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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonfund.org[edit]

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

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

This page was created back in 2006, and subsequently expanded over the years by many suspiciously COI accounts, which included obvious ones like Carbonfundorg and Carbonfund. The page came to my attention after I recently blocked Emcarlsondc for using Wikipedia as a promotional platform, who also appears to be the president of this organization. One of the associates from this organization Lizschwartzer also recently updated the article directly. Now back to the article itself, I initially tagged the page for COI, as there are many extraneous information and the usual name dropping for non-notable organizations trying to assert notability, but a further look suggest that it may not meet WP:ORG sufficiently. The current state of sourcing in this article largely fails WP:ORGIND, and a Google News search for more sources to find notability for this organization returned mostly sources that are either 1) passing mention 2) press release 3) or simply fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Alex Shih^Talk 22:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Google news...returned mostly"? That leaves an exception like:

Story, Louise (January 9, 2008), "F.T.C. Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent", New York Times, retrieved 2017-10-28, Carbonfund.org, for example, which provides offsets to companies like Amtrak and Allstate, uses the offset money in three ways: to plant trees; to subsidize wind and solar power so that it can be sold at more competitive prices; and to purchase credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which barters among hundreds of companies trying to reduce their emissions.

Most of the nomination is irrelevant personal attacks.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG, although possibly on a somewhat milder level. Below are some sources, several of which are paywalled. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  I also saw some good snippets on Google scholar.  [1], "...this paper examines the effect of the film on carbon offsets purchased through Carbonfund.org...Two aspects of Carbonfund are notable..."  Unscintillating (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above. Looks notable enough to me. The possible COI is now flagged with a template. If there are problems with the content, they can be fixed with editing, and by adding more independent sources. -- Gpc62 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2017 (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. Clearly no consensus on whether to delete or keep the page. Given how many of these articles have been put through AFD recently, the next step, if any, should probably be an RFC about the Cricket SSG, rather than more AFDs. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I. Kudigame[edit]

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

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

BLP which is unreferenced since 2009 and fails GNG. We don't even have the rudimentary information required to write a biography: the person's given name or date of birth. He appeared in one match which is the sole claim of notability (BLP1E). According to the article text, "he did not bat or bowl in the match"; that being the case, there is absolutely nothing about the player to write in the article. After a successful deletion through PROD, the article was REFUNDed with the contestant's rationale: "easily passes WP:CRIN." This article serves as an excellent example of why we can't let SSGs override GNG. Dee03 20:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order. Yet again, this editor is citing BLP1E in flagrant breach of its own ruling that WP:NSPORTS is outside its scope. Sports people noted for a single event are subject to the SSG as this editor might realise if he actually takes the trouble to READ the guideline. This is a disruptive AfD which is bang out of order. See also the entries below re WP:NEXIST, etc. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• General request - we either need to put a stop to frivolous nomination of articles which clearly meet WP:CRIN, or to have a serious discussion about whether WP:CRIN is fit for purpose. As for "references", the "references" are the same as the "external links", it's just that back then they were more often being added as external links. Exactly the same links but with a different heading. Bobo. 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - actually, cricket articles are the proof that SSGs have nothing to do with GNG and prove GNG to be completely needless and pointless. The fact that we have kept to the same basic inclusion criteria since I joined, and that nobody has been able to come up with better criteria in thirteen years, is proof that the SSG criteria are probably fine. Bobo. 21:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still find it suspicious that nobody who disagrees with the basic tenets of WP:CRIN and is likely to contribute to this AfD decided to pipe up here... Bobo. 21:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria (CRIN) have been in place for 13 years doesn't mean they are "probably fine". Especially when you look at the number of articles that have been deleted in the past few weeks despite meeting the said criteria. And GNG doesn't become "completely needless and pointless" just because you say so. The closing admin of the most recent AFD wrote, "It seems clear to me from the RFC that community consensus is now that the sports-specific guidelines (i.e. WP:NCRIC, etc) do not override the WP:GNG." Looks like the current community consensus isn't the same as what it was 13 years ago, and perhaps it's time you accepted that. Dee03 21:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case appropriate conversation needs to take place to change the guidelines, and until these guidelines are changed I will simply assume the guidelines are fine as they are. Bobo. 21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines need to be changed? It doesn't matter if CRIN is changed, the subject still has to meet GNG which this particular gentleman doesn't. Dee03 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of every single cricket deletion discussion is the simple fact that WP:BIO and WP:N directly contradict each other, each rendering the other completely meaningless. Bobo. 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have added a second source just in case the WP:ONESOURCE argument pops up here... Anyone who wishes to reformat these as references is free to do so if they wish. Bobo. 03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither of the sources add up to significant coverage. This article is orders of magnitude below the general notability guidelines. We have for far too long included articles on people with literally no coverage. I am not sure how to do it, but it is 100% clear that the cricket notability guidelines need to be scapped in favor of something actually in line with where reliable sources are likely to be found. A general review of all sports guidelines is actually in order. Our sports coverage is way out of touch with reality. Starting with the assumption that every participant in the close to free for all 1904 Olympics is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a list of Galle Cricket Club players. It's clear that diluting bare statistical data across a multitude of almost contentless microstubs is becoming an untenable situation. The sources are not even sufficient to determine this person's full name. Merging into lists of players by club seems a better way to present this very trivial data. If no suitable list exists, simply delete. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cricket guidelines have done us fine for the last 12 years and it's only in the last month or so that they have been causing problems, mostly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT - but also, it has to be sadly said, because of the contradictory guidelines regarding notability. Once again we need to say, "If the guidelines need to be scrapped, we need to work, as a team and collaboratively, on new guidelines which can be universally applied". Bobo. 06:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- at the time of writing, this "article" contains 41 words of text about this obscure person and a whopping 116 words in a bizarre footnote not actually about the player, but full of circuitous wikilawyering and special pleading, attempting to explain why this article should be exempt from WP:V and WP:N. This is very clearly a hopeless case. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for a certain clique of time-wasters, there would be no need for the footnote. Surely you are not claiming that footnotes are deprecated? A footnote is used, inter alia, for explanation of a facet that is not directly relevant to the subject. The key point you have noticeably ignored is that Mr Kudigame has THREE inline citations of THREE reliable sources and, as the footnote explains, WP:NEXIST applies to Sri Lankan cricketers because reliable and expansive Sinhalese sources DO EXIST. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Jack, the "timewasters" appear to be getting their own way via a set of rather tasty and contradictory Wikipedia guidelines. "This is disruption, but not as we know it, Jim". If these "timewasters" simply worked by the most basic WP guideline that we learn on our first day, NPOV, there would be nothing to debate. Bobo. 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect (or smerge) if a suitable list can be found. We have incomplete database entries only which demonstrate probable existence rather than the in depth sources required to show notability. As far as I can tell those sources do not exist and I feel it is going to be hard to assume that they do given where and when he played in his only known game of cricket. With an initial and surname and one scorecard we can say so little about the chap that I see no realistic possibility that the article can be developed in any way. If such sources can be located then it is easy to recreate the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Although these obsessive anti-CRIN individuals will not admit it, there are in existence significant Sri Lankan sources as we were able to establish in the case of Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). A contact in Sri Lanka was willing to check a highly reputable Sinhalese newspaper, Dinamina, for a specific match report and found additional information about that player. While we obviously cannot expect anyone in Sri Lanka to perform short-term checks of Dinamina for every single first-class player, the match report she did check proves not only that Sinhalese sources exist but also that their cricket coverage effectively matches that of newspapers in the English-speaking countries. The fact of this level of coverage by Dinamina and other Sinhalese publications meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. These nominations are disruptive. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Inline citations. There are now inline citations from THREE independent sources in the article, all of them meeting WP:RS and, by means of a footnote, an explanation of how the article meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. I suggest that this AfD is closed immediately as a complete waste of everybody's time. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the two basic notability "guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. The only way to work to guidelines is by following simple, universally applicable notability criteria. As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided

