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the page is identical to the version that was speedy deleted as promotional; likely created by the same person(possibly evading a block). I tagged it for speedy deletion again. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plu2o Nash[edit]

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

Most of what's out there is trivial mentions. Not enough for notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the way of meaningful coverage needed. Crow^Caw 21:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Unsourced article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. –Grondemar 19:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page reads like an advertisement and subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promotional guff --Domdeparis (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... yes and I've speedied it as such. Not sure this requires an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 21 November 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 deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.akdchardoi.org/aboutus.html. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Kanya Degree College, Hardoi[edit]

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

No third party referencing, fails Google test. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tagged this article as a copyright violation of http://www.akdchardoi.org/aboutus.html. Direct copy/paste dump. Frustrating that it went under the radar this way for four years. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Management College[edit]

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

Multiple tags going back years. Couldn't find it in Google search of news or books. The website in the infobox doesn't work and the Facebook page, not exactly a reliable source, is untouched since 2011, is promotional only. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Defunct and not a notable College. Venerability is minimal. Pmedema (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a complete absence of significant coverage from reliable sources Spiderone 10:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. If so inclined, a redirect to Maharshi Dayanand University would also be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TysenJr[edit]

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

Non-notable. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has zero sources. No articles with no sources should exist in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried and failed to turn up secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also tried and failed to find WP:RS, but can only find him on social media. Unsourced claims on label and associated acts seem highly unlikely. Wikishovel (talk) 06:51, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Islam Day[edit]

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

Of this article's two sources, one is the subject matter's own website and the other returns a 403 error. The article overall is very biased towards Islam and towards World Islam Day. Gacl906 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost looks like a WP:A11, but at least fails WP:GNG (zilch on GNews and GBooks, which is remarkable for something that is supposed to be a "World xxx Day"). Note that the subject's own website is a Blogspot in disguise. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched; found nothing. Apparent PROMO for a "World Day" that exists only in somebody's mind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked about and I get an impression of wanting to make it happen... here. No WP:N here. - Pmedema (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an attempt to advertise the website (which is, indeed, the only working source). I checked the Arabic version of the article; it was apparently created by a rather unresponsive user with a habit of creating pointless articles consisting of madeup topics over there, so this looks like another WP:ADVERT issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as user MezzoMezzo cited, it seems like an attempt to advertise the website, and in the Arabic version the language of the article lacks neutrality and objectivity.--Jobas (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, it looks like something between an ad and a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:14, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamie Chess[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yamie Chess

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

Proposing deletion on WP:N grounds and WP:RS grounds.

Specifically calling into question the following:

Fails WP:GNG while the company has received coverage elsewhere those sources do not appear to be independent of the subject. The reliability of other sources are also hard to verify.
Fails WP:COMPANY The Las Vegas business entity was dissolved in 2015 and there is little evidence that "there is a group of more than one person" involved.
Fails WP:SPA The creator of this article has not edited outside of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiroAntagonist (talk • contribs)

Delete does not pass WP:GNG as the independence of two of the given references has been questioned (see article talk page). I did deprod this but in view of the doubtful sources have changed opinion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For my reasons, read my full edit history of this page:)

Comment are you connected to the company as this is only your second edit, the first edit being on the article in question? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Atlantic306 - Hi Atlantic. I'm not connected actually but I am a Wikipedia financial donor, and have given $15 to Wikipedia in the last year. I just love made in usa companies, so much stuff is getting outsourced to china and far east its great to see folks doing it at home! I'd appreciate if people judge my neutral edits with some impartiality.Syrup41 (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability, and if an SPA believes that notability can be bought so cheaply, there may surprises along life's fretful path. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as simply a business listing and with the apparent motivations of having that, therefore considering there's literally nothing else significant here, there's nothing to keep at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:13, 23 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkara Venkata Adinarayana Rao[edit]

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

Not a notable doctor. Also there is no much coverage in the media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete article has been WP:PROMO and unsourced since it was created. Subject may be notable but this article would need to be completely written actually using reliable sources, so TNT applies. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG (sources are cited in article). It should be noted that most of Indian newspapers do not keep archives for their publications before 2000-01. Therefore, online-unavailability of sources for any topic including this one whose mature phase belongs to pre-2000 period should be understandable. Anup [Talk] 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mm you cleaned it up but he is not N like his brother. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yup, doesn't meet any special criteria, but may be 'general notability guideline'. In addition to cited sources, I've assumed that there are few more (good ones) but just not available at this time. Anup [Talk] 12:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:GNG also notable award Atlantic306 (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the context of non-English individuals, he has sufficient sources covering him. 92.6.187.195 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 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 12:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer.com[edit]

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

TLDR: This page doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP.

This page was deleted as a draft via MFD for being non-notable, was requested to be undeleted ~~on the promise~~ with a statement that it would be significantly rewritten, and is substantially similar to the original version. The only changes have been to add a puff piece about Pokemon Go and some coverage about a legal suit (two of which are from niche websites). There's just not a lot of significant coverage, and I almost feel like there's a bit of GAMING going on hoping that no one would notice the new page. Primefac (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece that reads like a press release; fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this page DOES meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP and WP:COMPANY, as the references are all valid and notable at various levels (major outlets, local, industry outlets, non-industry outlets).

Per WP:GNG, which states in these exact words that an article like this is perfectly acceptable: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Furthermore, via WP:COMPANY, which again states word for word that an article like this is legitimate: "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc." and also "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", all of which are properly sourced and meeting these requirements.

Finally, the assumption that there was a "promise that it would be significantly rewritten" is a false statement. This was never promised. The idea of "Gaming" and "hoping no one would notice" is heresay, and not based on fact.

Factually speaking, this article was previously denied due to lack of "significant independent coverage". Since the last submission, significant independent coverage has been included as sources, and was approved for that reason, so I would suggest it illogical to remove this page.Kcmaher (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point, you never technically promised. I have stricken that statement and reworded to reflect the actual events. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - corporate promotion with no encyclopedic value. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:36, 30 November 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 19:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency[edit]

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

Per WP:BLAR, "If editors cannot agree [about replacing the article with a redirect] the article should be submitted to Articles for Deletion." I don't think it should be deleted or replaced by a redirect, but User:SPECIFICO disagrees. Per WP:LISTN, this list meets notability requirements because it is "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Moreover, merging this article into List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States would not be feasible because this list has unique columns (e.g. "Senate control" and "Last day of last term"), and anyway the text preceding this list would be bulky and distracting if merged into List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not a POV fork because it thoroughly describes the POV of Mazzone, and also clearly says that Mazzone's POV is disputed, so that the subject matter is dealt with in a very neutral way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge/redirect to List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). This is a WP:POVFORK, as reflected by the incomplete and misleading nature of the list. The list includes only nominations in the "last year of a president's last term" and omits nominations in the last year of any term (including a first term - which could of course be the "last term" for a president who isn't reelected), therefore shrinking the sample size (and distorting the numbers) for no real reason other than to push a political point of view. The list also excludes cases where the nomination occurred prior to the final year of a president's last term but Senate action continued into that last year — again, this shrinks the sample size and distorts the numbers. Recent scholarship confirms this. To the extent that the statistics and political back-and-forth are important, they can be included in List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, or Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. Neutrality^talk 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not shrink the sample size at all. It does not omit nominations in the last year of a first term, if the President only served one term. The only reason why the sources say this subject has stand-alone notability is because of attempts by the U.S. Senate to transfer nomination power from a president to his successor, and obviously the dividing line between a president's first and second terms does not mark any succession. Yes, the list excludes cases where the vacancy or nomination occurred prior to the final year of a president's last term but Senate action continued into that last year, for several reasons: [1] the sources originally cited in this article did so, [2] the Garland nomination was not made prior to the final year of Obama's term, and [3] (as I just mentioned) the notability of this subject arises from the lateness of the vacancy whereas a vacancy before the last year is not so late (and therefore not as notable). Note: the "recent scholarship" cited by User:Neutrality is fully discussed and cited in the list as it stands now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is specious. (1) Inclusion if the President did, in fact, only serve one term still (a) substantially and arbitrarily reduces the sample size and (b) makes no sense because at the time of the delay, nobody could know a priori whether a sitting president would in fact be elected. (2) Your statement that "the notability of this subject arises from the lateness of the vacancy whereas a vacancy before the last year is not so late (and therefore not as notable)" is a tautology. As is true on the earlier point, this exclusion arbitrarily shrinks the sample size. (3) You rely almost entirely on Mazzone and perhaps one other source. There's absolutely no reason why these sources can't be discussed, in context in a broader article. Neutrality^talk 03:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list obviously does not rely almost entirely on Mazzone, as Mazzone was not even cited until today. Months ago, before Mazzone was even available, the table was identical, except for a few notations to the "Notes" column. I've already responded to your other statements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the nominator, but believe the list should be kept, for the reasons stated above in the nomination, and in my reply to User:Neutrality. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge suitable content with List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. As I explained on the article talk page, this is a POVFORK by @Anythingyouwant:, an unrepentent POV-pusher who is has been evading an Arbcom-imposed sanction related to editing abortion-related content, broadly defined, throughout the US political season this year. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What SPECIFICO says is false, and he knows it's false, because I already proved to him it's false.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered to verify the quote that I've now provided three times to you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a POV fork, pure and simple. There is no need for this separate of the main list of SCOTUS nominations. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni, I disagree. You haven't identified what the "POV" of this article is, because none exists. The article fully balances the POVs of Nelson v. Mazzone. It's telling that you're not suggesting to merge any of that into any other article, and instead want to just blank it. You haven't given the slightest reason why this article should be deleted whereas similar articles should not (e.g. Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). You haven't acknowledged that this list fully satisfies WP:LISTN as explained above, and includes material that currently exists in no other Wikipedia article (even aside from the stuff about Nelson and Mazzone, this article includes pertinent columns not found in any other article, plus information in the notes column that is unique to this article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deleting and not merging/redirecting because there is only one mainspace page that links to this list, and I don't think that the page title is a likely search term, so deletion seems like the best option. As noted on the lists talk page, its pretty apparent that the article was created in reaction to the Garland nomination. I also agree with Neutrality that you shrink the sample size and that your sources can be discussed in the main article. Because those sources need to be balanced and based on the editing of this list will probably require future discussion to obtain a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included, I think the best option is to delete the POV fork and engage in a talk page discussion about expanding the main article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is the POV that you think this article has? As for wikilinks to this list, I have just added it to the pertinent template.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note This diff is what created the sentence in WP:BLAR that started this AfD. But IMO this is incompatible with WP:Deletion policy. And because nominations are always !votes to delete, User:Anythingyouwant has !voted twice in this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it stated that nominations are always !votes to delete?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~AfD is for discussions that need admin tools. User~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failing to see the "POV-pushing" here. It's an informative article that would not fit being merged, as stated above, due to the special extra columns. Deleting it would also lose the insights gained here. Less than half of year of presidency Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed, probably the precedent that was used to block the current nomination.Gatemansgc (talk) 20:37, 21 November 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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. If it's a student assignment, student assignments need to be handled according to the page McGeddon pointed out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suwannee Dining Room[edit]

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

I've read this article several times but can't quite understand its purpose except as an advertisement for the dining room which is run by Seminole Dining. It is purely promotional /PR and fails the WP:NOTPROMOTION criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to an unblock request earlier today at User talk:Nolediners (a user blocked for creating an earlier version of this article under what seemed to be a promotional name), this is some kind of student assignment. ("The intention of this page is solely for a school project for the class of ENC 4404. It is for educational purposes on how to edit in wikipedia.") --McGeddon (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sounds odd. Why create a page that is not compliant to WP standards to see it deleted and then recreate the same page that is still not compliant and say that it's a school assignment. The title of the assignment maybe "how not to edit in wikipedia"...Sounds like a cunning ploy to try and get a promo page past the new pages patrol!--Domdeparis (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, a teacher who hasn't read Wikipedia:Student assignments has probably told their class to create a Wikipedia article about a nearby (and probably non-notable) dining hall, and these articles were written by different students. --McGeddon (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Certainly there are notable university dining rooms in the world. I see no indication that this is one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and likely to lead to confusion by an idiot in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida State University; probably worth a one- or two-line mention there. Neutrality^talk 19:47, 28 November 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. Opinions remain divided, as they were in 2009 during the last AfD, about whether this is a dictionary entry or a notable political term. Sandstein 19:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putinland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Perma-banned user Russavia previously nominated this for deletion. After that discussion was closed as no consensus, he converted it into a redirect to Vladimir Putin. I found said redirect, thought it was silly, and took it to RfD, where the creator restored it as an article, and now we find ourselves here.

I believe the arguments for deletion here remain strong, especially WP:NEO and WP:SYN. This is really just a catalog of a few sources using the term "Putinland" to refer to Putin's Russia, like a dressed-up version of a Wiktionary citations subpage. Incidentally, there is a Wiktionary entry for this term. BDD (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreement with BDD. A redirect is fine if someone thinks that's the right route. No need for its own article. South Nashua (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm seeing significant media use in the refs, but the term has largely fallen out of use today. Looks like a euphemism used in a protest that has moved elsewhere. Why does this fail WP:NEO, exactly? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it fails NEO because it's just a catalog of uses of the term, which itself is not particularly noteworthy, no more so than any other political pejorative as far as I can see. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have a specific and agreed-upon meaning, though, and E.M.Gregory has added some prose. I think it's been used enough to count, though my personal standards for WP:NEO are pretty loose. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it has not fallen out of use. Washington post 2016 "all is not well in Putinland." [2] Forbes, "Fearless Investors Should Seriously Consider These Three 'Putin-Land' Stocks} Forbes, [Fearless Investors Should Seriously Consider These Three 'Putin-Land' Stocks] 2015. Variously spelled Putin land; Putinland, and Putin-land by RS. So while many hits are on phrases such as "Putin's land grab" or "Putin. Land..." Searches produce "without violating airspace over Putinland, ..." World Affairs Journal, 2014 [3]. Politico "Gulag gets short shrift from Putinland publishers," [4]. Or a 2014 CNN OpEd entitled "Opinion: Turning Crimea into 'Putinland'?" To be sure, there does not seem to be anything in the way of serious, secondary source discussion of the term per se, as per WP:NEO. But mainstream sources seem to me to be using the term with some frequency. National Geographic "the city has come to be seen as the very heart of Putinland." [5] in a story datelined December 2016. New York Times 2013 headline "Pinpricks, but No Dagger in Putinland" [6] . Headline writers seem to use it for the same reason that it's popular on twitter: #Putinland; i.e., it's useful shorthand for Putin's Russia. I do wish I could find some discussion of the term itself. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep I decided to take one more swing at this, ran a search on NYTimes.com and hit an essay by Nina L. Khrushcheva discussing Putin-land. Turned out it is already on the page, but without what I think is the money quote. Adding it now. I believe that this satisfies WP:NEO, although, of course, we can hope for more to come - an may well get it, given the revived focus on Putin in the wake of the American Presidential elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN insofar as I have added a definition from a highly reputable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes and additional sources, I think they justify an article. Do you think this topic would be better served if it were moved to Putinism? I'm on the fence, since I don't want to confuse a neologism with political terminology. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think a free-standing article on Putinism is an excellent idea; provided we leave a section on Putinism in place on Presidency of Vladimir Putin with a hatnote linking to the new article. This not-very-good article can then be merged into and redirected to Putinism. An excellent and useful enhancement .@Jergling:E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've said my bit, whether or not we need a separate article is beyond my scope. I'm going to respectfully bow out at this because I've stepped on enough toes in U.S., U.K., Indian and Pakistani controversies in the last week. I'd rather not add Russia to the list! -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 22:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, can you elaborate? Do you believe I'm trying to censor anything? --BDD (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but Putin is known for censoring dissidents. Be aware of whom you help or hurt. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Roman Yampolskiy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectology[edit]

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

Recently (as of 2015) invented field of study. Sole sources are either inventor of the study's papers, or works that don't actually mention "Intellectology" since they were written before this field was invented. Gnews has one hit for this keyword - an article from one of the inventors. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Future studies. Needing to cite Ray Kurzweil for anything other than synthesizers is a good sign that your topic is made up. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Roman Yampolskiy where it can be briefly mentioned. We can have a stand-alone article if other researchers start using the term, but until then Wikipedia should not be giving the impression that it is a real field of study when it is not. SpinningSpark 08:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this one, too. It's more important within Yampolskiy's sphere than within future studies as a whole. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 22:15, 23 November 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 Calculus. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus I[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted? This article documents a well-defined subject in academia. I am AfD-ing it (a page I created) at the suggestion of another user--Samantha9798 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Calculus. The article starts "Calculus I is a math course in undergraduate education worldwide and is nearly identical to what is covered in AP Calculus. It typically covers a well-known subset of the topics of calculus, which is a branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of other functions" As a statement that is all well and the subject as an undergraduate module may be a notable topic but there is no indication of notability shown. However the rest of the article does not discuss the course at all and instead repeats mathematical content about Calculus found elsewhere on Wikipedia grouped on this page solely because they are the topics covered in the course. To understand if this is a notable study module it is not necessary to have the principles of various aspects of Calculus demonstrated here. By contrast the article on AP Calculus demonstrates why the course is notable and contains no mathematical content and if Calculus I is a notable topic that is the format it should follow. Nthep (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to fall back on Wikibooks or Wikiversity but what is the problem?--Samantha9798 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question but this article is neither fish nor fowl and I really don't know what it is supposed to be about. If it's about a undergraduate maths module then it, currently, fails to establish the notability of the module and should be deleted for failing to show notability. If it's about principles of calculus then it repeats existing articles and should be deleted for duplication. I see that you started it as Draft:Introduction to calculus before putting the content into article space under the current title which suggests that your aim is to compile a set of course notes for students taking this module. That's a laudable aim but not what Wikipedia is about. Nthep (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must have mastery of any concept now at any cost to knowledge. I understand such.--Samantha9798 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is equate this-or-that domain expert with a child molester. I understand usch.==Samantha9798 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful what you call someone. The one you refer to could easily (and successfully) call for your banning.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah , yeah. Godwin's law and all that.--Samantha9798 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see less duplication and more support of notability. The text suggests this is a world wide standard of sorts but I don't see how. I hold off on a vote since the article is still being actively edited.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing notable about this specific course. Allowing an article about a course of study without a clear indication of why that specific course is notable would open the door to countless shallow articles about every course in existence. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a classic example of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others and not a useful redirect either. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree wikipedia is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There exists a notable course in the United States that is called "Calculus 1". However, a proper encyclopedia article on this course would have an entirely different set of objectives than the article in question. In particular, it would include a discussion of the history of the course (what did students in the 19th century do, for instance?) as well as global comparisons. The purpose of the article should not be to introduce the reader to the concepts of calculus, as that is already handled at other articles, and anyway WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. But I don't think there is really a lot of scaffolding for an article about a specific course in the history of mathematics pedagogy. An article Calculus education in the United States might be a more appropriate source for any content that is suitable for an encyclopedia. So, for the present, I'm inclined to vote delete, with the understanding that this article could possibly be saved if someone wants to put forth the effort. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping this article would require refurbishing lots of the current text to bring it to encyclopedic standards, thereby duplicating existing material, inducing new work for merging these fragments into existing articles, because I see no generic content, which is worth an article of its own. Please, search for suitable bureaucratic reasoning to make up a legally effective office action. -Purgy (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calculus. I originally created this page as a redirect back in 2012 for people who would search for the course. I would strongly oppose outright deleting the page, since I believe it is a plausible and useful redirect. @Anita5192, Shawn in Montreal, Dweller, PRehse, Sławomir Biały, and Purgy Purgatorio: I would request that you consider !voting to redirect instead of outright deletion, as the redirect was at least somewhat useful and redirects are cheap. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no objection to a redirect, for my part. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even when most humbly asked to consider voting for redirect, I'd still say that supporting the lack of creativity in finding names for some courses (by simply giving them a roman numeral) should not be honored by establishing redirects in Wikipedia leading from generic course names like XYZ III to topic names XYZ. -Purgy (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calculus. And I created it. I recognize a WP:SNOWBALL when I see it. I already have already fallen back to v:Calculus I.--Samantha9798 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete; whether or not it's good as a standalone article, it's a worthwhile redirect, so the only good alternatives are keeping or reverting to an early version. No point in deleting it and then recreating it, and deleting it without recreating would be rather silly. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRANSWIKI Why NOT move this to WIKIVERSITY?!?!?!??!? Cheers. Michael Ten (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there: v:Calculus I. — Anita5192 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calculus. It's not an article about the course Calculus I itself, but about the subject Calculus. Note that the article creator seems to have withdrawn her objection to the deletion/redirect [7]. Meters (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, didn't notice the article creator's comment above, or I wouldn't have bothered with the diff. I'm not going to argue against a deletion, and I wouldn't want to see redirects for every class number used by various school. but "Calculus I" is a fairly common term that is used for beginner Calculus courses. Many schools give it a course number in their own system, but still label it as Calculus I. I'm sticking with redirect. Meters (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that this is about a part of a conventional curriculum rather than about a subject within mathematics gives me pause. That there are other ways of organizing the curriculum without changing the essence of the subject matter is generally unknown to those who've only taken the conventional courses such as this, so I suspect the difference may go unnoticed by them. If this is kept, perhaps material should be added contrasting it with alternatives. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q for those advocating redirect is a good option: Should we also create redirects for English 1, Math 1, Maths 1, French 1, and all of these with 2, 3 etc and even 101? If deleted, someone searching for Calculus 1 will find their way to Calclulus quite easily. Professor Calculus says "speak up, stop mumbling". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... humbly pointing you here, please note the time stamp also. :) -Purgy (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand the reason not to. I'd like someone who advocates for it to explain how far we should go and why it's a good thing to do so. Seems pointless and faintly ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calculus. Not enough significant discussion in sources to differentiate this aspect. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly useful to our core readership. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - even if kept this is now liable for speedy deletion under WP:A5 or WP:G5. Nthep (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not G5 since the original redirect was not created by the now-blocked sock (we've already undone one G5 deletion). I've never used A5 before, but that does seem applicable. Meters (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For multiple reasons already stated above by many people. Stca74 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 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 Deleted WP:CSD#G5 by User:Spinningspark. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's Coming Challenge[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub for low-notability meme. Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage in reliable sources of this meme/video/hash tag. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Very little coverage", bruh what? https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Trump%27s+Coming+Challenge%22&tbm=nws --NotablePeopleFan (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)~~ struck long-term block-evader sock, who is also creator of the article. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep if worked on. Many sources in the google link above, but someone has to write the article, just putting a one-liner in place is irresponsible. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Couldn't we just mark it as a stub?--NotablePeopleFan (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)~~ struck long-term block-evader sock, who is also creator of the article. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even a stub still has to at least contain a valid basic notability claim, which is not the same thing as a mere statement that the topic exists, before it becomes keepable. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable, unreferenced meme. If nothing else, it's WP:TOOSOON based on the search results. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should only cover this if and when it gets coverage in reliable secondary sources, which I don't see at the moment. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are ten sources being cited in the article, there are two major problems with them: firstly, they're all just reference-bombing a single statement on the order of "this is a thing that exists", and none of them are being used to support any substantive content about it beyond the fact of its existence — and secondly, about half of them are WP:BLOGS rather than reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this — but this, as written, is nowhere near good enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Self-promotional. — JFG ^talk 10:05, 22 November 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. Lourdes improved the article following the delete votes, and there has been no dissent since she did so, so I think that the case for deletion is not clearly viable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Chandiramani[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: The sources provided are either not reliable, or are book listings, or fleeting mentions. They do not add up to notability and I haven't found any others that do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless much more suitable sources can be produced. At present, none of the references are independent sources. They all divide into two categories: (1) pages at www.tarshi.net (TARSHI was founded by Radhika Chandiramani) and (2) listings of articles and books where Radhika Chandiramani is an author or contributor, not articles or books about her. My own searches for better sources produced more of the same, plus this Wikipedia article and a Youtube video uploaded by a user called "TARSHIdelhi". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per James. Patient Zero^talk 12:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only agree with my esteemed colleagues above. It's possible that the organization itself has better sourcing than the founder, but we do not have an article about it - perhaps a well-sourced article about TARSHI might be worth a try, if the original editor is up for it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:AUTHOR, this Columbia University scholar who was awarded the 2003 Soros Reproductive Health and Rights Fellowship...

...seems to be widely cited amongst peers including the likes of Harvard and UChicago and well-referenced in various libraries including the likes of Harvard, Cornell and Stanford.
...seems to have created a well known work – her book Good times for everyone – which has been the primary subject of a few reliable sources.[8][9]

It seems to me that the subject may qualify on WP:AUTHOR on multiple criteria. Pinging Kudpung and JamesBWatson for their views. Thanks. Lourdes 14:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merely listing several search results is not really very helpful. Often, there is an impressive number of hits, but few or none of them are actually of any value in establishing notability: linking to three good references or citations is far more useful than linking to search results with 300 hits, but leaving the reader to search through them to see what they actually say. It is impossible to assess the value of citations from just a search result, especially in the case of Google Scholar, which is very indiscriminate, and includes all sorts of mentions of the person in question, sometimes including many which are not citations at all. For example, Google Scholar lists City Improbable: Writings (R/E), edited by Khushwant Singh, in a way which from just looking at the search results could be taken as a citation, but if you look at the book itself it turns out that in fact Radhika Chandiramani's name appears in the book as a contributor, not as the author of a cited source. However, I had a look at the links you provided, and tried checking a more or less random sample of the results. Doing so takes a surprisingly long time, as it is often necessary to follow several links, download a copy of a paper, then search it, and naturally some of the papers are not accessible, so time is wasted on those, as well as on listings which turn out not to be citations. Consequently, even after spending a considerable amount of time on the task, I had actually found only a small number of actual citations I had been able to read.

Sexuality, Health and Human Rights, by Sonia Corrêa, Rosalind Petchesky, and Richard Parker. In the acknowledgements there appears the follwing statement: "We also thank our colleagues in the Steering Committee and the Advisory Group for SPW, Amal Abd El- Hadi Abou Halika, Sunila Abeysekera, Dorothy Aken'Ova, Codou Bop, Gloria Careaga, Radhika Chandiramani, Adenike O. Esiet, Maria Luiza Heilborn, Gilbert Herdt, Jodi Jacobson, Rhoda Reddock, Ignacio Saiz, DAvid Satcher, and Michael Tan". That is the only mention of Radhika Chandiramani in the book.

Negotiating reproductive health needs in a conflict situation in the Kashmir Valley by Z. Khanday, says "Occasional technical support was also provided by Geetanjali Misra, CREA, New Delhi and Radhika Chandiramani, TARSHI, New Delhi."

Then there's La Prévention Du VIH Auprès Des Jeunes Au Malawi: Paralysie Et Potentiels De L'éducation Sexuelle, by Anaïs Bertrand-Dansereau, which says: "Des tels services sont disponibles pour une variété de sujets dans la plupart des pays industrialisés, et ont eu un succès certain ailleurs en Afrique ou en Asie (Chandiramani, 1998 ; Stadlcr et Hlongwa, 2002)." (My translation: "Such services are available for a variety of subjects in most industrialized countries, and have had some success elsewhere in Africa or Asia. (Chandiramani, 1998 ; Stadlcr et Hlongwa, 2002)." A citation, but a very minimal one.

Negotiating reproductive health needs in a conflict situation in the Kashmir Valley by Z. Khanday, says "Occasional technical support was also provided by Geetanjali Misra, CREA, New Delhi and Radhika Chandiramani, TARSHI, New Delhi." That is all.

How should we value such results as that? A glance at the search results you provided suggests a very widely cited author, but closer examination shows both that the number of citations is far smaller than first glance suggests, and also that (to judge from the sample I have been able to check) many of those citations are likely to be trivial. How much weight do we give to a fair number of trivial mentions?

I am unconvinced that a work's being included in the library of major universities is evidence of notability: if anything, that is actually less of an indication of notability than being included in lesser libraries, as such major university libraries tend to be very large, and therefore very inclusive. To give just two example, Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford both include every work published in the United Kingdom, no matter how trivial or insignificant. I don't know whether such places as Harvard are as totally inclusive as that or not, but I am confident that they have large libraries which are therefore likely to be pretty inclusive. The library of a minor college or university, on the other hand, is likely to be much smaller, and therefore more selective in what it has. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time out for the detailed response on my point 1. Not many editors would take so much effort. I do apologize if this inconvenienced you. I want to request you to please provide a response on my 2nd point too – that of her book and the related coverage qualifying her on WP:AUTHOR#3. Thanks again. Lourdes 16:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having written a book doesn't automatically make its author notable. Good Times for Everyone: Sexuality Questions, Feminist Answers is not exactly a best seller and IMO would fail WP:NBOOK.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung. I understand your view. The notability of the book is not in question here. And NBOOK is not the guideline I would prefer to quote (although the book also may qualify on NBOOK, contrary to what you mention, given that all NBOOK requires are two independent sources). I would request your views, as I suggested to James, on AUTHOR#3, which requires that the author's work or collective body of work should have been covered by multiple independent sources. For support, here are the sources:Tribune review of one book, One world advance review of one book, Scholastic review of second book, Tribune review of second book. Thanks again. Lourdes 05:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, if you contend to know your way around our notability guidelines so well, may I respectfully suggest that you get on and make your vote without expecting JamesBWatson and me to make your mind up for you; we've made our votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came across wrongly. I would really want your view on AUTHOR#3, and whether the sources I have listed would qualify the subject on the said guidelines subpoint. It's not for anything else but to understand how the guideline would be interpreted by you. I reiterate my apology if the intent of my words has come out otherwise. Thanks. Lourdes 12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject qualifies on the following three criteria:

AUTHOR#1 - The subject is very well cited by peers. After my discussions with James above, I have been able to consolidate around 15 non-trivial citations of the author's work in international journals. I can get more if someone requires them. Also, if someone is interested, I can put it up here. I don't want to clog up the article by placing them there.
AUTHOR#3 - The subject is well known for creating a collective body of work on research related to gender, sex and femininity. Additionally, as required by the notability guideline, the collective body of work has been the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources.[10][11][12][13].
WP:NACADEMIC#2 - The subject has received two prestigious academic awards at an international level. The first is the Mailman Fellowship for Reproductive Rights (the 2003 Soros Reproductive Health and Rights Fellowship) from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.[14][15] The second is the MacArthur Fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation. These are noted as acceptable awards at WP:NACADEMIC.[16][17].