And while WP:DONTKNOWTHEGUYSFIRSTNAME sounds like a nice rationale for deletion, it sounds a tad unwieldy for a hashtag, doesn't it? ;) Bobo. 14:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BlackJack. If Sri Lankan sources exist, there is no reason for this AfD to exist. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't think it is reasonable to assume that sources exist which provide "significant coverage" for Mr Kudigame, a player who appeared in one match in which he did not even bat or bowl. Even if a source gives us his first name in passing, that is still considered to be "trivial mention" and therefore insufficient to establish notability. Just having his full name (trivial mention) or statistical profile (falls under routine coverage) appear in one or more reliable sources is NOT sufficient to claim that he qualifies to have a standalone article. Dee03 19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this nomination disruptive? I have already cited multiple policies/guidelines which this article clearly fails to meet making it eligible for a deletion discussion. Time-wasters? I would appreciate it if User:BlackJack behaves in a WP:CIVIL manner and assumes good faith once in a while. Dee03 19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive because you and your friend Rhadow are pursuing some kind of agenda without knowledge or understanding of what you are doing. For example, I note that you have YET AGAIN cited BLP1E as your main reason for opposing this article. If you care to READ that guideline you will see that NSPORTS is expressly outside its scope. Before you come into areas like AfD shouting the odds about this article and that article I strongly recommend that you work on articles to gain experience and, in the longer term, credibility. As for the garbage you have written immediately above, I suggest that you are not reasonable in the slightest. Of course the Sinhalese sources exist and of course they provide information, especially at local level, that English sources cannot. Real world calling. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is one of the several guidelines I cited, GNG being the main one and you continue to conveniently skip talking about GNG in all of your utterly rubbish rationales. BLP1E states some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. -- It says "may support the notability" and does not state that sports articles are totally exempt from the guideline as you claim. And per the WP:NEXIST guidline you keep crying about, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. As for "working on articles to gain experience" or whatever, I will choose to do what I want to with the limited free time I have for Wikipedia and certainly not be told by you regarding that. Sure, any guideline that opposes your point of view is "garbage". If there is anyone shouting the odds at AfDs these days, it's you. Dee03 13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dee, we have over and over again pointed out that the places in which the basic notability guidelines are noted, work on completely contradictory principles. This is why all of the sweeping notability guideline pages can and should be completely disregarded. Yes, we should stop talking about these sweeping notability guidelines, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. Bobo. 15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the two most comprehensive and accurately compiled cricket databases on the Internet are "trivial", please cite what you would consider to be non-trivial references. The irony is that usually it is the other way around. It takes six months to find a text reference to, say, a football player, and when we do so, it would probably just be a reference in John Smith's "List of all-time Southampton FC players", published by Anonymous Random Books in 1976. Why do we trust John Smith more than anyone else? As for citing numerous guidelines, the fact that the two main guidelines directly contradict each other should render both completely worthless. Bobo. 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - this is clearly allowed by WP:CRIN, if you disagree with that you should take it up at the discussion page (where an active discussion is under way where I agree with the nominator's basic point). Procedurally, a consensus can't over-turn the 5 pillars or the 3 core content policies. However, WP:Notability isn't any of these. With a lack of content, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are trivially met, and the existing sources are sufficient for WP:V. As far as WP:5P1 is concerned, this clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialized almanac. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought about 5P1 before. Cheers for bringing this to our attention. Bobo. 22:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's brilliant. It never occurred to me either. Thank you, power~enwiki (once again, as it happens). All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional rationale for keep. I would add, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.

Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - Please disregard any keep vote based on WP:NEXIST. That guideline states this at the end: once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. It has been 9 years since the creation of this article and surely that qualifies as enough time passed without any proof of existence of such sources. Dee03 13:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NEXIST argument was directly invoked by User:BlackJack in both his votes. The keep votes of User:Bobo192 and User:Lepricavark were in agreement with BlackJack's rationale and align with the content of NEXIST. Dee03 13:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop dictating what other admins' thoughts should be. My argument had nothing to do with NEXIST, once again I was merely thanking Jack and Power-enwiki for bringing up a point which I had never considered before. I commented earlier that because the two basic notability guidelines contradict each other, the only fair yardstick is the brightline one appearance criterion. Bobo. 15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a request (see the "Please" at the start of the note?), not dictating. And these are your own words in your keep vote: "As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided". You are agreeing with Jack's rationale which is based on NEXIST and have also claimed that there is proof of press coverage which is basically what NEXIST says (existence of sources which are not in the article). I can not find the so-called press coverage sources being cited in the article, as of now, and it has been 9 years already. Dee03 07:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The article is now referenced.  GNG is irrelevant if the lede of WP:N is satisfied.  Nor is this a proper deletion nomination, as notability is not relevant to deletion without analysis of WP:ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education for sustainable development[edit]

Education for sustainable development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is an essay, largely presenting the views of the UN but in Wikipedia's voice. It is a violation of WP:NOTESSAY. Yes, the topic is notable and the article could be rewritten, but this rewriting would have to be comprehensive and has not taken place in the more than 10 years that the article has been in a terrible state. This is a case where we should apply WP:TNT. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:TNT is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and is used simply as an excuse for laziness. If a topic is notable, as this obviously is (just look at the Google Books hits above where you will see several books from academic publishers about this very topic), then anyone who is unhappy with the content should change it, which can include replacing it entirely, rather than call for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The template added by Captain Raju (calling for help with improvements) is the appropriate response, not deletion. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The UN dedicated a whole decade (2005–2014) to the promotion of it. --Vihelik (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sherwin[edit]