As these sources were not there in the article when it was nominated, I have now added all these sources and some more reliable sources to the said article. Lourdes 04:58, 24 November 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 here that this should not remain in its current form. No consensus on the redirect, so I'm not going to implement that, but anybody is free to create the redirect on their own if they feel it's appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Story canon[edit]

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

Complete OR. No sources, and no use of this term found in any search whatsoever. Made up term to explain a practice used in film pitches (the whole "it's X meets Y" setup), but there is no actual term for that, let alone this totally made up one that utterly misuses other terms to create a bogus neologism. And when I say bogus, I mean that there is literally no source using this term anywhere I could find. Wikipedia is not for stuff just made up one day. oknazevad (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Canon (fiction) already exists on wikipedia but this article really is not talking about the same thing. This article seems to be Original research and speculation i did brief search no sources found if someone can present multiple sources will reconsider my decision thanks Sassmouth (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Misleading title, unreferenced, and (in my opinion) untrue. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, even speedily, as erroneous original research. The it's "X meets Y" pitch is not a "story canon," as a Gbooks search quickly reveals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canon (fiction) as a valid search term. ansh 666 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change to redirect. Right, good point: a big part of the problem with this erroneous bit of OR is that it is a valid search term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to be a common construction of the words. That is to say, every search I've looked at while doing the WP:BEFORE for this AFD only uses the words in this order where it's not a noun phrase where "canon" is the noun and "story" the adjective. The other way around (a "canon story"), yes, but not this wording; this wording only seems to appear in questions where adjectival order is usually reversed (such as the question "is this story canon?") That said, a redirect is not the worst result just as long as it removes this terrible pile of bogus OR. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you check the Gbooks results you'll see enough results for "story canon" as a phrase. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but looking at those, it's almost all as part of phrases like "short story canon", refering to an academic canon of standard works (like the Shakespeare canon or the standard operatic canon), not to the concept of fictional canon, and, more importantly, not as this title alone, but part of a larger phrase. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 21 November 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. But a soft delete due to minimal participation. Joyous! | Talk 16:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoka (2007 Bengali film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I can't find reliable hits on Google News. Has been unsourced since early 2016. Asserts that it is a remake of Christopher Nolan's Memento, but without sources, that sounds like an accusation of plagiarism, which may be founded, based on how prolific plagiarism is in Indian film, but we're really in questionable territory here. Reliable sources may exist, but I don't know how to find them, and the article creator seems to have abandoned the article. Well, except to engage in cosmetic improvements while socking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, not finding coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFP or WP:NFO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 28 November 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Graña[edit]

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

Sources would mainly be pre-Internet and in Spanish, but I was unable to verify his WP:NOTABILITY. Roles in films seem to have not been leading ones. Spanish article has no references so was no help. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years, hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm also having trouble finding any refs. Seems unlikely the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Weak because I don't speak Spanish and could be missing something. Ajpolino (talk) 04:35, 21 November 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. Also keep in mind that other stuff existing is not a valid delete argument, and the opposite of that is not valid either. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First World privilege[edit]

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

This concept lacks a basis in academic literature. The Google results are full of blog posts and unsubstantiated conjecture. This article simply legitimizes a concept which lacks credibility. Letsrestoresanity (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero presence in academic journals. The references fail to establish an empirical argument for that notion so-called first world countries "oppress" so-called third world ones. "First world privilege" appears to be the result of pseudo social science. --174.238.11.90 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Fact check I ran a JSTOR search on "first world privilege" and got 24 hits. Lame, butnot nothing. I did not read the articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Letsrestoresanity failed to do WP:BEFORE other than a simple google search. Google Scholar gives a number of hits ([18]). The sources present in the article should not be dismissed either as they aren't just random blogs. Passes GNG. As for the above IP editor, we got some POV issues going on. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From memory and a glance at more selective search results, there appear to be many substantial uses of the term in academic books and journals. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a soapbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sassmouth (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I withdraw my vote I reserve the right to vote again the future on the article after giving the article more consideration Sassmouth (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "soapbox" mean in this context? How is this a soapbox and who's doing the soapboxing? Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I for one am wondering why I received a notification of this deletion on my personal talk page. I am wondering if there is a bit of WP:CANVASSING going on, and that I was messaged by Letsrestoresanity because he-she thought I would support the deletion. I won't comment on the deletion request itself because of this but thought that it should be brought up here. (if I was messaged for some other reason please inform me of why, as I am clearly ignorant if so). Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere You were notified (among others who have an interest in the topic) for the simple reason that you have contributed significantly to this general topic. I therefore believe that you would have interesting input on this topic. Furthermore, your talk page indicates that you take part in deletion discussions. As per WP:CANVASSING appropriate notification via talk page: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" and "Editors known for expertise in the field". --Letsrestoresanity (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have never edited the article in question I am still confused. Perhaps you mean my edits to Male privilege, or my being in the Men's studies wikiproject? The other members of the wikiproject were not notified, and other members who I would consider at least as informed as me were also not notified (such as User:EvergreenFir or Flyer22). In any case, I'll assume good faith and move on. I'd advise against notifying editors that haven't even contributed to the page itself of a nomination in the future though. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...Article lists several sources that are not blog posts and unsubstantiated conjecture so I don't see what the basis is for the nomination. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can think of thousands of privileges that one could have. For example; I am slowly balding, and as a result, I am disadvantaged. Should we make a Hair privilege Wikipedia page as well? Cars are manufactured in all kinds of colors, should we make a page for Red cars and one for Blue cars ? Amin (Talk) 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show sources for hair and car privilege? If not, then this seems like a silly argument to try to make and I think there is a rule or guide on "but there is / is not other things" arguments. ValarianB (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that WP:WORDISSUBJECT is the guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC) my error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very tepid keep. Very, very tepid because the term has not entered the general conversation; rather, it is in use within an extremely narrow bandwidth of academic and political activists.(gBooks search [19]. Note also the similarity with First World problem (you know, that hashtag you use when complaining on twitter that the security cordon around Trump Tower on Fifth Ave made it take an extra 15 minutes to get to the Gucchi store). If we keep this article, I suggest that we merge and redirect First World problem here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable based on Gscholar results. I don't believe WP:WORDISSUBJECT actually applies here, since the sources are academics using the word for a largely agreed-upon meaning (in the social sciences). If that's true, then we don't actually have a POV issue. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO is the relevant standard. Although my quick search on JSTOR showed use of this phrase in this way going back at least to 1990. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There available sources, so this topic is notable. And we do not only cover topics which have a basis in "academic literature", so the argument seems nonsensical to begin with. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom MacWright[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Few WP:RELIABLE sources, and no more than passing mentions. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite trivial information, nothing convincing and there's simply no substance, amounting to nothing for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSassmouth (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 07:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 21 November 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 19:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Magic On Parade![edit]

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 21:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a major contributor to this page I do not feel like it should be deleted, it serves a purpose, its a big part of one of the biggest tourist destinations in the world, its not intended to be written like an advertisment.2A02:C7D:C5B7:D00:E167:394D:BF0C:4386 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pure PROMO. However, some paltry sources appear to exist, both under former name [20] and current name [21], so, if somebody takes a swing at source/improve, I'll be willing to take a 2nd look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 21 November 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Boardman[edit]

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

Boardman has done three TV episodes, starring role in a film that has mainly been shown on the LGBQ festival circuit and a small part in an upcoming film. Refs are not about Boardman, but the TV/movie projects. Unable to find any refs except for a Huffington Post interview. Fails WP:NACTOR. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 21 November 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. Improvements seem to have addressed the initial concerns. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lágrima Ríos[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced biography of a singer who may or may not have a valid claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Apart from the basic statement that she existed as a singer, all of the other content here is biographical trivia and none of it actually addresses her career at all -- which means the article doesn't actually say anything that one could even measure against NMUSIC. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody can get it up to snuff with an actual notability claim and the actual reliable sourcing required to support it, but nothing here entitles her to keep this. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pruned and sourced. What do you reckon? ~~--Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)~~ --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be genuinely famous in her field. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references found and added by Andreas Philopater show that she was notable. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 21 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bottled water in Armenia[edit]

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

No indication of notability or context for creating such an article. WP:OR. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The context is obvious from the title itself, so the issue here is notability. A quick news search finds sources such as this, this, this and this, and a look at Google Books and Scholar finds plenty of coverage of the levels of arsenic in bottled Armenian water exported to the United States, Russia and Iran. It would seem to make more sense to start with one article on the whole national industry rather than separate articles about the individual brands. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Reads like a directory listing, a few basic facts followed by a long list of producers grouped by region. Neiltonks (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with Neiltonks. WP:INDISCRIMINATE -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a function of the available sources. Would the two editors giving "delete" opinions above like to explain how the sources that I pointed to above don't amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mineral water industry is a major industry in Armenia, and the article is not just a list (it has 2112 bytes of prose). Note, from 1992 Country Profile: "Armenia is also a major producer of mineral water. It has more than 700 wells, concentrated around" (https://books.google.com/books?id=XqQUAQAAMAAJ p. 36) "ome 50 Armenian factories specialize in bottling mineral spring water. During Soviet times, it was recommended that mineral water be drunk three times a day, at the beginning of every meal, as a curative for a multitude of diseases. Literature of that era proclaimed the water's trace elements in lists that would have rivaled Mendelev's table of elements! Armenians like to say, “Our mineral water is our oil.” You will always see bottles of Arzni, Bjni, or Jermuk mineral water at" (https://books.google.com/books?id=0oXYX9Qzx9oC&pg=PA160) "For instance, Armenian mineral water “Jermuk” was found to contain arsenic at concentrations ranging up to 600 μg/L and ... This popular mineral water has been widely available in the Soviet Union for decades; now it is widely sold at least in" (https://books.google.com/books?id=EDPOBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA218)--Soman (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Water bottling has a major contribution in the GDP of Armenia, as well as the exports of the nation. The article will be updated with well-sourced info about the industry and related production as well as export data.--Preacher lad (talk) 11:56, 23 November 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 deleted A11 (not by me). Peridon (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neck (children's game)[edit]

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

Something made up one day. It is just a reiteration of an Urban Dictionary page. Non-notable game. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

==Neck (children's game)

There are lots of pages about games (see List of traditional children's games) If you don't like games, that doesn't mean no-one likes them, either.

P.S.: You probably don't want to popularize the idea lest it happens to you. If you are a man, wouldn't you easily endure a slap by a 10-year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyKnuckles1 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other stuff exists doesn't mean that this is notable and worthy of inclusion. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable:

The 'Significant Coverage' adresses necks directly and in detail (it even uses variables to explain necks) People do it in front of (and to) me. The original research thing can be easily proven by a scientist (by anyone that can talk to a kid, pretty much).

The website I used is reliable because the page was written by people who neck others and get necked by others. My sister does it with her friends at school, and she taught me to neck, so that's both a reliable source (the way it would be more reliable to learn about the 19th century from those who lived then than from those who live now) and a secondary source.

Try to find anything on that page that is independent of the subject.

The significant coverage creates an assumption that necks should be included.

P.S.: You are doing all of this just because you don't want to popularize necks.

BloodyKnuckles1 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"P.S.: You are doing all of this just because you don't want to popularize necks. " WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

Delete. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable nonsense created by a random editor at Urban Dictionary. Can't see any reason why not to delete this page.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for coverage in reliable sources and found nothing. Urban Dictionary consists of user submitted content and is therefore not a reliable source. An editor's sister is not a reliable source, and anyone making such a claim does not understand what a reliable source actually is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soon as possible utter nonsense Domdeparis (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author and his sister are not reliable independent sources as they have not been published in places that fit with WP:RS. "You are doing all of this just because you don't want to popularize necks" - I think you will find that necks are quite popular already. Even I have one, and to judge from his username, quite possibly one of our other admins has two. But Wikipedia is not here to popularise things, so I think that 'advertising and/or promotion' could be added to the reasons for deletion even if this is proven to be notable (which I doubt). Peridon (talk) 19:07, 21 November 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. advertising DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Recycling Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company is still not notable - all sourcing in this article is either a press release or fails to establish notability due to WP:ILLCON, exactly the same as the last time this page was created (and then unanimously deleted, discounting the blocked editor who put most of the spam together). Nik thestunned 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As discussed in previous AfD, coverage is largely local, related to a minor crime, and usually mentions the subject tangentially. Should this be salted? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article is the product of a sock farm. Please see this discussion on COIN. Thanks @Widefox: -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was more of shady business dealing than an actual crime but that alone is not what makes this company notable. This company went from a small company with shady and questionable business practices to a large company on the for fronts of fighting fraud and promoting recycling throughout Canada through their partnerships with law enforcement and community groups. They have received significant coverage that is both RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT of the subject. It for these reasons that I believe that Electronic Recycling Association meets the notability requirements for organizations and companies.

Thatwhoiswise (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles concerning the 'partnerships with law enforcement and community groups' are in any way independent of the company - they're routine press announcements and comprise the majority of sources and information in the article. Nik thestunned 23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jergling expresses the case against keeping perfectly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising, plain and simple, given the fact it all only consists with the company's own "About" page, something of which is a blatant sign of never being acceptable, let alone notability and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the latest uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destanee Aiava[edit]

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

Not a notable player. No WTA Main draws, no titles in a minor league ITF $50,000 event, no Fed Cup. Run of the mill player. Minor-minor league events ($25,000 and under) are not notable in the least, and she hasn't won one of those either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, please delete as per Fyunck(click)'s nomination. Non-notable player. Jared Preston (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD. Sample references to start include:

... see Google News for additional. Hmlarson (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. In addition to the sources listed above, here's another one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 29 November 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. No solid policy-based consensus. Discussion stalled at potential for other offline sources. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Patterson[edit]

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

Non notable actress - Was in Coronation Street just for ~~one~~ a few episodes in the 80s, Hasn't been in any other programme to date, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For clarity, the article claims that the subject was on Coronation Street from 1979 to 1981. While the Internet Movie Database lists only one episode for her, IMDb's coverage of the cast for the episodes in that era appears to be spotty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good catch, So she may have been in the programme for more than one episode, In that case I'll strike/amend the above, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is far past time we deleted all articles that have only the non-reliable IMDb as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Deletion solely on the grounds of only IMDb as the source fails WP:BEFORE. Poor reasoning. These folks who acted in the pre-Google age may well be as notable as a modern actor with similar soap opera or serialized TV credits, but it will take more digging to determine this. Pinging Megalibrarygirl who may have access to print or paywalled source material. The claim "Previously appeared in the STV series The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" is worth researching, as that could be significant. Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes this one difficult to search, Montanabw is that there is a fashion writer named Suzy Patterson who turns up in all my searches. Trying to narrow it down and exclude out her contributions hasn't been successful for me yet with my databases. I have access to a college with different databases I can try hitting up tomorrow, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgot to add but I realize not many sources would be online however I unfortunately don't have access to offline stuff but on the other hand didn't want to assume there was offline stuff when there isn't, Ofcourse it goes without saying if either of you can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 21 November 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Dunstan[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, As the BLP has been in The Dumping Ground as well as EastEnders I'm not entirely sure which is the best redirect target or even if Redirect is best at all so listing here, Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress without reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 21 November 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanot Rajputs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I could not verify that they are WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed due to no responses. Boleyn (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly nothing to suggest enough notability for an article; there could perhaps be a small mention in the main Rajputs article assuming that this isn't a hoax. Spiderone 11:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one link appears to be a digitized copy of a local gazetteer from 1980 that is not verifiable and itself says that the term is being abandonded then. Otherwise, there seem to be almost no sources for this subcaste. The Times of India has no cites[22], for example. An exhaustive 1883 Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province [23] has just two passing mentions of Bhanots. At most, it appears to be of minor historical or genealogical interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 6 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhukar[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is a notable topic Boleyn (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the onus needs to be on proving that the topic is notable and it is very difficult to see any evidence of notability here. Certainly, not enough for an article of its own in any case. Spiderone 10:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 2 December 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. Repurpose this title for the dab. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joon[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is a notable topic. Joon (disambiguation) should be moved here. Boleyn (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't establish notability. utcursch | talk 03:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 1. If it is to be deleted, then Redirect/merge it to Jat people. sami ^talk 22:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samee: Jatland.com is not an acceptable source or an indicator of notability -- it is a user-contributed wiki. The person who authored the Wikipedia article also wrote the article on Jatland.com. In fact, the Jatland.com wiki was established because Wikipedia editors started deleting Jat propaganda from Wikipedia. The website relies on a mixture of pseudo-history, obsolete colonial theories, and downright lies to make absurd claims. E.g. It claims that ancient kings like Chandragupta, Ashoka, Kanishka etc. were Jats[24], and that the Kushan Empire was founded by Kaswan Jats[25]. utcursch | talk 23:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. I did not see the history of the Wikipedia article at that time. I know that Jatland.com is not a RS. The article was of single line, that's why I relied on that source. I've struck the vote. Once again, thanks.

Delete sami ^talk 23:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources to justify the need for an article Spiderone 20:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page – Joon clan not only fails notability but also wrongly placed as the primary topic. But Joon should not be deleted because it clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision of Joon, which is in fact suggested by the nom. As there's no primary topic here, there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. And, according to WP:DABNAME, Joon (disambiguation) should be redirected to Joon.