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

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

De-PROD'd without explanation, the subject fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:PROF. After stripping away every article and citation written by/ associated with the subject, essentially nothing is left. Per WP:BIO1E, the subject was a low-profile individual. Also, I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - accusations of this biography being a memorial has poisoned the well and I take offense to the accusation. I consider this AfD compromised as a result of the false allegations which^{14:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)} have no standing and absolutely no basis for why I created this biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Research performed by this individual was significant and notable. The studies performed were covered by independent third-party sources. Meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - highly notable in his field, a cited published academic who has made significant contributions to his field of study, particularly in the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. WP:ACADEMIC clearly states: Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. There is little doubt that his work meets the notability criteria in his academic field, (entomology-zoology-veterinary biology), having served as a member of the working group that drafted the scientific risk assessment which was reviewed by the Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) panel and adopted as their scientific opinion on the “Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes” published in the 2005 EFSA Journal. He also authored Chapter 25, The Husbandry and Welfare of Non-Traditional Laboratory Rodents in "The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals" (8th edition). ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris Troutman. Sorry, but as sad as it is that this editor has died, Wikipedia is not a memorial. We have WP:RIP for that. This article was started just a month after his death which leads me to believe that this was solely created for that reason, and not on notability grounds, which in itself, is very thin. Cassianto^Talk 20:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cassianto: I've no opinion on this article and am only here as I saw the AFD being discussed elsewhere, but "created a month after his death" isn't particularly unusual and shouldn't be taken as a sign of anything untoward—it's fairly common for someone to read an obituary and think "this person looks interesting, I wonder what Wikipedia says about them?" and then create an article when they realise Wikipedia doesn't already have one. When you see a biography sourced only to obituaries it's a huge red flag, but otherwise I wouldn't consider the timings of any concern. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I take that on board, and perhaps that was the case, but that’s just as hypothetical as my scenario. The truth is, we may never know the reasons for creating it, but it does seem quite coincidental, wouldn’t you agree? Cassianto^Talk 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto - I did not create this article as a memorial, and I am offended by the accusation. Please stop it. The man is notable in his field of academics and there is plenty of verifiability. Just look at his body of work. Animal behavior and welfare are highly notable areas of research, especially with laws that have been passed to make animal abuse a felony in some states. You might want to read the article, and look at his work in highly notable academic and scientific journals. You don't think I can see what's going on here with these false claims of memorializing? That alone should void this AfD. It's shameful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m offended that you’re offended and being offended in the first place doesn’t make you right. How do you know I’ve not read the article? Could you provide a spot of evidence to suggest I haven’t? Is it your intention to bludgeon everyone who comments differently to you? It’s shameful. Cassianto^Talk 07:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subject fails GNG and WP:NACADEMIC as there just isn't sourcing attesting to his notability anywhere, including the academic world. That he has some published works is par for the course for academics and does not make him notable on Wikipedia. There're no independent sources talking about how he's done groundbreaking research (I know the memorial thing exists but that's a personal memorial, not an academic RS discussing his contributions). I realize the subject was a Wikipedia editor and that those !voting keep above were wikifriends with this editor and contributed to this article but being a Wikipedia editor doesn't make the subject notable, either. Perhaps someone could publish this memorial page on a blog; given WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC) edited 20:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable fails GNG. Article obviously written by wikimates after his death - WP:NOTMEMORIAL in spades. Would have nommed it myself had I known it existed. Roxy the dog. bark 20:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please - this has nothing to do with memorializing anyone. He already has a memorial. This is about the impact he has had on animal welfare and husbandry - the welfare of laboratory animals, behavioral studies that are extremely notable. The man's work and the impact he has had in his academic field are what matters. Read the article, and keep in mind he has over 2,000 citations in scientific and academic journals. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this badgering Atsme, it is pathetic. Roxy the dog. bark 11:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominating editor quite obviously has an axe to grind with the "community" as they describe it. I have been editing for just a year now, and have been assisted by some of these editors, but have only messaged with the target subject once, so I am quite objective. The nominating editor has thrown five notability guidelines at this subject that says the subject fails, which seems excessive, difficult, and unfair for the editor of the article to have to respond to all of them and overzealous of the nominating editor. Also, the nominating editor has quite obviously thrown down a gauntlet here: [2] and shown he is not neutral on this article. He has also found some others editors who have also obviously been apprised of the fact that the article subject was a Wikipedian, and thus the article needs to be shut down. They could not have come up with this information on their own. The fact that the article was created a month or so after the death of the subject does not mean it is automatically non-notable. I don't think the author of the article is able to get a fair shake in this AfD. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore my message as I made unfounded and unprovable accusations including editors who have colluded to vote together. And I was unapparently misunderstanding a message on a talk page for Chris about the nominator accusing the community of doing this all the time. So, I have nothing to add to this discussion, but I have learned much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has an axe to grind? Please AGF. Nominating an AfD does not mean that the nominator has a personal vendetta against the subject matter, and I think it’s quite wrong of you to suggest otherwise. Cassianto^Talk 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did the nominator title a section j'accuse? here [3] which, in French, means literally "I accuse," and then accuses the community of always composing articles like these after a fellow Wikipedian dies? dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnleelynn: You'll note there was a blue-link in my comment; this sort of thing has happened before. Wikipedians do this stuff. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Chris - you brought this AfD for all the wrong reasons, and I am offended by it. You are accusing me of memorializing an editor I barely knew. Hogwash! I deal with animals and vets on a daily basis - I've worked with biologists-zoologists in the field before I retired, and as a rancher, it's part of my daily life. The latter was my only reason for writing this article. Nobody knew DrChrissy's id - it was surprising to many of us when we found out how accomplished he was in his field of academics, in animal behavior, husbandry and welfare. He was researching if fish could feel pain. Who wouldn't be interested? City folks, maybe but there are a lot of readers out there from rural and suburban areas who would have an interest in his work...and yes, he is highly notable in his field of academics, and I'm embarrassed that so many of you are unable to see it as NPRs because you're so focused on the memorializing BS. What a shame. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support Atsme in this respect because I am neutral on this matter. I did not know the subject of the article when he was an editor, but I knew of him as we were all members of the same wikiproject. Atsme is telling the truth that none of us knew his identity prior to his death. There is no evidence that this article was written to memorialize the editor. The timing of the article does not make a case for it being a memorial.dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I am not sure I get this but I think what you are saying is that I misunderstood the intention of this message. If so, I sincerely apologize. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was this AfD; before your time. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're too gracious. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GS h-index of 18 (note: this may be an underestimate [4]) sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• According to WP:NACADEMIC#Citation metrics, Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Ca2james (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An unsourced opinion written a decade ago. Citations can be used to compared like with like, but some experience is needed. There is much debate on the matter in the archive pages in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Without being able to compare Sherwin's h-index with someone (preferably a leader) in the same field, I don't see how the h-index helps evaluate notability here. Ca2james (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to; it's entirely imaginary. H-index does not share a consensus for notability, as you pointed out already. Some editors feel empowered to ignore our guidelines and just make stuff up. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, per WP:PROF's concept of the "average professor test", a comparison of such metrics with those of other veterinary researchers would in fact be useful here, one way or the other. I'm not ready to take a position here, and am watching the discussion, but I want to note for transparency that there is a discussion of this AfD at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veterinary scientists would be a good place to look. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citation search I did for C.M. Sherwin came back 2526, h-31, i10-54. I also found this interesting article about H-index which states: The top 25% of Professors had a H-index of 30 or greater. There is discipline variation... and when you go to the link, it provides a list with various disciplines. I also posted this info on the article TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per above - It's sad they've died however we need to put our feelings aside and judge based on the notability etc which unfortunately in this case there isn't much notability at all, Fails WP:NACADEMIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment C'mon, Davey2010 - he doesn't fail - he passes with flying colors. Don't let the memorial crap poison this well. The man spent decades researching animal behavior, helping farmers better accommodate their animals, helping researchers better accommodate laboratory animals which serves to benefit researchers. Read his bio - read the articles he's written...look at the individual citations in the scientific & academic journals to which I provided a link to his Google Scholar results. It is clearly notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per sources below as well as those in the article, Meets GNG. (Thanks for the ping Atsme :)) –Davey2010^Talk 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not a field I'm familiar with and not a North American academic, so I'm less likely to be of use in assessing based on PROF, but I do want to point out that whatever one thinks on the GNG vs. SNG debate, the one SNG where it is abundantly clear that meeting the GNG is not required is WP:PROF. We just had a site-wide RfC on PROF to determine its relationship with the GNG and the overwhelming consensus was that PROF is independent of the GNG and academics don't need need to pass the GNG if they pass PROF. Arguments rooted in the GNG here don't have a policy-basis if it is determined the subject meets PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni, the bar at WP:PROF is intentionally much higher than the GNG—which of the criteria do you think this person meets? I can see a potential claim to notability under the "multiple independent non-trivial sources" part of GNG, but saying WP:PROF is the correct standard to apply would be a strong argument for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I'm aware, and that was actually one of my arguments in the recent RfC for why it should be independent of the GNG. There is unfortunately a misunderstanding with PROF that thinks the requirements of it are lower because the sourcing tends to be primary, which is why I commented. You have situations where you do have a PROF pass, but a failure of the GNG in many eyes for this reason. As I said, not a field I'm familiar with and not an academic from a region where I'm aware of the academic climate, so I'm don't have an opinion on this case, If the argument based on the GNG is that he has received coverage/citations based on his academic work, but this work does not rise to the level of meeting PROF, then I would agree with you that it would be a good argument for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been my opinion all SNGs are independent of GNG unless they have verbiage otherwise. I would be fine not nominating this article if there was any criterion I thought the subject passed, GNG or an SNG. Sorry if my nom was confusing on that point. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're fine Chris. I had seen a comment assessing only on the GNG, which is why I threw this in here. As I said to Iridescent, and I implied in the RfC, I think failure of PROF is a strong argument for deletion in itself for most academics. I didn't want this to turn into a PROF vs. GNG war as has happened recently on a few AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, a successful academic whose field of study is entomology-zoology-veterinary biology-animal welfare is not as widespread as one might imagine, and probably rarely even considered in urban areas. The number of universities around the world that even offer courses in veterinary medicine or animal science are not plentiful. This field of study clearly falls under the NOTE section of WP:ACADEMICS. Despite the handicap, the guy is highly cited in scientific journals, academics, and has made a significant impact in his field. It is undeniable. The memorial crap is just that. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, Iridescent and other participants who were unsure if Sherwin met the requirements per WP:ACADEMICS, I invite you to re-examine the article now that it has been expanded and more secondary sources have been cited, and also please review the article TP for other sources that are listed but not yet included. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add Davey2010 to ping. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here we have GNG met even if PROF is a little light. His research was very notable. I fail to see the argument that the article has only primary sources; the Nature article is clearly third-party, and the Hume fellowship is also notable. As for creation, I personally have heard about these lab animal welfare experiments for some time, they have been widely publicized, and speaking only for myself, I had not connected this wikipedian's identity and notability until the obit was published, publicly linking the person as a wikipedian. I was blown away that we had a researcher of this level of notability amongst us. Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - his research has had a significant impact - for example see this Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy report wherein his research is cited twice. There are numerous others which substantiate the impact his research has had in his academic field. The article doesn't have to list all the citations - there are way too many to list - it's a summary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single paper of his was cited twice in that document, to consecutive sentences. It's perfectly normal for researchers' papers to be cited and such a situation does not mean he's notable. Ca2james (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, two cites does not make a person notable, but 1500 citations, when I stopped counting on GS, does. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

From WP:NACADEMIC#Citation metrics: GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only. Again, comparisons of Sherwin's GS cites with GS cites for similar researchers are needed. The numbers by themselves aren't enough to determine notability. Ca2james (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the actual citations - not the guidelines - that's how you determine significance of truly reliable scholarly material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. You've been a Wikipedian for some time and you know what WP:N says. That citations exist does not necessarily satisfy N. Maybe you think it does. Please don't confuse the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that N is a better metric for the hard sciences than for things like this (and useless for the law where no one cites each other at all). Also, the standard here is GNG, and we have a significant number of scientific respect (as noted by Xxanthippe as well as third-party coverage from mainstream news sources. GNG is met. Montanabw^{[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]} 02:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of citations works for any area in which people publish provided that one compares like with like, i.e. one does not compare theologians (a field with a very low citation rates) with pop-psychologists (often high rates), still less with computer scientists (a very high cited field). Anyway, this one passes both WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Citation counts are above threshold for WP:PROF#C1, and the two online obituaries [5] [6] while not adding much to notability in themselves give us plenty of sourced material to use for our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to WP:RIP, which is where memorial articles about Wikipedians go. The subject fails notability guidelines, and the citations do not prove notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and the infobox is misleading (a research fellowship is not an "award"; the claim of having "influenced" the Animal Ethics Committee of the International Society for Applied Ethology is cited to a single non-substantive footnote which lists more than 20 people). It's human nature to want to memorialize and honor a colleague who has passed away, but the venue for that on Wikipedia is WP:RIP, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with honoring anyone's life or death so please stop the misrepresentations and fallacious RIP claims ad nauseum - that's why it's a biography and not a BLP, and that's where it ends. I am offended by your allegation that I created this article as a memorial. Try looking at the 2000+ citations in notable academic and scientific journals, and the importance of his discoveries over decades of researching and documenting animal behavior and other studies involving animal husbandry, welfare, living conditions - zoology - entomology - poultry - laboratory animal welfare - and farm animals. His work is cited on a global scale. It's really sad that the fallacious claim of a memorial has become such a distraction to his notability and the significant impact his work has had on so many levels - an impact that will have a lasting effect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's especially fallacious because nowhere in the article is any connection to Wikipedia even mentioned, nor has anyone here been using the Hume Fellowship as an argument for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did mention the Hume fellowship in my second comment, but I'll leave it to the science folks to expand on its relevance. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now the Wikipedia connection is mentioned, too. I'm striking my comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he is notable in his field, the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. His best known paper has been cited 380 times and numerous others are often cited, so I believe he meets WP:PROF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & Comment: A notable, influential, well respected and much cited academic. If the OP wants to clean up WP, suggest he concentrates on all the articles about celebrities who's only notability is being Famous for being famous during their 15 minutes of fame. WP is not Facebook, it is an encyclopedia so we should keep the above questioned article as being encyclopedic and in scope. The fact that the subject's true identity and notability only became known to the WP community a few months after his death is neither here nor there, as Dr. Sherwin would still have been worthy of a WP Bio whilst in life. So the proposal to delete holds no merit. Aspro (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was unsure at first, but when I looked around for sources, I saw how often he's cited. I've added several secondary sources that discuss his research:

• Nicol, Christine J. (2015). The Behavioural Biology of Chickens. Wallingford: CABI, p. 164.
• Fraser, David (2013) [2008]. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, p. 199.
• "Behavioural need", in D. S. Mills and Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, p. 52.
• "Light and behaviour", in D. S. Mills, Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, p. 387.
• Friend, Ted (2005). "Book reviews", Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 43(4), July 1995, p. 304.

In addition, there is the Nature article. He does seem to meet WP:PROF: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline ... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- meets GNG in my mind; here's sample coverage of Schwerin's research on laboratory mice:
• Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context, by David Fraser
• "Curious mice need room to run", Nature

WP:RIP does not seem to apply; the article should be evaluated on the merits of Wiki notability. I believe that these requirements are met. Note: The page should probably lose the long list of journal articles, or at least limit them to a few most significant / widely cited ones. That way the article would look less promotional, and actually more substantive. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF #1 and 6.

• PROF#1, reliable evidence of significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, is met by SV's and K.e.coffman's sources and by the obituary, which notes that among his "influential studies" and "notable theoretical contributions" was a seminal paper on invertebrate suffering which anticipated current research on insects.
• Additionally, his chairing the Animal Ethics Committee of the International Society for Applied Ethology arguably qualifies him for PROF#6, held a highest-level administrative post at a major academic society. This feeds back to his impact on his field: as the chair of this committee and author of many recommendations and official positions, he had a significant effect on the consensus in the field about ethical standards, which filter down to national rules about how hundreds of millions of laboratory animals must be treated. FourViolas (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've been agonizing over this AfD, and anyone looking at my talk page can see that I have been very skeptical about the notability of this page, and I'm trying very hard not to let my personal Wiki-friendship get in the way of my objective assessment of notability as we define it here. (And all the speculation about editor motivations here does not help.) I've been doing a lot of digging, and I've come to the conclusion that the subject does indeed pass WP:PROF, albeit perhaps a bit narrowly. I went through every page in Category:Veterinary scientists, and for each person in the present era I looked at what I could find of their publication metrics, assuming that those pages pass notability and that these persons are fair comparisons in terms of working in the same scholarly field. Dr. Sherwin's metrics are a little below the median for the group, but well within the range (Janine Brown scores considerably higher, but all of the others are very close). I've also critically evaluated the citations of his work that are mentioned by other editors above. I think we have to be careful there. Simply citing work by "Sherwin et al." in another scholarly work does not make for demonstration of notability, because the scientific literature is full of such citations and they are typically routine. So I've disqualified most of the ones mentioned by other editors above. What I feel that I need to see are independent sources that do not merely cite Sherwin's work, but that explicitly discuss what the authors consider to be the importance and influence of his work and attribute to him by name. And we do have that. This discussion assesses his research in the context of earlier research, and concludes that what he did moved the field forward. And even more important is the Nature news piece. Nature is at the very top of scientific journals, and the fact that they decided to run a report of newsworthy research findings that is entirely devoted to Sherwin's work and its importance is exactly the kind of independent notice required by WP:GNG. It quotes two other veterinary scientists, Donald Broom and Kathleen Mathers, as assessing Sherwin's work to be important. For me, that seals the deal as putting this page in "keep" territory. (And Atsme, please stop badgering the deletes, OK?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need not have agonized. Now that the GS profile has been established, it gives a slam dunk pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I'll admit that I have a gut-level negative reaction to bios of WP editors, and that it wasn't until I really looked into the details that I felt able to reach the conclusion that I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I was going to source this article better myself, but I see now it is unneccessary. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Epipelagic: Please do. The nom is correct that if you remove all the subject's own materials and non-independent sources (e.g., U. of Bristol stuff) there's very little in the way of RS other than passing mentions. This article is likely to be kept (if it is kept) on the basis of nothing but academic citation rates, and people above are even challenging that. I'm not finding a lot with the usual non-paywalled search techniques. Did find some obits and lots of passing mentions, plus academic citations to his work, but there's a dearth of pre-death, non-trivial coverage in indy RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now, based on citation rates and on non-trivial post-death (obituary) coverage. Seems pretty borderline to me, absent some independent (non-Bristol) in-depth coverage before his death. The Nature piece is good to see, but like the Understanding Animal Welfare GBooks hit found by Tryptofish, appears to be another passing mention/cite (and both are about the same rodent and running-wheel work): "Behavioural scientist Chris Sherwin provided an example of the approach in his study of ...", followed by a description and Sherwin's conclusions that "mice are strongly motivated to use a running wheel" and are less happy without one. That's something everyone familiar with rodents already knew. Having proved it statistically with an ethological study is necessary scientific backup of common-sense observation, but not really a big deal. There's a lot of other work he did that was more important. Both of these pieces are really about the rodent behavior confirmation, and mention Sherwin as the person who led the research, but they don't focus on him nor do they indicate that the research was important rather than routine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where credit is due, it was K.e.coffman, not me, who first found it. I was just expanding on the point. But I disagree with your analysis of it as merely being a passing mention of something that everyone already knows. There is more to the analysis of "cost" than just concluding that the mice like it. And the Nature piece quotes another expert as being surprised by the magnitude of the effect, and also describes additional research about antidepressants interacting with the effect. Nature does not run that kind of piece about routine research. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This should not have been prodded as that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." As the article was created and developed by experienced editors, opposition should have been expected. Andrew D. (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search throws up sources such as this, this, this and this, which while not huge amounts of coverage, does suggest it is perfectly possible to write a properly sourced article about him. The sources found by others upthread also add to this confidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: Your second link is an article written by Chris Sherwin "head of sustainability at leading design and innovation consultancy Seymourpowell" and the fourth is seemingly about the same Chris Sherwin. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seem to be notable both as an academic and as a Wikepedian. In particular "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,", e.g. just the cage design stuff has led to changes in how laboratory animals are handled, and so he is notable on that basis alone (though he may be notable for other reasons too). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate Mr. Sherwin's notability as an academic who made substantial contributions to the literature in his field. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes GNG, NEXIST etc. And it is interesting. Has more than basic citations. Aoziwe (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Influential academic who comfortably meets the requirements of WP:Prof and GNG. Thanks to the creator and expanders who have fashioned this into an excellent and nicely presented article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Notice of this debate was included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poultry ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an influential academic, per PROF: " The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" I'm a veggie, I'm also in Bristol. Chris Sherwin was one of those names who came immediately to mind for the welfare of animals, particularly those less immediately cute and fluffy. He has had long-term influence on lab practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep editors since this AfD started have improved the article such that it has better demonstrated that it meets WP:PROF (the impact criterion specially), additionally the sources shown in this AfD may mean that the article passes on GNG anyway, although I think that may be more tenacious. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think notability is proven by all the reliable sources now in use. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Notability demonstarted. And Atsme, I generally understand nom and their nominations to seek to show the article in it's worst light, I would too. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1. Why the article was created is not really relevant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to the editors who have improved the article in recent days. In its current state, it shows notabilty. The emotion that has clouded this debate is unfortunate and not useful, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like this is going to be kept, partly on the basis of NACADEMIC criterion 1, which in turn is based on Google scholar h-index and citation count. Id asked for some comparison numbers but didn't really get any, so here are some. I'mt sure comparing Sherwin with veterinary scientists is the best choice because Sherwin was much more about animal welfare and ethiology. These categories include Temple Grandin, who is obviously notable; Google scholar gives a citation count of 16836 and an h-index of 62 for her (excluding her autism works). One of Sherwin's co-authors, Christine J. Nicol, has a citation count of 7918 and an h-index of 54. Another example is Stephen Herrero, who has a citation count of 3467 and an h-index of 33. My point is that Sherwin's numbers are below these numbers. Ca2james (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, that makes me think that we need to turn Christine J. Nichol blue (more so than turn this page red). I think Temple Grandin is by far too high a bar to set; she really is in a class by herself. Herrero (who isn't strictly a veterinary scientist) has metrics pretty similar to Sherwin, who according to Atsme is cites 2526, h-index 31. None of the people you cite is actually in Category:Veterinary scientists, for whatever that's worth, and some of the present-day persons in that category have lower cite numbers than Sherwin does. And more importantly, the arguments for keeping are based on much more than h-index. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was also concerned that so many people are using Google Scholar and dismissing the problems with using citations counts from it. I checked Scopus instead as it's more conservative (though not as much as Web of Science), and the Sherwin has an h-index of 21 (excluding self-citations). I just checked in agricultural entomology in my field, and this level of output and citation was normal more for somewhat established but new professors not far into their tenure. That's not meant to compare to this field, but give an idea how the index can vary (though we are often housed in neighboring buildings and treated similarly when it comes to vet/agriculture research). In the examples you listed, Nichol had an h-index of 41 and Herrero had an h-index of 18.