PS: WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page already exists: Joon (disambiguation). It can simply be moved to Joon when this article is deleted. utcursch | talk 19:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DISCUSSAFD, which clearly states that disambiguation is not a reason for deletion. In fact, I quoted the relevant portion of the policy in my !vote. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 27 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audichya Brahmin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Prod removed by IP, no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the term appears in a few books and scholarly papers, it is nowhere defined, and could be a mispelling. If no-one more knowledgable in the area of India's culture can suggest where it could be redirected, however, it seems to fail both WP:N and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Brahmin in principle, as it is a plausible search term. Spiderone 20:06, 25 November 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. Multiple sources found in the discussion which established notability. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Apple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is solely referenced to a short Allmusic biography, and I am unable to find anything else. The prior deletion discussion ended with editors agreeing that this single ref is sufficient, but I can't see how it meets WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSIC. I looked at WP:RSN but I can't get a good handle of whether Allmusic is even reliable, or would be similarly insufficient to a bio referenced only to IMDb (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). Given the poor reference (short paragraph in a single website of dubious reliability) I think we should revisit this. Oh, and I looked for other sources but all I see are WP:PRIMARY and mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In addition to the AllMusic material, the first AfD also pointed to an article from the The Commercial Appeal; the link given then is now dead, but the article can be found at archive.org as "Singer-songwriter Nancy Apple shines despite personal tragedy", or at HighBeam as "Singer, songwriter shines despite personal tragedy -- Apple emerges from recording hiatus and heartbreak with an upbeat CD". --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job tracing that, through it appears that GoMemphis is a local portal that does not even have a Wikipedia article, so it doesn't help much with establishing notability. I am afraid that for me this is not even bordeline, but a clear failure of NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article may ultimately not pass the Wikipedia notability test, but your description of Gomemphis.com is incorrect: it's an entertainment portal for The Commercial Appeal, Memphis' dominant newspaper, and the cited source is an article from that newspaper. So we have the Allmusic content and a substantial local newspaper article. Four experienced editors found this to be enough to show notability in the 2012 AfD. A HighBeam search turns up lots and lots of brief mentions of her from the same newspaper. Some additional substantial non-Memphis coverage of the subject would be especially helpful, but I haven't found much of that yet.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another set of sources: Country Standard Time has a substantial review of her 2001 album [26] and briefer reviews of 3 others [27]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good finds. I'll leave it to those more versed in WP:NMUSIC if those reviews could be enough to keep her, if anyone thinks so, do explain this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed link above is still thin and, compared to everything else, there's simply no amounted substance, I'll also state the article currently has no genuine claims of significance, hence there's not a lot to say beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources I respect a singer who don't self-promote on Wikipedia. so I googled her, a sample of what I found:

"Hooray for hip-hop, Nancy Apple and friends, Ex-Cult at Murphy's," The Commercial Appeal (which is a major, big-city daily) 2014 [28]
Here she is covered as providing part of the soundtrack for a 2016 movie [29]
Alt Weekly Memphis Flyer 2014 Aaron James & Nancy Apple turn cultural flotsam into art, [30]
"Nancy Apple is a singer and songwriter often referred to as the "Cadillac Cowgirl." Delivering songs influenced by 1950s rockabilly and country, Apple is a musician and performer who reveres the recordings of Wanda Jackson, Johnny Cash and the early rebels of rock 'n' roll, according to event organizers." [31] 2011. That's a sample, there's more in a news search here: [32].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keepE.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below is two more reviews from outside her hometown. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell, Steve (31 October 2003), "TERRELL'S TUNE-UP POP CD REVIEWS", The Santa Fe New Mexican

Terrell, Steve (18 December 2009), "TERRELL'S TUNEUP", The Santa Fe New Mexican

Keep Enough sources to show her passing GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:03, 23 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Can See the Sun[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Appearing on Amazon.com does not constitute notability. KDS4444 (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Merge~~ Keep: ~~Promotional, no indication of notability, and WP is not a directory. Totally misread this at first glance. Should be merged into Nodar Dumbadze.~~ I should just stop. See below. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the book appears to be notable as a movie has been made based on it. Sources are likely to be available in Georgian. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the film claims are in fact enough here. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 November 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 12:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab (2017 film)[edit]

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

Film has no references (WP:CRYSTAL) and for all we can tell from the article, may never be produced. Article needs multiple references to reliable secondary sources to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where did this information come from? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 2 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Appearing[edit]

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

References to Moviefone and Rotten Tomatoes do not constitute reliable secondary independent coverage. No evidence of real world notability. KDS4444 (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete not even reported on by the typical niche horror outlets. Honestly pretty strange considering IMDB's $1mil estimated budget. Jergling (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. Dread Central is apparently one of those outlets. Do they know their website is compromised? There's a sneaky script that links to a spamring if you click the header while it's still loading. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the nevermind. See below. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the film is reported on by Dread Central, which mentions it here as well as here. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Central appears to be a spamblog, based on the procedural nature of those articles, the 0 comments on every article, the >50,000 Alexa rank, and the fact that every page has a malicious script that opens "findbetterresults.com" upon clicking random links. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition, I have come across a video of the film's trailer at The New York Times website. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in Dread Central and Horror News which are both reliable sources for the horror film genre, enabling a pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 21 November 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. Multiple sources exist per Proquest search results. Consensus is that it meets notability and probably WP:CORPDEPTH. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Express[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD could not find a consensus, hopefully we can now, especially as it has been tagged for notability for over 8 years now. It existed, but I couldn't find the sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've see this article before via CAT:NN and was unable to find sufficient sources either. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Previous discussion does show multiple secondary source coverage, particularly those found by User:RioHondo, including coverage by the Wall Street Journal. Just because the company is now defunct doesn't nullify its notability.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KeepAirline plainly existed. I searched WSJ (thanks to OBSIDIAN's comment) and I just sourced 1996 founding to a long, detailed, reported article in the Wall Street Journal. A commercial carrier is certainly notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ran it through a news archive search at Proquest; lots of articles as this "rural feeder airline" expands, gets new routes, has trouble getting govt. permission for direct flights to Australia, makes a good profit, etc. ... Article can certainly be expanded and sourced. What I did not spot wan an article about it's closing. Although there was this (Senator pushes for perks to lure

Constantino;Senator pushes for perks to lure Constantino, Nelson V. BusinessWorld (Nov 14, 2001): 1. (Nov 14, 2001): 1. with this: "Mindanao Express, has temporarily suspended operations in Mindanao," It was, , unfortunately, in that article's abstract on the search list. Full text of this article not available. No other articles in that search postdate 2001.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH per the analysis of available sources provided above by E.M.Gregory (e.g. Proquest search results). While it would be nice for the sources to be available without a Proquest account, I AGF about the analysis of them provided. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Are airlines considered notable for simply having existed? The WSJ coverage above looks like WP:NEWS to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 29 November 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. Opinions are equally divided, and whether a topic has been the subject of sufficient reliable sources to merit an article is a matter of editorial judgment that I as closer can't decide by fiat. Sandstein 19:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and violates WP:DIRECTORY. Too many primary sources. If this was an article discussing why each group was listed, then perhaps it would be useful. But as it is, it's just a directory that promotes the views of a single organization. That's not Wikipedia's job. I would be fine adding an external link to the main SPLC article. Instaurare (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The groups on the SPLC's list are often brought up by a variety of sources for varying reasons. Wikipedia is hardly limited in terms of space. I don't see the list as promoting the SPLC's views as unquestionable fact; there is even a bit about criticism of the SPLC's classifications in the lead section. The list doesn't say "these groups are racist / hate-driven;" it says the groups are classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, which is a fact. This all isn't to say more information about the list "itself" rather than just the items on it couldn't be included, but I do not think deletion is the most desirable course of action. Dustin (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When it is useful to link to the SPLC list in editing an article, I link directly to the SPLC list, on their website. I don't see a funcitonal need ot keep the list here, in fact, the reverse is true. stable links exist at SPLC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:LISTN because "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." See, e.g.:

Niraj Chokshi, "The year of 'enormous rage': Number of hate groups rose by 14 percent in 2015" (Washington Post, 2016)

Kim Severson, "Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says" (New York Times, 2012)

Mike McPhate, "Law Center Finds Surge in Extremist Groups in U.S. Last Year" (New York Times, 2016).

Phillip Lucas, Critics: SPLC targets, demonizes conservative groups (Associated Press, 2016): ("Many consider The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual list of U.S. extremist groups an authoritative glimpse into racist and anti-government activity")

Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 75-78 (extensively discussing SPLC's list).

--Neutrality^talk 02:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm courtesy-tagging the following substantial article contributors over the last 3-4 years: @Rms125a@hotmail.com:, @EvergreenFir:, @Gylatshalit:, @MrX:. Neutrality^talk 20:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The SPLC's perpetually changing hate group list is adequately covered in the main SPLC article. As Instaurare suggests, an external link from the main article is plenty good enough. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Perpetually changing" is not true. The SPLC list is updated once a year -- other articles on current subjects change on a daily or weekly basis but are not deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point about its perpetually changing nature - there are already separate listings for 2014 and 2015. Is it going to be updated every year with every change and nuance? Further evidence that it is unencyclopedic. Instaurare (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Instaurare (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove older listings for 2014? Are these groups no longer extant (most likely), or are they no longer hate groups (which seems unlikely)? It seems like there could be potential liability for listing a group as a "hate group" if SPLC has removed it from its official list. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically section 7 ("Simple listings without context information....") The list breaks things down roughly into groups but otherwise it's just a list, and most of the groups are non-notable themselves. I was going to suggest having a list of only notable groups but fear that might encourage groups to become notable, which (in my nomination for understatement of the year) would be bad. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your statement "The list breaks things down roughly into groups but otherwise it's just a list" appears to be inaccurate. As I stated below (where you very briefly responded to without addressing this issue), "The list has a three paragraph lede and 19 paragraphs of explanation, with numerous links beyond the links that are part of the organizations listed. It also has seven info boxes reflecting the changes in the list over time." Doesn't this extensive documentation clearly demonstrate that the list is more than, as you claim, "simple listings without context information." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is inaccurate. There are paragraph headings but they are effectively the ledes of existing articles on those hate groups - be it the Klan, neo-Nazis, whatever. We have that content already. Even the lede for the article is effective the same content as the existing SPLC article on the list. (That may play more towards the "we have this information already, WP is not a mirror" argument.) Perhaps this is more like cross-categorization (which is covered by point 6 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY). I fail to see what we are adding here beyond convenience. To draw an example I used earlier, FIRE has a list of colleges and universities by ranking of their free speech codes on their website. It is much harder to navigate than even the SPLC website, you have to enter the school name or search state-by-state. It would be much easier for people to navigate if we kept a mirror, and nearly all colleges/universities would be notable (unlike this page which is full of red links.) I support FIRE. I would still nominate an article mirroring their ratings for deletion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading response (IMO). Yes, the information in the 22 paragraphs exist somewhere else on wikipedia, but not in connection with the SPLC if this list is deleted. The list contains the necessary context to understand the groups listed and I don't see any requirement that the context provided must not appear anywhere else on wikipedia. As far as your failure to see "what we are adding here beyond convenience", what we are adding is a list that meets all wikipedia notability requirements. The "red links" argument is a red herring. There are over 100 groups on the list that are notable enough for their own wikipedia article -- whether to eliminate these is an issue to be decided in editing the list rather than eliminating it. There is no policy or guideline that says the existence of redlines on the list requires deletion of the entire list.

PS Is providing reader convenience really such a bad thing?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...The SPLC is a notable organization, their rating or listing of hate groups is recognized nationally, noted by the sourced listed above by another user...AP, NY Times. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a notable organization which we recognize with a pretty long article which prominently mentions its hate group list; but a separate complete (year by year?) copy of that list in Wikipedia is problematic. It lends an aura of officiality and approval to one organization's opinion and an aura of shame to the listed groups. Motsebboh (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion that a list contains any such "aura of officiality and approval." This list is descriptive — like List of designated terrorist groups, List of organisations banned by the Government of India, Outlawed terror organisations in Australia — it describes a significant set of groups compiled by a world-renowned authority, without necessarily implying that the encyclopedia agrees with any particular list. Neutrality^talk 19:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, those group should have a quote "aura of shame"...racist, nationalist, skinhead etc...if groups are universally shamed and reviled around the planet then the respective wiki-ages should reflect that. It doesn't violate project rules on neutrality any more than articles criticizing NAMBLA or Holocaust denial are. These groups don't get to get their extremist opinions "normalized" in our project. If there are issues with the article content then there are editorial steps that can be taken as opposed to deletion. Deletion doesn't fix article problems. ValarianB (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are illustrating my point. By parroting the SPLC's hate group list we lump together the substantial number of groups that really just offend the sensibilities of the SPLC (say David Horowitz Freedom Center or the American College of Pediatricians, for example) with the blatant skinhead and Holocaust denial haters. Motsebboh (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is in a minority if you characterize discussing SPLC's hate-monitoring as "parroting". This is the mainstream point-of-view. 9/11 truthers don't get an equal say in the 9/11 article, the Holocaust doesn't give airtime fairness to deniers, and so on. The WP:NPOV doesn't demand equal access to ALL opinions. I stand by m call to keep 100%, and will let that be that. ValarianB (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep this discussion policy based. We're here to debate whether we should dedicate an article to duplicating the SPLC's list, not whether that list is good or bad. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am doing, pointing out that editors are misusing NPOV to attack a list that they appear to disagree with. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially it is just a duplicate of SPLC's own list which is actually the first citation. But it will always tend to be a slightly out-of-date (and thus inaccurate) list lagging behind whatever the SPLC publishes. So, in my view it does not add any value as it is. However, it may well be useful to list notable organizations listed as subheading of the main Southern Poverty Law Center article. Shritwod (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SPLC hosts an ever-changing list, we already link to that list. Wikipedia is not a content mirror. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true with respect to "ever-changing" -- the list only changes once a year. Other articles on current subjects require updating on a daily or weekly basis. As explained below, our list does not "mirror" the lists on the SPLC website which are very differently formatted and difficult to use. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE ~~Delete with some regret~~ -- Thanks to @Instaurare. Keeping it here gives the list an imprimatur of legitimacy that it no longer deserves, in part based on its recent additions. The list still has some valuable information, and is still going to exist where anyone can find it, but the SPLC's hegemonic need to serve as an influential intelligence broker seems to (pardon the expression) trump all. As far as the following (from up this thread):
Well, those group should have a quote "aura of shame"...racist, nationalist, skinhead etc...if groups are universally shamed and reviled around the planet then the respective wiki-ages should reflect that. It doesn't violate project rules on neutrality any more than articles criticizing NAMBLA or Holocaust denial are. These groups don't get to get their extremist opinions "normalized" in our project.

this kind of well-intentioned but POVish and synthetic language represents a step in the direction towards the intolerance ("shaming", "calling out") that we already witness in most of today's media and educational institutions. By including Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and David Horowitz^[1] the SDLP has shown it has become an overly well-endowed politicized institution. Quis separabit? 21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/216494/southern-poverty-law-center-blacklist

That's a pretty strange list, made me go to the SPLC page an take a look, Truns out thair lists have been drawing increasing criticism, for stuff like list ing Ben Carson, ("Ben Carson placed on Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Extremist Watch List’"[33]) E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too many red links, too hard to maintain, and begs the question: why some groups go on and off the list year by year? If SPLC had a "top 10 list" or similar, that one would be worth maintaining. But for an extensive list such as this, providing a link from the main SPLC is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this list is published by a highly regarded organization, widely referenced, and extremely well-regarded by journalists, academics and authorities, this is, ultimately, a subjective list published by a private organization. Discussion of this list on the SPLC page (where a subhead already exists) is entirely appropriate. Replication of this list on WP is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and becomes outdated and subjectively changes year by year, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC updates its list once a year -- other articles on current subjects change on a daily or weekly basis but are not deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as demonstrated by the sources listed by Neutrality, and just about every major news organization in the United States. The article has been viewed by more than 375 people per day over the past year which suggests that it's a subject of interest to readers. The SPLC is a highly-cited, well-respected source that tracks hate groups, and has worked to expose them for decades. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is inapplicable because this list article is unlike any of the seven examples listed. This article has context, is organized into categories, is well-sourced, and contains numerous links to articles about other notable subjects. Complaints about the quality of the article or the need to keep it updated do not hold sway in a deletion discussion. All that matters is notability, and suitability for inclusion in this encyclopedia, both of which are strongly evident.- Mr X 04:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we have articles similar to this on Wikipedia? Articles, that is, that simply each lists put out by advocacy groups? It's in Category:Lists of organizations based in the United States, but the other pages in that category are straight forward stuff like List of state ornithological organizations in the United States. There are only a few that seem odd. Such as List of front groups (which I just PRODded).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that matters, per "does other stuff exist?" standards. What organizations and people the SPLC categorize as hate/extremist it in itself a significant and noteworthy thing as shown by the sources presented. It seems like a lot of the calls to delete are doing so on thin grounds (soapboxing?) and downright inadmissible reasons ("it will be out of date or hard to maintain). I just don't think Afd is where one goes when there are problems with an article than can be solved by editing the article. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there are quite a few advocacy organizations with such lists. I think that theCatholic League used to issue such lists; here [34] is an article about Mormon Voices issuing a Top Ten list of anti-Mormon statements. The best known, old-line, organization lists of racists/racism is the Anti-Defamation League. It has been issuing such lists for decades, they widely cited by scholars of bigotry and I would hazard a guess that they were an inspiration to the SPLC when it began to create such lists. See as an example Bigots Who Rock: an ADL List of Hate Music Groups, [35]. which breaks the list down by country and into alphabetic lists. But see also Here: [36], an article attacking Campus Pride for it's list of "absolute worst" colleges for LGBT students. Obviously Campus Pride is not an organization with the stature of the ADL or the SPLC. Each, however, is an advocacy group. I believe that keeping this would make it difficult to refuse to mirror many similar lists with WP articles. The policy that this would violate is WP:NOTMIRROR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some other examples I can think of: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has a list of schools that they rate by their evaluation of their free-speech policies; various chapters of the ACLU can have banned books reports like [37]; I'm certain there are many. But WP:OSE doesn't imply anything about whether those lists should inherently get pages on Wikipedia, regardless of the outcome of the AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMIRROR adresses the question of why not include such lists. This list and similar can - and often should - be linked from WP articles, simply be linked from WP, not MIRRORed here. Echoing a list created by an advocacy group is not encyclopedic, as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have an article on the list without the list? That is, a page about the presence of the list (which does seem to pass notability guidelines) but without the list contents itself? Any non-WP:OR criticisms would belong on that page as well. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section on the SPLC page. If you suspect that an independent page is warranted, a good way to go about it is to have a careful look at the existing subhead, improve it (just about every subhead in the project could use a little improvement,) and then see if you still feel that a separate article is desirable. Do understand, that any page split from the page of a group that takes the sort controversial positions that SPLC has done in recent years is liable to needing constant monitoring. SPLC has monitoring, to keep that sort of thing under control. You might want to consult the regular editors there before creating a new page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it seems that we can and have covered the notability of the list without having the issues of a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could have a separate article on the list without completely replicating the list, but why not just slightly expand the section on "Tracking hate groups" in the main SPLC article? As for MrX's point about about the list article drawing lost of viewers, so do the remains of train wrecks. Practically speaking, the SPLC is a partisan interest group. We can and should point readers to the hate group it keeps in its own website. We should not be keeping a duplicate list here. Motsebboh (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The claim by the originator that the list fails WP:LISTN is not accurate. As the linked section clearly says "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. ... One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." As others have stated, the SPLC list receives wide coverage throughout the country, both when the list is annually updated and throughout the year when groups on the list warrant media attention. Although it is not a requirement, as one respondent suggests, that all groups on the list be notable, in fact over one hundred of the groups on the list are notable enough for their own articles.