About 50% of Sherwin's publications fell into Agricultural and Biological Sciences disciplines, and about 33% were in Veterinary in Scopus. You can also use Google Scholar to get an idea what the h-indexes are for the journals so at least you're using the same (though overestimated) values: Animal behavior and ethology[7], veterinary medicine[8], animal husbandry[9]. While definitely not an exact science, you can compared the author's h-index to journal h-indexes in their field to get a general idea how they compare (i.e., do you get cited more than journals in your field do). In my field[10][11], 20ish the norm of a moderately productive just tenured professor, and that plays out with the google scholar journals too. It looks to be about the same in Sherwin's fields' h-indexes, so it looks like he was fairly average in terms of citations for his field. This is all why I really don't think citation metrics have a place as a main discussion factor in notability discussions though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even without Google Scholar or any of the metrics that can be argued back and forth until the cows come home, he has already surpassed the minimum requirements for notability via the significant impacts he's had in his scholarly field, all of which has been presented and well referenced in his biography. He easily met the minimum requirements for GNG and WP:ACADEMICS: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

• Nature article
• BBC News
• (11 May 2000) "Cockroach capable of feeling pain, says study", The Daily Telegraph, by Roger Highfield.
• The book, Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, author Jonathan Balcombe
• Animal Studies Journal by Helen Tiffin
• The Ranger (UK news)
• The book, Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context by David Fraser
• The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare edited by D. S. Mills, Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde

^{Atsme📞📧} 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, do not change other people's threading to alter who they're replying to as you did here. That's highly inappropriate in addition to the badgering you've been told to knock off above. As I stated above, the metrics really shouldn't be a major focus, but those that are relying on them appear to be overstating the contributions because of using inappropriate metrics that do not appear to pass the "average professor test" of WP:ACADEMICS with such flying colors. That is all I was commenting on since I did not vote, so you don't need to continue expounding on the subject of an article you created. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cite index clarifications, Kingofaces43. It looks like he was an average professor who doesn't meet NACADEMIC. Atsme, some of the sources you listed discuss one or another of Sherwin's studies, and are clearly just citing or describing his published papers. Those - the Balcombe, Tiffin, Fraser, and Mills cites - don't count towards notability. Researchers get their stuff cited in teclxtbooks and by other researchers all the time; it's not an indication of notability. The BBC source does quote him regarding a study he was coauthor on (probably this one) but, since he's one of three authors, I'm not sure that him being the spokesperson contributes to his notability. That leaves the Nature source since I can't evaluate the Telegraph one (I don't know if he was quoted or if the article is just making fun of the study, which is what the headline indicates. Ca2james (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ca2James, you really need to stop bludgeoning me with your minority views - it is not helpful. Do you not see the contradiction in your summary? In one breath you're insisting the H-index/metrics are not reliable but the minute you think they work in your favor, they suddenly have reliability. There are far too many variables in what was presented for me to accept any of what was last presented as being any more reliable than what I and others have already presented and cited. It is simply another view. With regards to understanding the difference between a citation VS multiple authors writing about the impacts of research by a notable veterinary scientist/animal behaviorist who has made significant discoveries in improving the welfare of poultry, and caged animals in laboratories and zoos, CIR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Once again, we are conflating two different sets of notability criteria. While it appears that Sherwin would qualify under WP:PROF based upon his work (see, e.g. David Eppstein and others), his work also meets GNG because it received substantial coverage outside of just the scientific literature, as demonstrated by the source material now in the article. The nitpicking of whether the coverage by the BBC "counts" is really a big absurd. So let's just quit beating this drum and close as keep. Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Montanabw: I cannot understand the apparent urgency a few fans of horses feel for ending this AfD absolutely as soon as possible. I think both you and Atsme have taken this personally, which is both unfortunate and inappropriate. Comments from Atsme like this and this (among others) seem to reveal some sort of persecution complex tending toward BATTLEFIELD-view problems. Clearly this AfD has brought out the worst in her. I think the both of you would do well to seek counseling and reexamine your choices. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For whatever reason, I was asked at my user talk page to respond to Kingofaces here. Kingofaces, thank you very much for that information, which is very helpful. For me personally, my reasons for being in favor of keep were based primarily on things other than those kinds of metrics, and I personally find those metrics largely annoying. Beyond that, I can't think of anything more to say about that. But continuing from my use of the word "annoying", I think that there is way too much commenting on editors instead of on content in this AfD discussion, on both "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, because I respect your opinion. Thank you. -Roxy the dog. bark 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Doesn't have the appearance of a memorial page, and to my knowledge the important issue in determining whether an article is a memorial page is not a subjective intent we might infer from those involved—it would seem in such a case that there would be no principled manner to distinguish between a clear memorial page and any biography of a deceased person written by someone with more than a fleeting curiosity in the subject. Rather, it is a matter of objective appearances: Whether a reasonable person would believe it's a memorial page. The timing—that this article was only created after the subject's death—is something I view as relevant, but not very persuasive. It is routine that Wikipedia articles are created, expanded, or otherwise heavily modified around the time of a subject's death. Without something more to cast this article as violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I must conclude that this article does not violate the policy. I've seen a lot of AfDs of articles on Wikipedians recently where it's assumed that we should avoid writing about Wikipedians, or at least more strictly question their notability than with other subjects. I don't think that's quite right, at least in the absence of clear policy as regards writing about Wikipedians.
  As to the WP:PROF and WP:GNG bases for deletion, I'm not convinced. The sources indicating notability in the article and discussed above are fairly persuasive. I also find the h-index to be persuasive, but neither compelling nor sufficient—I believe this is entirely consistent with WP:PROF. I find the arguments attacking individual sources as being irrelevant for the purposes of determining notability to be unpersuasive. The totality of the indicia of notability—that is, when viewed as a whole rather than as isolated data points—lead me to conclude that this subject meets both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. This is even in light of the flaws that have been noted with respect to some of the sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:41, 28 October 2017 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in College[edit]

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

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

Article about suicide in a postsecondary education setting, which is written far too much like a cross between an essay and a how-to guide to getting help and doesn't cite nearly enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate that this really needs a separate article from the concept of suicide in general. I believe such an article might certainly be possible to write and source -- but this article, as written, isn't it. It's a clear candidate for the WP:TNT treatment, in that even if a better version can be written, this version is bad enough that we'd be better off starting over from scratch than trying to build on this. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an essay (and a peculiar one at that, citing some of the sources to the authors' first names). Agreed that there may be an article to be written about this sort of thing, but this isn't the beginnings of one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator appears (from the page history) to have contributed the article as part of a college course, and his userpage in fact redirects to the article. There is, perhaps, a case for userfication here as well, as what's been written isn't an encyclopedia article but is most likely intended to become one. How that plays with the idea that Wikipedia's not a web-host is something I've never quite understood, as the college courses seem to have turned up while I had my back turned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak userfy/draftify (if such an option exists). The improvements made by Tokyogirl greatly improve the article, and it may be close to a keepable standard (the references aren't playing nice on my computer, but neither is my computer playing nice today). Where things sit with the college class is still an open question - is it still an "active" assignment, in other words - but it's definitely looking healthier than it did before. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep content needs to be re written as it doesn't comply with Wikipedia encyclopedic style, however doing a Google search brings up a few articles specifically on this topic - as opposed to suicide generally (including Washington post and some other good RS) so I would argue its a valid concept for an article, and enough RS to qualify it as different to suicide. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify/userfy - Although the article isn't acceptable for the mainspace in its current state, it could become a viable article in the future. Since it seems the creator is willing to improve it, it would seem the best course of action would be to draftify it or delete it. Draftifying or deleting the article would both be acceptable, as there isn't much usable content, but it might encourage the creator if we just draftify it instead of deleting it. So, either would be acceptable. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: RileyBugz, BigHaz, Bearcat, I've made some edits to remove the essay-like prose to the article. What do you think of the article in its current state? I had avoided making any edits to the article in the hopes that the student would return, as they posted this article in August, but they haven't returned since. For full disclosure, while this is my main account I am also the Wiki Education employee who was in charge of this class, so I'm going to refrain from arguing for or against deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added two more articles, there is plent of RS on Student suicide out there, and IMHO the article is looking a lot better now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable topic; article is, at least now after changes, presentable although short. --doncram 21:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable and easily referenced topic across multiple disciplines. "Better off starting from scratch" is not in the criteria for deletion. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic, now more inline with policies. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:57, 29 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel[edit]

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

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

One of a promotional pair of articles on non notable company and its product. The combination almost invariable represents COI editing. The refs are not sufficient for notability. I first thought a merge might help, but there still is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a WP:BEFORE search shows no WP:RS meaning the subject does not pass the WP:GNG. The sources in the article trivially mention the subject or are ad landing pages with no relation to the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the other page TechExcel ServiceWise seems to have similar problems to the TechExcel page as there are no WP:RS to make the TechExcel ServiceWise page notable. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages TechExcel ServiceWise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I wouldn't object to using G4 recreation, on both of them, considering the previous deletions. I suggest that if deleted all these be salted against recreation. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links for the other page: -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel ServiceWise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete advertisements, not Wikipedia articles. Fails GNG Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article may have the same problem as the original PerfectDisk article that was deleted (and which I recreated by starting with a Google Translate of the Japanese article's deleted rewrite. The original/deleted (English) PerfectDisk, which I got from Google Cache, was actually worse (in the promo sense) than this article. For now, someone else can take a turn at a rewrite... (and yes, it would be harder than what I did, since I had the Translate). Notable? Years ago, I seem to recall getting lots of bulk-mail/"junk"mail from them and I read some of it and thought it could be useful, but $$$.
  One suggestion: Leave the entry in Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems, since that's a service to readers - just ensure that if the article is deleted, no RedLink by removing the DoubleSquareBrackets. I'm not saying delete, even though I see a major difference here: TechExcel seems like its about promo. TNT? There's enough in the article-cited https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/smallb1.html?page=all for half a stub. Pi314m (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no WP:CORPDEPTH, recreation shows adamancy to promote this non notable company. Clear violation of WP:PROMO –Ammarpad (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film and Drama Youth Organisation[edit]