The originator also claims that the list violates WP:DIRECTORY but fails to demonstrate how. The link includes seven possible criteria, but none appear to apply. One editor cites #7 which is "Simple listings without context information." In fact, context information is provided. The list has a three paragraph lede and 19 paragraphs of explanation, with numerous links beyond the links that are part of the organizations listed. It also has seven info boxes reflecting the changes in the list over time. Whether the list should be limited to notable groups as at least two of the "delete respondents" suggest (or to only the current list rather than two) is certainly worth discussing but should not be part of a deletion discussion.

The subject of the SPLC is obviously controversial. "Delete respondents" have brought forth arguments that relate to the controversy but are irrelevant to a deletion debate. At least two "delete respondents" talk about the list granting the SPLC list "legitimacy". Whether wikipedia has this ability to confer legitimacy is debatable, but this legitimacy debate does not reflect on the notabilty of the SPLC list which should be a (the?) major focus of this current debate. Several other "deleters" argue that the list is just SPLC opinion (i.e."a subjective list", references to soapbox). As stated above, if these opinions are notable (and the media coverage they generate indicates they are) then they meet wikipedia criteria for inclusion.

Several "delete respondents" claim that this list is readily available online through the SPLC website. This might be relevant to discussions to cut down the list to the hundred or so notable groups. However the fact is, as stated by a "keep respondent", that our list does get numerous daily hits. Our list is also substantially different from, and more useful to the wikipedia reader, than the SPLC list. Please note:

(1) Our list provides direct links to the notable groups listed. Should we really require a wikipedia reader to first leave wikipedia to find a list and then come back to wikipedia in order to type in the names of the groups they may be interested in (which may or may not have a separate article on wikipedia)?

(2) Our list is conducive to browsing. It is easier to view the list as a whole on our list rather than the two SPLC linked lists. The interactive hate map link ([38]) requires a reader to search by state and categories -- there is no single screen that would show, for example, all anti-LGBT groups in the U.S. The other non-interactive SPLC list ([39]) requires repeated scrolling to view the entire list. Our list requires much less scrolling and allows an entire category to appear on one screen (at least on a laptop) whereas the SPLC list allows the viewer to see only a couple of groups within a category at one time.

Finally, several "delete respondents" claim that the material is adequately, or can be adequately, discussed in the main article. This is simply not true. Only a few alleged hate groups are currently listed in the article. The fourteen categories of hate groups are not identified. The narratives describing the categories are obviously not included. That's a lot of notable information that needs to be added back to the article. This suggests to me that a Merge proposal would have made more sense than this deletion discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is talking about removing mention of the list's existence from Wikipedia; it will certainly be mentioned at the main SPLC article. This is about whether we should keep the contents of the list on Wikipedia. The list itself can have different notability than what exactly is in the list from year to year. I think that's a key point that is sometimes being lost. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that my comments, or indeed anyone's comments above, were suggesting that the existence of the list would somehow be eliminated from the main article. My point is that the list provides much relevant and notable information for the reader in an easily accessible format. We're not doing our job if we say, in effect, that the SPLC has this very notable and widely reported list, but we're not going to tell you what's actually on the list. The contents of the list are also notable. Indeed, for the purpose of NPOV, it is wrong for the main article to document criticism of a few inclusions on the list while keeping secret the full range of categories and groups that comprise the list. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not exactly a secret list, it it? It is published on the SPLC website which presumably will be cited in the main article. Some editorial judgement is needed to illustrate the contents of the list, but as been mentioned several times Wikipedia is not a mirror Shritwod (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your mirror link, it says "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." The list we provided is none of these things nor does it resemble any of the four specific examples listed at the link. As I said above (have you looked at the two lists from the SPLC website?) our format is significantly different from the SPLC links and significantly more convenient for readers. This list didn't just suddenly appear -- "editorial judgement" was exercised in creating the list and editing the main article appropriately. The issue here is whether the list itself, and not just the fact that such a list was created, is notable. You "deleters" fail to acknowledge the significance of the following (which I and others have referred to correctly) from our guideline on Notability at WP:LISTN (bold face added):

"Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

Editors have, at their discretion, exercised their judgement and determined a more complete list is better than merely "illustrating" examples. Using such discretion on a clearly notable topic is certainly subject to debate on the article's discussion page, but is not a reason for deleting it in full. Our list easily meets these requirements and should stay. If you want it to go, you should be able to explain why the list, referred to regularly in media across the country, is not notable.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the list is notable, but we don't have to replicate every notable piece of information on the internet. I will acknowledge that as presented by the SPLC it isn't actually all that easy to use, but I don't think a page of redlinks is particularly easy either. And even though it is notable, I don't think it is independently notable of the SPLC. And then there's the issue of keeping the list up-to-date which I think is virtually impossible, so it will always have a tendency to be a slightly out-of-date version of the actual list, which doesn't seem to add value. Shritwod (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with notability isn't whether we have a mission to "replicate every notable piece of information on the internet" -- although I can't see why we shouldn't do that. Our notability policy only says that we should exclude articles on non-notable subjects. I'm not sure how redlinks create any difficulty, but this is an issue on the contents of the list rather than its existence. You overstate the difficulty of keeping the list up to date. The SPLC updates its list only once a year -- it is rare that it would be added to during the year. It's still work but then any article on current events requires regular updating. Again this is not justification for deletion -- I am not aware of any policy that wikipedia should not have articles that require periodic (in this case annually in February) updating. Your observation that the list might not be notable but for the notability of the SPLC seems to be irrelevant. The SPLC does exist and has created a notable list. Articles on notable subjects often result in spinoffs of other notable articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments that:

(1) Our list provides direct links to the notable groups listed. Should we really require a wikipedia reader to first leave wikipedia to find a list and then come back to wikipedia in order to type in the names of the groups they may be interested in (which may or may not have a separate article on wikipedia)?

and

(2) Our list is conducive to browsing. It is easier to view the list as a whole on our list rather than the two SPLC linked lists. The interactive hate map link ([6]) requires a reader to search by state and categories -- there is no single screen that would show, for example, all anti-LGBT groups in the U.S. The other non-interactive SPLC list ([7]) requires repeated scrolling to view the entire list. Our list requires much less scrolling and allows an entire category to appear on one screen (at least on a laptop) whereas the SPLC list allows the viewer to see only a couple of groups within a category at one time.

are both utterly irrelevant; easier browsing does not add or enhance notability.

Quis separabit? 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but, unlike most of you "deleters", I've addressed notability elsewhere, haven't I? And neither you nor the two others that have responded to me have even attempted to rebut me, have they? The quotes you cherry picked address the claims made by at least three of you folks that our list merely replicates lists available at the SPLC website. These claims, as I've shown by highlighting the major differences between the links, are clearly false. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a perfectly correct assumption. I addressed notability and got a response that claimed I didn't. Rather than quoting the section of my comments that addressed notability, he/she quoted a section that was obviously not intended to address notability. What is the correct assumption to make, other than cherry picking, when three of my paragraphs in three different entries that directly address notability are ignored? You also responded earlier to my post emphasizing notability without addressing the notability issue. I repeated my argument above at your original comments on this proposal and, assuming good faith on your part, look forward to a clear explanation on our different interpretations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Instaurare (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of this discussion, you also have failed to address notability. You pointed to WP:LISTN but offered no explanation. I quoted from the section, as did at least one other "keeper". and explained why it supports notability. You have failed to rebut these arguments or made your own argument explaing why the list fails that section as you claim. As WP:AFDFORMAT makes clear, "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LISTN: "[A] list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Sources cited by Neutrality satisfy me that the group has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously passes WP:LISTN. Tons of reliable sources talk about this list, including many who take issue with it. It's controversial. We cover controversial subjects. This list is the subject. We don't decide not to include a list just because it's controversial. Nor does it make us a soapbox, which implies a problem of WP:NPOV. Editor bias doesn't come into it. All that matters is that reliable sources independent of the subject sufficiently cover it to establish notability, and that there exist a clear inclusion criteria. We have both of those down. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about maintainability and inclusion criteria - (pinging K.e.coffman -- not to single you out, your comment is just the one I was looking at) - As others have pointed it, the list indeed changes... but it changes once a year. Unless it's changed since the last time I edited it, it includes only those listed on the annual Intelligence Report. Sure, the SPLC talks about all sorts of other organizations through its blog, but that's not what we're talking about here. It's not a hard list to update, and the fact that it is presently up to date (though, again, it's been a while since I've looked closely) would seem to speak to that. Inclusion criteria can be worked out on the page itself. Including the full list of 2015 and 2014, for example, seems silly, and perhaps contributes to the perception of it including too much, but that's an editing issue not a deletion issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I think at issue here is whether a list "designated by X as Y" belongs in the encyclopedia, under WP:DUE etc. The list concept as a whole is notable; i.e. the fact that SPLC issues such as list is covered by sources, but does this mean that the full list needs to be replicated here, instead of being linked to from external links? My view is that it does not. It would be interesting to see how this AfD closes. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman I think you've put your finger on just the pivotal issue (I'd expect no less! :) ) But I think the question cuts in the opposite direction, at least for the matter before AfD (i.e. can the list have a standalone page--rather than, how exhaustive should the list there be?) We have an enormous number of pages listing "designated by X as Y"--what comes to mind first are the very many magazine annual lists that we tally. Here's a whole category devoted solely to listing the Forbes lists that have pages! In many cases, editorial cuts are made within the entry--for instance, only including the top 10, or only including wiki-notable organizations--but I think the idea of having such a list as a standalone entry pretty clearly satisfies the current criteria, namely significant coverage of the grouping by reliable sources. So not keeping the page when it meets our criteria feels like treading on thin NPOV ice for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. the list is mentioned in the main SPLC article which gives an opportunity to explain what groups are in it (briefly) and give some illustrations. Of course, it is perfectly possible that it would require a page of its own to explore the issue, but that's far more than just a simple list (with all those redlinks). So, I still think that as it stands it should be deleted, but there is certainly scope for an article about the SPLC-listed "hate groups" by itself. Shritwod (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the list notability criteria very specifically say that the red links are ok, and the only notability question for a standalone list page is secondary source coverage of the group; it specifies that removing red links is an editorial decision, not a disqualification of notability for standalone page. So I don't see the policy basis for deleting this, and I worry about violating neutrality if we depart from policy without reason. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is important data and can tell us a lot about changes in our culture over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium168 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe could add a section for comment response reply from organizations and sociology experts as to appropriateness of groups on the list, what the groups themselves think about being listed, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a list for who the SPLC considers to be hate groups; the hate group's response is not notable or germane to the topic. ValarianB (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that could be up for more discussion. But also could include responses from third parties, like academic professors. Sagecandor (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the gold standard for such lists. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 1. SPLC is an advocacy organization; 2. that the ADL list can equally be described as "the gold standard" with equal validity; 3. that there has been substantive criticism of SPLC for including Christian individuals (Ben Carson) and organizations (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) with whom it disagrees on the question of gay marriage on in it's "Extremist files" [40]; 4.) that the SPLC list is hard to maintain because it changes often; and 5.) WP:NOTMIRROR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why users keep mentioning that the SPLC is an advocacy organization as if that matters. What does matter is they are widely-cited and consulted by the FBI. Criticism from a listed hate group and Ben Carson who compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality,[41] have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this list. I haven't seen any evidence that the list changes often (see WP:DNC). WP:NOTMIRROR is inapplicable. A mirror is website that is the replication of another website. This article is a summary of portions of the SPLC's website, with content from other sources, linking to article of interest about other notable subjects.- Mr X 13:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of hate groups – per the subdiscussion following from E.M.Gregory's above question, there are enough organizations devoted to identifying and monitoring hate groups that it should be possible to create an aggregate list that's not based entirely on the work of one NGO. It's just a matter of coming to consensus on which sources should be consulted. This will eliminate any remaining concerns about the page being a content mirror. Ibadibam (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibadibam's suggestion to Redirect to List of hate groups is interesting, although it would be difficult to maintain; and difficult to decide who gets to define "hate". "200 ‘openly bigoted’ anti-Christian groups tagged as intolerant," [42], It links to a "bigotry map" and includes the SPLC on its list while the SPLC designatesCatholic Family and Human Rights Institute, Family Research Council, and American Family Association. I continue to be convinced that our best course is to delete and simply link to the SPLC list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hate group" is a messy term, and such a broad list would bring with it the problematic task of setting new inclusion criteria based on definitions that vary (up to and including the problem of what to do with a sort of "I know you are but what am I?" list that might get some coverage for different reasons). This list is workable because it goes by a specific definition and list, which is highly cited in mainstream and academic publications. Ultimately, for the purposes of this AfD, a lot of people have opined before this suggestion was made, and thus it's something best raised on the talk page post-AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 29 November 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. Yes, and this is the second Afd I've closed from this user in as many days due to a nonsensical deletion rationale. Competence is required. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mi2 (console)[edit]

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

UserDe (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @UserDe: You have not provided a rationale for why this article should be deleted. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 21 November 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 William Control. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Fletcher (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Forms part of what appears to be (at first glance) a notable act yet he's not notable himself. Editor has created 5 articles related to this band and all but this one have been deleted, as well as non-free images; possible undisclosed COI editing at work. Creator has furthermore attempted to remove all deletion tags from those aforementioned articles, as well as this one. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not actually mentioned in the only reliable reference. Deb (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it mentions the band as a whole. He produced the album it refers to and that is why it's included. The other references are reliable.

He's a significant part of William Control the band. Just because someone isn't the main face it doesn't mean their contributions aren't important. There's no 'COI editing' - I'm updating pages with relevant and factually correct information. Nothing is opinion, it's all fact. I removed the sentences that said where books could be got - I hadn't realised this was an issue, I was just giving all available information on the books. The pre-sales mentions are again for information only - the books are no longer available through the band's website so there's nothing promotional there. I'm only just learning how to work Wikipedia so I didn't realise tags shouldn't be deleted. You've deleted pages that are relevant, important and notable. The non-free images are all album/book covers, and are disclosed as such. Perhaps if you attempted to explain things in a pleasant, non-patronising way then I would more quickly learn how things work. Just deleting things without any valid explanation or rationale simply gets people's backs up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippinangus (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's be specific about this. Do you know Kenneth Fletcher in person?Deb (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable? Instagram and "personal correspondance" [sic] are without a doubt not reliable on Wikipedia! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Control, the only project for which Fletcher appears actually noteworthy (but not independently notable). Per WP:MUSICBIO: members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. All coverage of this subject by third-party reliable sources is likely to be passing or in regards to William Control. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or as mentioned above, redirect. No references indicate individual notability outside of the his role with William Control. Article seems to make an argument of notability by association. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:43, 27 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Controls[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The existing coverage is in specialist publications, but we require something more mainstream to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DIRECTORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jergling (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 08:21, 21 November 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. Unclear why a 2009 election should redirect to a 2006 election? Sandstein 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markham Ward 3 by-election, 2009[edit]

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

Delete. Article, sourced entirely to primary source content on the city's own website with no reliable source coverage shown at all, about a one-off special election in one city council ward in a city where city councillors do not get an WP:NPOL pass just for being city councillors (and even in the rare global cities where city councillors do get that pass, we still don't create standalone articles about individual ward by-elections.) There's simply nothing here to suggest any sustained encyclopedic interest -- the article simply amounts to "this happened, here's the vote totals, the end", with no context for why an encyclopedia should care. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the proposer sums it up perfectly. Shritwod (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Markham municipal election, 2006. Not much needs to be transferred, IMO - just the reason for the by-election and the vote results should be sufficient. PK T(alk) 19:48, 27 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodd Wolff[edit]

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

My PROD removed with the basis of "deletion without merit" but the listed concerns were in fact genuine, the listed information and sources are not satisfying the needed notability, they are trivial and unconvincing, and considering this questionability is obvious, it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC, especially when he's literally only a background stuntman whose IMDb lists trivial works and, as we know, these people rarely get actual attention, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from: Zootsuit1941

I am in disagreement with SwisterTwister original PROD (and more recent AfD) for many reasons. I tried to add these comments when I deleted the PROD, but did not see a space to do that. I am a newby at this Wikipedia process, but I’m trying to learn. So I will put my comments here.

Here are the reasons I am disagreeing with SwisterTwister on the original PROD.

Number 1, SwisterTwister’s statement of "nothing actually suggestive of independent notability and substance” is simply not true and without merit. The fact that Rodd Wolff was inducted into the Hollywood Stuntman's Hall of Fame attest to his notability among his peers. Being inducted into the Stuntman's Hall of Fame is a huge honor for a stuntman. This is the same organization that has honored other notable stuntmen like Yakima Canutt, Jock Mahoney, Hal Needhamm, Ben Johnson, etc. and who are also included in Wikipedia. Also, the fact that Rodd Wolff received a large write-up in the Gene Scott Freese book titles "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary” also confirms Rodd Wolff’s notability. Both these honors are based on the body of work that Rodd Wollf has accomplished in his career.

Number 2, SwisterTwister’s statement of “his filmography only shows trivial background jobs as a stuntman” is not a relevant comment. The purpose of the filmography was merely to give a list of some of the movies that Rodd Wolff work on, not to document the exact details of his contributions to these films. To characterise Rodd Wolff’s background as trival is certainly a subjective statement. Certainly nothing trivial about Rodd Wolff's work in The Getaway, Miracle at Sage Creek. Rambo III, Arizona Heat, or Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years, to name just a few.

Number 3, SwisterTwister’s statement of “none of it insinuating his own convincing article,” I did not understand what this statement was referring to, so can not respond to it.

Number 4, SwisterTwister’s statement of “the listed sources are simply mere mentions or trivial” are again mostly without merit, as being inducted into the Hollywood Stuntman’s Hall of Fame and being included in the Gene Scott Freese book certainly can not be considered as trivial. True that at least one of the other listed sources (e.g. Local Board" Sag-Aftra.org) might be considered a mere mention, but that is true of a lot of sources, just a way of documenting a statement in the article.

Number 5, SwisterTwister’s statement of “my own searches are simply finding this, hence this should not have been accepted with such questionability” is difficult for me to respond to as I don’t know what searches the nominator has done or what his basic knowledge of the history of Hollywood stuntment is. I know there have been many newspaper articles written on Rodd Wollf that I couldn’t reference in the write-up as these articles are only available throught the newspapers via a paid subscription, and would not make good references for a Wikipedia article.

Also, SwisterTwister’s more recent AfD statment of “he's (Rodd Wolff) literally only a background stuntman whose IMDb lists trivial works and, as we know, these people rarely get actual attention, let alone a convincing article” is puzzling to me and I’m not sure how to comment on that.

So in summary, although I appreciate the input from SwisterTwiste, I do not feel the recommendation of deleteing this article is valid.

Again, I’m a newby at this Wikipedia process, I’m learning as I go and if the above is not in the proper place, then my apologies, but at this time I don’t know where to place it, ...I'm a 75 year old retired engineer, but I’m learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zootsuit1941 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominators statement that "these people rarely get actual attention" may be true, but in this particular case this person has got actual attention from the book published by McFarland cited in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The best and simplest comment I will say is "Hollywood Stuntman's Hall of Fame" is not a sole basis of notability as, although it is quite imaginable it's a major achievement for stuntpeople, it's not something considered notable for Wikipedia. As for the book source, none of that amounts to notability since it's only for his stuntman work, we would've needed additional to ensure convincing substance. Therefore, simply stating the one Hall of Fame is enough, is not satisfying or convincingly meeting the notability concerns listed and they still apply. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added 2 different books as references that address the skills and notability of Rodd Wolff as a stuntman. I have also added additional information on a few (3) of the roles that Rodd Wolf has had in movies/TV shows, showing that the stunts/roles Rodd Wolff had in these movies/TV shows were not “trival.” I will add more when I have the time. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- largely uncited vanity on a subject that has no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This subject (Rodd Wolff) absolutely does meet the criteria of notability as defined by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). There are two reliable sources referenced (Gene Scott Freese. Hollywood Stunt Performers and The Heart of a Cowboy) in this writeup that include significant coverage of the subject. As far as “no indication of significance," the subject was inducted into the Hollywood Stuntman's Hall of Fame, that is extremely significant. Plus he has a body of work that covers 50 years as covered in the writeup.
- As far as the comment “largely uncited vanity,” I’m not sure what that means, but this article is NOT about me, so there is no vanity involved. Plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) states “The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion…and it is extremely discourteous ... to speculate that the author of some ...biography is the subject himself or herself.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zootsuit1941 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A general comment. I had 5 photos included in the article that increased credibility, all showing significant stunts and acting scenes that most people would be familiar with, but they were deletd due to Copyright violations. Based on what I’ve been reading in Wikipedia articles (and viewing in other Wikipedia articles) the 5 photos should all be permissible due to either not being copyrighted, in the public domain content, fair use, etc. Apparently I didn’t correctly provide all the necessary information when I uploaded them. Uploading photos for a Wikipedia article is a very complicated process, at least for a newby, a person almost has to be a copyright lawyer to plow through this stuff. But I will attempt to reload the 5 photos properly, although it may take some time and a lot of reading. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One more geneal comment. I realize this AfD is not a voting process but I feel it is important to note that two previous Wikipedia editors have accepted this article as being notable. (1) Appears to pass notability now. I am leaving this for another reviewer because I have history with this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC) and (2) (Shadowowl moved page Draft:Rodd Wolff to Rodd Wolff: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9)). Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify Sorry, but it fails to establish notability. The only sources that mention him significantly are self-published. It baffles me that this was allowed through AfC in this state, but I'd like to hear what the accepting editors have to say. @Shadowowl: @Robert McClenon: -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 20:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and question for Jergling: Thanks for your input. This may be the wrong place to ask a question, but I’m confused by your comment of "self-published," at least in the case of McFarland Publishing. Book publishing is not something I’m familiar with but from what I’ve read about McFarland Publishing is, “McFarland & Company, Inc. is a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. Its target markets are libraries and direct mailing to enthusiasts in niche categories.” This is from the Wikipedia site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:McFarland.
- Info from the McFarland web site says “It does not cost anything to publish with McFarland. McFarland has not ever and will not ever take any payment or subvention from authors.”
- Wikipedia’s definition of Self-publishing is "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing. This doesn't seem to fit McFarland Publishing.
- Another Wikipedia site states “Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.” From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. This doesn't seem to fit McFarland Publishing.
- Wikipedia contributor 86.17.222.157 commented in the AfD seemed to imply that he thought the book published by McFarland was a respected source.
- So my question is, is a book published by McFarland considered to be “self-published?” I’m not necessarily saying that comment is not true, because I don’t really know. But it seems to me the author of the referenced McFarland book does have an established publisher and the author and the publisher are NOT the same.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even then, that one book is still not going to establish notability, especially for such a field that is rarely classified as notable for Wikipedia, unless there's literally national and international attention, and not simply triviality. The fact it was accepted by one user and commented by another, is not defending or saving it at all from AfD, which is a community listing, and if deleted, is closed as such, not simply because of 2 past users. Therefore, with there only being the still trivial claim of "he's in a hall of fame", which although may be significant in his field, is still not quite what convinces an encyclopedia article. There's simply such questionability here that it suggests there's simply not a genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it is worth, I have added an additional book as reference material to the Rodd Wolff article, another book by Gene Scott Freese (McFarland Publishing), this one titled Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman. Although the book is about Jock Mahoney, there are references to Rodd Wolff in the book. How Jock Mahoney met Rodd Wolff when Rodd was just a kid, how Jock Mahoney helped Rodd out once Rodd started his stuntman’s career, etc. I’ve quoted a portion in the Wikipedia article. I’ve also added some additional information on Rodd Wolff from the Arizona Republic, an American daily newspaper circulated throughout Arizona, it is the state's largest newspaper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arizona_Republic). Unfortunately all the Arizona Republic articles on Rodd Wollf are online as a paid subscription only, so I can’t add a hot link to these sites in the Wikipedia article. Also, in my opinion being inducted into the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame is definitely no “trivial claim.” Many stuntmen/actors listed in Wikipedia articles take great pride in this honor. For example, Wikipedia articles on Dean Smith, Clayton Moore, David L Boushey, Brad Harris, Carey Loftin, Buddy Joe Hooker, Bronco McLoughlin, George P. Wilbur to name a few, include this honor in the write-ups.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the author of the Wikipedia article I’d like to address this issue of notability one more time. First, the article was approved by two prior editors (Robert McClenon & Shadowowl). Secondly, the article has been greatly improved since the AfD was created; it’s no longer the same article. For example, I have added three additional books as references, books that all speak to Wolff’s notability. I have also referenced one (of many) state newspaper articles that feature Wolff and his stunt/acting career, plus an article by the United Press International on Wolff. And I have added additional description on the significance of Wolff contribution in a few of the movies listed for him. I simply disagree with the AfD nominator’s position but have tried to address them by adding more information as far as notability. I disagree with Wikipedia editor K.e.coffman’s “Delete” vote because he feels the article is “vanity", it is not “vanity” as I have explained in a previous Comment above. I also disagree with Wikipedia editor Jergling’s “Delete” vote comment that McFarland Publishing was a “self-published” source; it is not a “self-published” source as I have also explained in a previous Comment above. Plus one other Wikipedia editor (86.17.222.157) disagreed with the AfD nominator and made the comment "The subject has got actual attention from the book published by McFarland cited in the article." That was just a Comment and not an actual "Keep" vote, but pretty close I think. With that said, I’d like to discuss some specific Wikipedia criteria for notability. In order to avoid one long paragraph, I’m going to organize them down into individual bullets, as I don’t know a better way at this time.
- Comment continued from above: From Wikipedia, Notability is defined as “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” I have listed multiple published secondary sources that I feel are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. I feel the best example is the Gene Scott Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary.” This was published by McFarland Publishing and from what I can determine is a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. This book is a biographical dictionary on stunt performers who created some of the cinema's greatest action scenes without credit or recognition. The book is 356 pages and includes articles on over 600 men and women. And Wolff receives significant coverage in this book (page and a half). In addition to this book, Wolff also has significant coverage in another McFarland published book by Gene Scott Freese titled "Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman." In total, I have referenced 4 books, and 2 newspaper articles in the current list of 12 references I have included in the article (there were only 4 when the AfD was created). I believe the current version of the article meets the Wikipedia requirement of “...significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources…”
- Comment continued from above: From Wikipedia (BLP), "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.” Wolff has received many awards for his stunts, rodeo and show efforts, but the most impressive one has to be his 2002 induction into the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame. The AfD nominator claims this as “trivial” and “not something considered notable for Wikipedia.” I strongly disagree; it is a great honor bestowed on only relative few (244) people. I have also discussed this two times in previous Comments above. I believe the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame induction meets the Wikipedia well-known and significant award or honor requirement.
- Comment continued from above: From Wikipedia (BLP): “The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.” I have googled “Dictionary of National Biography” but still don’t know what that is. But Wolff has a page and a half in one of the references in the article, the Gene Scott Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary.” I believe this meets the Wikipedia Dictionary requirement.
- Comment continued from above: From Wikipedia (Entertainment): “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.” I have attempted to describe in the article, the significant stunt/actor roles Wolff made contributions to in four film/TV efforts he was in (Charro, Masterpiece Theater production of Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years, Rambo III, Universal Soldiers and The Getaway). These were not "trivial works” as described in the AfD, but I did add the information after the creation of this AfD. I can certainly add more information on additional movies and TV shows, but the question is, how many do I need to do? I had added 5 photos from movie promotional material (which I felt were fair use) and some video screen shots that I also felt were fair use. But they were deleted due to copyright violations. I believe I just didn’t fill out the paper work properly when I uploaded the photos. But they added greatly to the notability of this article. For example, one of the photos was from the 1969 Elvis Presley movie “Charro.” A reader of the Wikipedia article would immediately think, “Oh I remember that scene where Elvis breaks a wild black stallion, so Wolff is the guy in this movie that actually rode that wild horse, what an amazing scene that was!” Or “So Wolff was the guy that had the shootout with Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger in The Getaway and fell down the flight of stairs, what an exicting scene that was! Something to that effect anyway. Same on the other 3 photos that were deleted. I believe the information in this article meets the Wikipedia requirement of “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.”
- Summary of all the above Comments: This article has been revised and greatly improved to address the concerns of the nominator of the AfD and now certainly meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nearly half of the listed sources are literally only trivial mentions including as part of listings, it's not significant nor convincing for notability. WP:NOT is important as it in fact be used over WP:BASIC or WP:GNG which are not policy, but WP:NOT in fact is. This current article has only had 1 significant claim and that's a Hall of Fame. Simply because a person familiar with him may search him here is not a convincing basis of keeping an article especially if it's not satisfying policy WP:NOT. Also, the "has had significant roles" is not applicable as he's only an stuntman, not an actor, hence he's only a background worker.

The actors notability will not apply to non-actors since they are simply background works such as stuntpeople, not actually part of the main cast. As it is, some of the listed sources such as #7, 8 and 9 are literally his own profiles! Because the only current significant claim is a Hall of Fame, we cannot accept an article that is still so unconvincing in considerations of actual coverage, and the current ones will simply not cut it as they are not major independent news sources. As it is, his filmography itself only lists "stunts", "stunts coordinator" and "uncredited", all trivial background works, not significant as an actor at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment to above SwisterTwister Comment: SwisterTwister, thanks for your above comments, but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you write. I’ll address each one as a separate bullet item.
- (1) As to your comment of "only one significant claim (Hall of Fame)." I agree with you 100% in that being inducted into the Hollywood Stuntmen’s Hall of Fame is significant (outstanding as a matter of fact!), but that was mentioned in the article only as a major award. The main claim for notability is Wolff's large body of work as a stuntman over 50 years, making significant contributions to some very significant movies and TV shows.
- (2) Your comment of “significant roles is not applicable as he’s only a stuntman, not an actor, hence he’s only a background worker” is not accurate. Only a stuntman? The stuntman is a highly trained professional, whose job is to act out the difficult actions moves or scenes that actors and actresses are not able to do, due to the danger involved, Stunts can make a movie not only exciting, but also profitable. Action films, in fact, make up the majority of box-office hits. For example, think how less exciting the 1969 Elvis Presley movie Charro would have been without the scene where Elvis (actually stuntman Rodd Wolff) lassos a wild black stallion out in the desert and breaks it for riding. If the simple word of "stuntman" is a problem, I can always add additional information for that particular movie, like "Cowboy at bar/stunt:" for Beyond the Law, "Soldier/stunt" for Posse, "Police Lieutenant/stunt" for Arizona Heat, "Stablehand Jess/stunt" for McMasters of Sweetwater, "Afghan Soldiers/stunt" for Rambo III, "Drover-Ranch Hand" for High Chaparral, etc, etc, but in my opinion a simple "stunt" listing is sufficient. But I'm more than willing to change it if it helps get this article past the AdF process.
- (3) I’m not sure what you mean by “the current ones will simply not cut it as they are not major independent news sources.” If you are referring to the references, I believe you are not correct. I may be wrong, but I believe the correct Wikipedia guideline is not as you stated (‘major’) but rather “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” I have referenced two books by McFarland Publishing Company, a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. The two McFarland Publishing Company books definitely meet the Wikipedia requirement. Plus I have listed several newspaper articles, which I believe are also considered independent source.
- (4) Your comment of “listed sources such as #7, 8 and 9 are literally his own profiles!” is probably true and I can delete these references if they are a problem for this article. They were just added to give a hot link to organizations that Wolff is involved with, the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the Arizona Film & Media Coalition (AFMC) and the Arizona Music and Entertainment Hall of Fame (AMEHOF). Or I can easily remove these as references and relocate them as External Links, but to me it seems more appropriate to leave them in and leave them as hot links in the Reference section.
- (5) Your later comment of “his filmography itself only lists "stunts", "stunts coordinator" and “uncredited” is confusing to me, True, but that is because his profession is as a stuntman and stunt coordinator. Your part about “all trivial background works, not significant as and actor at all” is also confusing to me. Are you implying that the profession of a stuntman is trivial compare to the profession of an actor? If so, that is just a subjective opinion and not true. Or are you implying that Wolff’s credits as an actor are not significant? If so, all I can say is that this article makes no claim that Wolff is primarily an actor by profession. Please note that this Wikipedia Wolff article starts out with the statement of “He is a movie stuntman known for his equestrian skills…” True that sometimes he is listed as a stuntman/actor or just actor sometimes, because the two roles sometimes become blurred into one. For example, in the 1981 TV Mini-Series Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years, Wolff is given acting credit for the role of Warner Baxter, a famous cinema cowboy of that time period and Wolff is also credited with being the stunt director. But that’s the movie business, I have no control over that.
- (6) My apologies for repeating myself, but I’ll say it again, “the subject without a doubt meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia.” I have made this point over and over. I do take your comment seriously, I have tried to address them where I could, but mostly I just disagree with what you are writing.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still alone violating WP:NOT because there is enough to suggest removal is best. Also, simply because he's "highly trained" is not at all convincing for notability, regardless of anything, and that's not even for any acceptable claims of significance here at Wikipedia. Yes, he is only a stuntman and therefore is only a behind the scenes crewman and that's all there is to it.

Wikipedia is a memorial of fame for stuntpeople or any of their listed works. I never said he was primarily an actor but by "filmography" listed, that's what the current article suggests especially again because the world are behind the scenes. Simply because he was "given credit" for someone else, is not notable here either, notability is not inherited and that's also part of policy.

Even if you remove the questionable links I mentioned, that's still showing the article's bareness and there have been no other significant and convincing sources. Unfortunately, articles are quite complex here, and there's simply not enough for genuine notability here (nor would "he is a stuntman known for his equestrian skills"). SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reading the above SwisterTwister comment I initially decided not to respond as I think I’ve made the case that the subject of this article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. But after reading the above comment a second time I feel I need to respond, as many of the SwisterTwister comments are not true.
- (1) SwisterTwister’s comment that "the article suggests the subject is primarily an actor by the use of the word Filmography" is simply not true. If someone can suggest a better word, then I will make the change, but I believe Filmography is the proper word.
- (2) I don’t understand SwisterTwister’s comment that “he was given credit for someone else…. notability is not inherited and that's also part of policy.." The subject of this article was not given credit for someone else, I have no idea what SwisterTwister is referring to.
- (3) SwisterTwister’s comment “Yes, he is only a stuntman and therefore is only a behind the scenes crewman and that’s all there is to it” leaves me almost speechless. " "Only a stuntman?" "Behind the scenes crewman?" "That’s all there is to it?" Has SwisterTwister ever heard of the Taurus World Stunt Awards, a yearly award ceremony held midyear that honors stunt performers in movies (http://www.taurusworldstuntawards.com)? Not to mention the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame, of which the subject of this article was inducted into.
- Unfortunately I can’t follow most of SwisterTwister’s word phrasing (or his logic), so I will not be responding to any more SwisterTwister comments, SwisterTwister can have the last word. A final ruling will be made on this AfD in a day or so, and that will be the end of this matter one way or the other.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Summary: Since the timeline for this AfD is coming to a close and some of my reasons for why this article should be kept may be getting lost in this long AfD, I’d like to add one final comment/summary to support the notability of the subject and keeping of this article.

(1) In my opinion, the subject of this article definitely meets or exceeds the notability requirements of Wikipedia for the following reasons, (a) he has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, (b) he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, (c) he has received a well-known and significant award or honor and (d) he has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

Along with the subject's filmography that shows the significant contributions he has made to some very important movies, the subject has been inducted into the Hollywood Stuntmen’s Hall of Fame (a huge honor) for his body of work, 4 books that mention the subject are included in the references, 2 that mention the subject significantly are published by a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. One of the other books that mention the subject significantly might be considered a “self-published” source (I don't really know), but it was NOT “self-published” by the subject of this article, and it (and the 4th book which mentions the subject only briefly) are terrific books! Plus the subject had been written about in many newspapers, including local and state level newspapers and at least once in a United Press International (UPI) article.

(2) I may be in error but it seems to me the PROF/AfD nominator’s main reason for a Delete vote is along the line of “a stuntman is not an actor...a stuntman is only a behind the scenes crewman and not worthy of a Wikipedia page... and any reference to the notability for a stuntman is trivial and unconvincing…” This is simply not true in the world I (and other people) grew up in. I was born in 1941 and grew up in the time period when this country was coming out of the Great Depression, my heroes then (and still are) were the cowboys and cowboy stuntmen of the western movies. The stuntmen were the ones that actually made the movies exciting, and they were famous in their own right, stuntmen like Yakima Canutt (perhaps the greatest of all stuntmen) and all the stuntmen that followed him. I recognize stuntmen in general aren’t as popular as movie actors, but they perform an extremely notable and important role in the movie making business, popularity should not be the only consideration for a Wikipedia page.

(3) The other two editors that entered a “Delete" vote seem to have made their decision based on at least partially faulty info. One editor stated the article was “largely uncited vanity,” which was a false assumption on his part (not to mention extremely discourteous) as I explained earlier in this AfD. The other editor stated, “The only sources that mention him significantly are self-published,” which was also a false assumption on his part as I also explained earlier in this AfD.

(4) I’d also like to reiterate that two other Wikipedia editors originally approved this article, as I mentioned earlier in this AfD.

(5) Although there have been no editors in this AfD voting to “Keep” the article, one editor did mention in a Comment that one of the facts quoted by the nominator (as a reason for the AfD) was NOT correct.

(6) This article has been greatly improved (as far as notability) since the AfD was initiated, as I have mentioned earlier in this AfD.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We require reliable secondary sources and it is very clear that there aren't here. Most of the references in the article are not what we call RS. Others don't provide significant coverage. Accordingly, this is can be deleted. The walls of text here are not convincing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input. But would you elucidate on what you mean when you write “…it is very clear that there aren’t any reliable secondary sources in this article…?” For example, would you clarify why you feel that the “Gene Scott Freese. Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s” reference is not a reliable secondary source? This source includes significant coverage of the subject, which is based on three other sources (another book plus two newspaper articles on the subject). This source was published by McFarland Publishing, a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. Clearly this source is indeed a reliable secondary source...and you say "...there aren't any?"
- And also your comment “…other sources don’t provide significant coverage…” would you clarify that comment, for at least four of the other references provided significant coverage of the subject (i.e., the “The Heart of a Cowboy,” “Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman,” “Stunts, Stars And Legends: Rodd Wolff” and the newspaper article “Pulling Stunts?” Clearly at least four other sources do provide significant coverage.
- As for as your dismissive "wall of text" phrase, my apologies; but it has been necessary as it seems to me that there have been some one-liners added to this AfD that are not based on factual information. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. without prejudice to someone writing an article that is not a blend of promotionalism and an essay. WP articles do not start with sentences like "Without the stuntman, the movies that we so enjoy today would be very boring. It was the stuntman who allowed the actors to continue working. They were men and women who put their lives on the line daily to make their fellow actor look good. Rodd Wolff was one of these modern day cowboys who put his life on the line in the world of motion pictures" nor with quotes that" to those who know him personally, ...a valued friend and human being." But I think there is a basis for notability in his profession. Incidentally, Robert McClenon, an excellent reviewer, did not accept it. He declined it. And at the time, it was much less promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to above: Thanks for your comments.: But I think you are misrepresenting what Robert McClenon’s posiition was on this article. True that he did originally declined the article, but only because at that time it didn’t have a single references at the time (it's now at 13), but once I added the first few references Robert McClenon wrote “Appears to pass notability now. I am leaving this for another reviewer because I have history with this draft.” And that is exactly what I wrote earlier in this AfD. So your statement about Robert McClenon is misleading at best.
- The three sentences in the article that you referred to (Without the stuntman, the movies that we so enjoy today...) were NOT the start of this WP article, I added those three sentences at the tail end of the introduction section only because the nominator of this AfD was making comments like “he's only an stuntman, not an actor,” and I felt that the nominator didn’t have a good understanding and appreciation of the profession of stunt people. If those three sentences are the main reason you are recommending this article be deleted, I can certainly delete them.
- Also, I believe you misread the statement of " to those who know him personally, ...a valued friend and human being.” That was not a promotional comment made about the subject of this article, that was a comment made by the subject in a Screen Actors Guild Newsletter about his mentor Jock Mahoney, and this comment was repeated by Gene Freese in his book titled "Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman.” The subject of this Wikipedia article was covered signiicantly in this Gene Freese book (mentioned 24 times) and I quoted just that one line from the book. But again, I am willing to delete this one line if you feel it is one of the reasons for your Delete vote. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not ready to !vote, but I will add that when User:Shadowowl accepted it, it didn't contain the promotional gibberish cited above by User:DGG. I initially declined it when it didn't have references. Then I commented that I thought that the addition of the references addressed notability, and Shadowowl accepted it, but it didn't contain promotional gibberish then. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will also comment that the comments of User:Zootsuit1941, who inserted the promotional material, resemble a filibuster. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the above two Robert McClenon Comments: First of all, I apologize to Robert McClenon if I have misrepresented your opinion on this article; I have honestly presented it, as I understood it.
- Secondly I resent the use of the word "gibberish." In the first example, I was quoting what someone else wrote about the subject of this article, that is a direct quote from "The Heart of a Cowboy" book by John H Conley. But again, it is certainly something I could delete to make this article acceptable.
- Thirdly, I also object to the use of the term “filibuster.” A filibuster is something done to delay a vote. I have honestly tried to address all the incorrect information I’ve seen posted on this AfD. And I will admit that it has become long and difficult to read and follow. But most of the negative comments made about this article have not been factual. I am definitely not trying to delay a vote, I welcome a final conclusion on this article no matter what the final conclusion. Also, although I do understand why it was referred to as a wall of text and a filibuster, I think both of these terms are definitely incorrect. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment to just one point above . It was asserted "Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary.” This was published by McFarland Publishing and from what I can determine is a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. This book is a biographical dictionary on stunt performers who created some of the cinema's greatest action scenes without credit or recognition." Is the second sentence quoted from the preface to the book? It was used it the article also. The book rather seems to be as a comprehensive directory, and inclusion in it does not imply that a particular individual was notable. (but,fwiw, it is not self-published, and I cannot imagine where that view came from. McFarland publishes many such directories.) DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above: I appreciate your above comment and agree with it 100%, I’ve tried to make the case throughout this AfD that the "Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary” book qualifies as one reliable secondary source, as do some of the other sources I’ve referenced. But I don’t understand your question of “Is the second sentence quoted from the preface to the book?” Is that question for me (the author)? If so (and not knowing what “second sentence” you are referring to), I can say I have the Freese book you mentioned and the subject of this Wikipedia article was not mentioned in the preface to this book.
One more comment, the Freeze book in question does not just cover stunt performers in scenes "without credit or recognition", the book also includes some of the greatest stunt performers ever, e.g., Yakima Canutt; some say "the" greatest stunt performer ever. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in spite of one of the more counter-productive scorched-earth AFD defense campaigns that I have been by User:Zootsuit1941. Does not satisfy acting notability, which, as written, does very little for stuntmen, who have to rely on general notability. The argument is made that the subject is in the Stunt Hall of Fame. That is true, and perhaps should be qualifying. There are several stunt performers who are in that Hall of Fame who do have articles; I haven't checked whether they also had acting roles. I am not !voting for Delete because I think that a good case can be made (by someone other than Zootsuit1941, who is digging a hole) that there should be notability criteria for stunt performers. (As the gibberish says, many movies couldn't exist without them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the above: To Robert McClenon. I can accept your neutral vote (and actually appreciate it) although it is a little confusing since much earlier you stated “Appears to pass notability now…,” and since that time I have tried to add more references for notability as a result of the AfD. But I don’t understand why you feel the need to include insulting comments like (1) the quotes I’ve referenced are gibberish, (2) scorched earth campaign (as in a military policy involving deliberate and usually widespread destruction of property and resources?) (3) digging a hole (as in to continue to make a situation go from bad to worse. As in newbie, you should just shut your mouth; you're diggin' a hole!?) and (4) my comments resemble a filibuster? Whatever happened to “Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular?” I myself have gone out of my way to be polite to all editors in this AfD, and to tell you the truth it's been kind of difficult at times.
- My comments have been mostly responses to some editors stating their opinions as facts. For example one editor claimed “all the sources in this article were based only on self-published sources,” that was totally false. Another editor stated this article was only a “vanity article,” again totally false. Another editor stated, “there aren’t any reliable secondary sources in this article,” again a totally false statement.
- I could go on but won’t as I know anything I write at this time will be considered more gibberish and counter-productive, scorched earth, hole digging. With five "Delete" votes and one "Neutral" vote, I'm a realist and can see how this will turn out. This is my last comment; I’m fine with the final outcome of this AfD. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried very hard to proof-read and copy-edit this poorly-written article. It still needs quite a bit of work to get past the "start" level. I'm taking no stance on the subject's notability, because I can't get past the process. I'd go for userfy if we can do that. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in its current state, there is simply not enough there to establish notability. Being a member of the hall of fame of one craft or another simply does not make one notable. The walls of text do not help the article creator's position either. This person is either notable, in which case, credible, in-depth references from independent reliable sources can be added... or they aren't. If someone want's to userfy, in order to be able to work on it, that's fine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 6 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious Bliss[edit]

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

Not my field, but I cannot see how it meets the relevant music guideline. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am familiar with this field and I'm not finding or seeing anything better at all, there's basically not even any actual significance apart from the thin and minor label claims. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable electronic musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 22 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen B. Reed[edit]

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

This article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability (people). It relies heavily upon first-party sources and unreliable sources, such as "Find a Grave". For military-related articles, there should be some form of notability established, aside from that that an individual existed, knew actual notable people or was related to notable people. In 2012, this article was the subject of debate, as this was argued arduously and the article creator threatened to bring people who trimmed unencyclopedic content up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's been four years and there has yet to be an establishment of notability and non-original research, and the article creator should recognize its unsuitability by now, so I am proposing it be deleted. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Darth Botto: I am not familiar with the talk pages so I may not be doing this correctly. But I expect that you and anyone else weighing in your nomination to delete this article will find these words. I have put considerable effort and research into the article on Captain Allen B. Reed, and I have just seen a message notification that you would like to have this article deleted. I do not understand why you singled out this article to delete based on your opinion that it does not meet appropriate standards based on what I believe you contend are unreliable sources. Perhaps you could clarify your reasons for wanting it deleted. I'm curious how Capt. Allen B. Reed's article came up on your radar, since presumably your opinion is that Captain Allen B. Reed is of inadequate historical significance to merit public interest and a wikipedia page, yet you found him. I obtained Reed's complete service file from the United States Naval Personnel Center in St. Louis and while these official records have not been scanned into the Wikimedia commons or otherwise, just as those for Admirals Halsey, Nimitz, Generals Patton, Bradley, etc, have not been scanned and uploaded, does that pose a problem as far as reference sources? Also, you may not be familiar with the Annual Register of US Naval Commissioned and Warrant Officers, but those annual official and public records contain the information of where a particular officer was stationed during any calendar year. From that one can construct a chronology of their naval service, as I did in Reed's article. As for notability or historical significance, as you are probably aware from apparently policing wikipedia, there are many, many articles in the form of biographies of non-flag rank military officers. And many of those are for contemporary, living subjects with little or zero references for the biographical statements made. Yet still, there they are and many of them. Concerning whether these these wiki biography articles of current, living non-flag officers are sufficiently "notable" or "historical" to merit a wikipedia article, given the lack of any references and complete historical insignificance, it's reasonable to assume the articles were likely written by a friend, relative or the subjects themselves. As to Captain Reed, a WWI Navy Cross recipient, who served for 37 years, and was the plank owner commissioning CO of the historically significant WW2 cruiser USS New Orleans ("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" at Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941) that accompanied President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the first visit by a POTUS to Hawaii, I am neither a friend nor relative. May I ask, are you nominating for deletion all of these non-historically significant, completely un-sourced, "vanity" wikipedia articles of living, non-flag rank military officers-- or petty bureaucrats, business people, entertainers, etc., that abound on wikipedia? (If one only knew where to look for them.) No disrespect meant and I am not looking to enter into a feud with you, which you would most certainly win since I'm not a darth kinda guy and this is not my bailiwick. I'm a live and let life sorta guy, so long as it's not illegal, dishonest or injurious. I have only contributed to articles and have no interest in deleting articles written by others. But I do disagree with your desire to see the subject article deleted for the reasons I have stated to defend the merit and credibility of the article. Presumably some democratic process will determine whether your desire to see the article deleted is realized. To anyone that is familiar with the process of the pending nomination to delete the article, and agrees with me that it should not be deleted and expresses that, thank you in advance. Signed, Barnabywoods

That's great that you're "not a darth kind of guy", but this isn't about you being great for getting out in the world or me being on trial for being such an evil person- this is about an article about someone who crewed a number of ships, but really doesn't have any notability to go off of. Half the sentences in the article are about Reed serving on ships, while the other half are trivial items about what those ships were special for. Is there anything to go off of pertaining to Reed's own notability, besides merely that he existed? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted you to know that you do very well with your contributions to Military articles, with generally good citations and what-not. However, I simply don't see this one as being notable. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article and believe WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to pass the threshold of notability and WP:MEMORIAL. EricSerge (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep - Most (all?) of the citations are routine announcements of station, some from primary sources, and don't necessarily meet the requirement that an subject of the article be given in depth coverage by secondary or tertiary sources to meet the notability guidelines. I could be convinced otherwise, but scanning the citations, I just don't see it here. Am I missing something? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple things I found in papers on genealogybank. The newspapers.com stuff I found wasn't quite as good, but maybe I missed something (newspapers.com gives the ability of making clippings, so everyone would be able to see it, so I'll add a couple citations from there). Anyway, in late March/early April 1935 there was some fanfare for the New Orleans when it visited, you guessed it, New Orleans, and Reed featured prominently enough to get some relatively in depth coverage. I'm considering changing my !vote... Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to change my vote to weak keep. WikiProject Military history has an essay about notability for military people which includes the following (emphasis mine):

"Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article. If this information is not available, then inclusion in a parent article or list is probably the best approach rather than a stand alone article. As with all other editorial decisions, consensus should be sought where there is uncertainty in this regard.

I didn't find an Obit for Reed, but his birthday was mentioned in a small article related to the celebrations of the New Orleans in New Orleans in 1935, as well as many mentions of his wife, education, and son. Old newspapers aren't accepted by all as reliable secondary sources, but I like them as such. So, while the essay I quote isn't policy, and the sources aren't perfect, I'm going to accept them both.Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~-- appears to be a WP:MEMORIAL and WP:OR largely based on primary sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can tell, being awarded the Navy Cross makes someone notable in Wikipedia terms. A couple of points relating to this:

Navy Cross: "The Navy Cross is the United States military's second-highest decoration awarded for valor in combat."
WP:MILNG: "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times"
Reed wasn't awarded the Navy Cross multiple times, but we have a number of articles on people who only received the award once (e.g. George S. Rentz). I am not sure where the "multiple times" caveat comes from, as it doesn't make a lot of sense.

We currently have 712 entries in Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). If this article is deleted, how many of those will need to go as well? This point seems to have been missed in the focus on the WP:OR in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, a single second-level decoration certainly does not make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This is fully explained in WP:SOLDIER. Yes, we have many articles on recipients, but they either received more than one, are notable for something else or should be deleted. Note that I am not commenting on the validity of this article, as I think Reed may be borderline notable, but certainly not just for having a Navy Cross. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the caveat doesn't make a lot of sense; do you know how many second-level decorations have been awarded throughout the centuries and throughout the world? If we have an article on every one of them then why not an article on the many more people who have won a third-level decoration? And so it goes on. We have to have a cut-off somewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But the real point, one that you missed (and I missed first time round) is that the Navy Cross was a third-level award until it was elevated to second-level status during WWII (in 1942). Of course I am aware that huge numbers of second-level decorations have been awarded. Nowhere have I made the argument that you make about third-level decorations. I am mystified as to why you are putting up that strawman argument. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm afraid I have no idea what point you're making. You say above that a single Navy Cross is sufficient notability for an article and that you don't understand the caveat in WP:SOLDIER that we usually require at least two for notability, then you appear to agree with me that it is not sufficient for notability. But your whole keep argument appears to be based on the fact that he had a single Navy Cross (incidentally, it was always effectively a second-level decoration because the DSM wasn't awarded for valour). My point is merely that we need a cut-off somewhere for the notability of recipients of decorations and we have decided that cut-off point should be a single first-level decoration or two second-level decorations, so I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing that he's notable because he had a Navy Cross. He may indeed be notable for other reasons, but not for his decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point about the 'multiple awards' criterion is that is appears to discriminate against those recipients who were unfortunate enough to be killed in action in the act for which they were awarded the medal. Why should one person, who happened to receive one Navy Cross and lived and then received a second one (and maybe died), be more notable than someone who received one and died? It seems purely arbitrary. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more arbitrary than saying a general is inherently notable because of his rank but a sergeant is not. Or that a politician who's served one day in a national legislature is inherently notable but one who's served thirty years on a city council is not. Or indeed that someone with a Victoria Cross is inherently notable but someone with a Military Cross is not. (Note that although 'officially' we recognise no inherent notability, in reality we most certainly do). All are essentially arbitrary, but we have to have some sort of cut-off point otherwise we'd be flooded with articles and pretty much anyone could be justified as having some sort of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Ironically, for those citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL, many of the single-time Navy Cross recipients were killed in action (e.g. Harry L. Corl). It is difficult to win more awards once you are dead, but my point is that people writing articles on those who died in wars as well as those who survived wars is a (valid) form of memorialization. People shouldn't misuse WP:NOTMEMORIAL in such cases - the real intent behind WP:NOTMEMORIAL was to prevent long lists of people who died in disasters and suchlike. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have misinterpreted WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It is being quoted correctly. See #4. Millions of people have died in war. Being killed in war does not by itself make you notable enough for an article. Even if you are American! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said nothing about Americans. WP:MEMORIAL applies to everyone, not just Americans. You seem to be unaware of the history of WP:MEMORIAL. In its original form it was this. This restriction arose because people were adding long lists of people that died in disasters and other events, including the 9/11 attacks. The point I am making is that WP:MEMORIAL is more about how an article is written and why. Someone is either notable or not. The fact that they are dead doesn't matter. What WP:MEMORIAL is intended to avoid is people attempting to eulogise recently dead non-notable people, usually a relative or friend to whom they (mistakenly) want to provide a tribute by writing a Wikipedia article about them. There is a difference between that and writing articles about people who were killed in wars where the process of remembering them is recorded in independent and reliable sources. Such an article may appear to be a WP:MEMORIAL, but there is a difference between an article written as a memorial and an article about how someone is remembered by society. Do you see the difference I am trying to describe? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has quite a lot of background material that is not about Reed and tends more to obscure him than enlighten us about his service. The article would be stronger if it was shorter in fact, but there is no doubt in my mind that he easily meets the WP:GNG. The senior commands he held, the Navy Cross, "Captain Reed Day" all help too. I don't believe WP:NOTMEMORIAL is intended for cases like this. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete: large amounts of the article remain unreferenced, which makes it difficult to accurately determine if the coverage is significant. In its current form, I'm not sure that the level of coverage actually does meet WP:SIGCOV, but if the remainder of the article could be referenced to reliable sources, I believe it would be a keeper. (I have marked where I feel refs are needed in the article). It is important to note that WP:SOLDIER does not state that any topic is automatically notable, but rather provides advice about what is likely to be notable, so it shouldn't be quoted as the be all and end all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The portion of the citation quoted in the article for Reed's award of the Navy Cross seems to make clear that it was awarded for distinguished service, not valor, so the preceding discussion of notability associated with award of a nation's highest or second highest award for award is irrelevant. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Philafrenzy - the intro alone does more to "obscure him than enlighten us about his service". I am happy to start digging in and see what I can do to eliminate sources like Find a Grave, condense the less essential information, and highlight what is meaningful and notable. I love to edit, particularly biographies, but I have not worked on many military articles, so any pointers are appreciated.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have stripped out everything that was marked as citation needed - and removed some content that does appear to be original research - and moved those items to Talk:Allen B. Reed. I am stopping for the present to see if the article has any chance before putting more time into it. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find good biographical information that I was hoping to find.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per article improvements; I'm not convinced that the subject's commands were significant enough as a notability claim and / or that the coverage is sufficient. But the article is not a TNT-able version that it used to be. Note: should the article be kept, I suggest that most (if not all) pre-WWI content go, as the level of detail on a junior officer is undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I scrunched all the pre-World War I sections into "Early career" and edited it down quite a bit. If it looks like it will be a viable article, then I'm happy to work on it some more. I am really bothered, though, by two things - and I don't know whether it should affect the outcome of the article or not. I cannot find anything at all about him being buried at Arlington Cemetery. If he was buried there, I would think it would be reported on somewhere. That was going to be my way into finding biographical info - because if he was buried there, then there would likely be something printed somewhere about his service. I didn't find a thing. He also would have likely had a Find a Grave record set up by the military with the cemetery and grave info, but the Find a Grave record was started by a person (if I am remembering correctly how you tell if the military record was sent.) And, why were there several medals listed on the page, but he only seems to have received the Navy Cross? Isn't it weird?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So weird, I just found the Arlington Cemetery record by searching here. I thought this was one of the places I checked.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC) - struck out comment about this, since I ultimately did find it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, still, isn't it strange that there's nothing worthwhile that comes from a query on his name and Arlington National Cemetery?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major commands during wartime. (he was commander of a transport ship during WWI). The award of the Navy Cross seems rather peculiar, and even the citation said it was for his general service. ,which is basically meaningless. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: Why are you pointing out that he did not hold a major command during wartime? No-one has claimed this, and while those who hold major command during wartime are notable, those who don't can still be notable. And what is your basis for saying that the award of his Navy Cross seems "rather peculiar"? Do you have anything to base that on, or is it just your personal opinion? The actual citation (to avoid misleading anyone who is reading this) states:
  "for distinguished service in the line of his profession as Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. SUSQUEHANNA, engaged in the important, exacting and hazardous duty of transporting and escorting troops and supplies to European ports through waters infested with enemy submarines and mines during World War I."
  That is clearly wartime service, not general service. I get the point being made that it was not for valour, and that the initial awards were "made from a lengthy list published after World War I", but it does contribute to his notability, even if it doesn't establish it. I think what people may be doing here is dismissing the Navy Cross completely because it is not at a high enough level, but the award should still be taken into account rather than dismissed in its entirety. To call the award "meaningless" verges on being offensive. @CaroleHenson: About the unsourced material, the searches often need to be done on "A. B. Reed", which brings up more details of his Port Balboa service in the volumes of the Panama Canal Record. Also, his promotion to navy captain in 1927 is easily found here in Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, Regarding the date he made captain, I added that to the article. I'm not sure, though, how many people are comfortable using snippets as sources. In this case, the sentence that is needed is visible in the snippet boxes, so I used it. Someone may remove / tag it, though, as a heads-up.

Regarding finding other sources, if you find more sources, please post it on Talk:Allen B. Reed. I am happy to make updates. If you can find sources for uncited content that was the World War II section, I think it will make a stronger case for notability. Otherwise, I'll wait til there is a decision to "keep" the article to do any more research.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being captain of a transport ship is not a major command. It may well have been dangerous, but it still is not a major command.. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it is not a major command, but no-one is claiming that, so why you are repeating this, I still don't know. Of course it was dangerous. There is no "may" about it. I am not saying that being in command of a US troopship during World War I confers notability (it doesn't), but overall (together with the other material) it puts Reed in that borderline area where there is coverage at a certain level over a certain period of time, without there being any one single thing that definitely makes him notable. Whether that is enough to pass the bar for notability still seems rather subjective. Some people think that it is enough, others think it is not enough. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree analysis of the guidelines, and which should take precedence in a given situation, often is subjective. And, here's my thoughts - mostly reading between the lines - and by definition absolutely subjective. I think he was a very reliable, steady officer - someone who early in his career was chosen to be an escort to a commander of a Japanese warship and sat on an inquiry board. He received the Navy Cross for managing a dangerous situation in a way that his superiors thought commendable. IMO he's the kind of guy that I'd want commanding a ship during war... and as a side comment and pure conjecture, I think he's likely not the kind of commander that Kennedy worried about during the quarantine of the Cuban Missile crisis. So, I would like his article to stay.

But we're not finding secondary sources for him except for changes in his status - so it's essentially primary data. The only one that's close to a story about him is the one about his being escort to Takeshita Isamu - and it's just a couple of sentences. The biggest issue is that were not able to find even one secondary source that explores his career, and the guideline for notability calls for significant coverage.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the eight listed criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE nor does there appear to be "significant coverage [of him] in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the subject appears to be notable, but the article is not a "C" class; it's more like a "start'. Here's another example of a poorly cited article that could use some real work on it, and going to AfD, instead of some other board for editing and formatting help. The problem is not just the citations, but the formatting, which can be solved by templates. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got about half-way through the article - verifying the content, removing original research or content that failed verification, formatting the citations, etc. If it is deemed to be a "keep", I am very happy to finish the work. There's a ton of information that I moved to the talk page. If someone can find sources for that, it can be returned. If there were sources found for the other medals (which would explain his career) and the World War II career, it would stand a better chance. If some biographical content could be found, that would help quite a bit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot less work now than it did before CaroleHenson began her edit (nice job). I think he's borderline notable, but on the upper side of the line. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had an illuminating conversation today about the Afd process that has put a different slant on things for me. Before 10/23, there weren't a lot of people that read the article, but there has been a minor, but steady interest, the article has been around since 2012, and there are aspects of his career that are notable—so what is the harm in keeping this article? I just struck out some comments I made on 09:05, 6 December 2016. To Bearian's point, I'll go ahead and finish the clean-up of the citations and verification of content to source info - and then we'll also have a better view of things.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I finished what I think is the best I can do at this point. I worked to address the issue raised by K.e.coffman about the undue content from his early career - by leaving the most noteworthy items in the section, removing some of the content that wasn't noteworthy, and putting some of the details in notes. The rest of the article has been verified, reworded based upon source content, and formatted citations.
There was also some cited content about the Mexican Revolution and USS Worden from articles about the ships he was on, so that's added, too.
I am not sure if my phraseology is alway right, for instance there is probably a term for the period "Between the two world wars". I'm thinking it's something like inter wars-- I cannot remember. If the article is "kept", it would be great if someone that is more familiar with the topic could review the article to ensure it's properly worded.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have done great work Carole. If five commands, the Navy Medal for "exacting and hazardous duty of transporting and escorting troops and supplies to European ports through waters infested with enemy submarines and mines" (if that's not for valour I don't know what is), and a day named after him isn't enough then I think we need to take a serious look at our policies. This is exactly the sort of article that readers are hoping to find when they consult the encyclopedia. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:35, 8 December 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.