Film and Drama Youth Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about a film company. Couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources so unless some are found this does not pass WP:GNG at this time. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Subject does not meet general notability requirements and there is little to no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Shearonink (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Couldn't find a thing Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Couldn't find a thing like Ritchie. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 26 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadi Tiran[edit]

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

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

Non-notable taekwondo competitor. Success at University level is insufficient to show notability. Has never competed at the adult level in an Olympics or world championships (or even Asian championships). Lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet the notability criteria for athletes (WP:NSPORT) or martial artists (WP:MANOTE). Currently ranked 129th in his division for the Olympics [12], which is far too low to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, article doesn't show notability.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock Ammarpad (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit instead of Delete if this article will be edited by adding more sources it will be eligible for Wikipedia –Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] — Lifeisstudyinghard (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 19:50 26 October 2017 (UTC) If you can find the sources and content nobody stop you, do that before this Discussion closes –Ammarpad (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actually this fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and even WP:ANYBIO. The basis of this article is one mention as winning in versity competition and that can't establish notability –Ammarpad (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Oliver[edit]

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

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

PROD contested by grandchild. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a key member of two notable bands, or merge to Saxon (band). As guitarist of a clearly notable band, proposed deletion was a non-starter. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Should now be obviously notable to anyone given my improvements to the article. --Michig (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a key member of two notable bands please. Thanks --Groywiki (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Groywiki: and @Michig: Being a member of two notable bands MUSICBIO No. 6 states that a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". That is not the case here at all. No sources that I could find, and certainly none in the articles indicate that he was reasonably prominent. No sources provided and without the, MUSICBIO is not met. The article was a non-starter, not the prod or this AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was the guitarist in Saxon for 19 years during their most successful era, which including several charting singles and albums. The other band was named after him. Common sense should tell you that makes him a prominent member of both bands. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a logical argument. If I were to say that someone was a member of parliament for 20 during his party's rule and that makes him a prominent MP, it would be as much a fallacy as your argument. He could have been a back-bencher that didn't even make the local news. If Oliver does not have press to indicate that he was a prominent member, all the claims that he's prominent or appeals to the fact that he was prominent are moot. Prove that he prominent and notable rather than ask us to accept the possible claims that he should be prominent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, maybe this was the one metal band whose guitarist wasn't a prominent member, and maybe the other band was named after a minor member as a joke. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're usually a good editor, but on this one point you're assumption is poor. Unless you can support it stop promoting it. There are no sources for this guitarist. Whether that's an anomaly or intentional is immaterial. What is of importance is that sources actually exist or they don't. My claim is that they do not exist. I can't supply any after a Google search. Of course, there may be print sources that exists that Google cannot find which explains that problem. However, if no sources actually exist, that 1) explains your inability to produce the sources and 2) supports the claim that GNG is not met. Your next writing should be a list significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything else is moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not going to dignify your nonsense with further argument. --Michig (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • You thought that this was an argument? That explains why you were so argumentative. Thanks for adding the references. If this were an argument, I won when you did that because that's what I was requesting from the outset. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Being a member of two notable bands, NMUSIC criterion #6, counts as a notability claim if it's supported by adequate reliable source coverage about his work for those two bands — but it is not a criterion that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage just because it's been asserted. But this isn't based on adequate reliable source coverage: it's based on two primary sources, one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't otherwise about him, and unpublished and therefore unverifiable information gleaned from a private conversation with one of his bandmates. This is not what it takes to source a musician as passing a notability criterion. And further, the undeletion rationale was "this is my grandfather", which means per WP:COI the requester gets no special privilege to control the article's existence or content or sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of sourcing in the article has zero bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true if, and only if, somebody can show hard evidence that a better depth and quality of sourcing is available to repair and improve the article with. No notability claim that can be made for him exempts anybody from having to show hard evidence that the sourcing is at least improvable — better sourcing doesn't have to be already be present in the article to make it keepable, but it does have to be shown that better sourcing exists by which the article can be improved to a genuinely keepable standard. If better sourcing can't be shown to exist, then we do not keep an article just because it states passage of a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Saxon (band). Sources are a bit scanty for a WP:BLP, but there's no reason not to redirect to the parent until enough sources can be found to support a standalone article. A Train^talk 23:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article has been substantially improved since it was nominated. Since the two !votes above are based mainly on the state of the article at the time of nomination, the closer should take this into consideration when weighing up the arguments presented here. --Michig (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article has been considerably improved since nomination with the addition by Michig of twenty extra references to add to the previous four. The references now contain reliable sources such as newspaper coverage and reliable book sources. WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO are now passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Saxon (band). Not enough WP:SIGCOV to pass criteria, but enough to have a redirect. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I remember Saxon (band), didn't know much about Oliver but there is more than enough for WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as this greatly improved article meets both. Dysklyver 20:40, 24 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Chun[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, secondary non-trivial support. References are primarily single-line mentions. A local award and a local nomination may not be enough to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I respect the opinion presented here, though I disagree. Within the classical music world, Avanti ensemble, Earplay, and the classical music establishments of San Francisco are all very prominent. The awards listed are important in cities like New York and San Francisco. They set standards for the rest of the country. The article in the San Francisco Classical Voice is a full-length article about the subject, by a noted classical music critic of the San Francisco Examiner and the San Jose Mercury News. As a final thought, the very fact that Chun holds such positions of leadership as opera/orchestra conductor, in an industry utterly dominated by men is a testament to her importance. The sheer number of references to Chun in major news sources is significant User:HexaKord415 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HexaKord415's arguments. Her conducting has been widely reported in reputable newspapers and journals. She's leading two notable organisations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Sources exist from Hawaii to eastern Europe, and with WP:GNG, sources may be entirely local anyway.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj ss vocalist[edit]

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

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Only covered once, no further articles in (English) media found. No sources for claims of work on films, commercials etc. mentioned. As per WP:BLP this should all be removed, making the article obsolete. Therefore request to delete. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails MUSICBIO Spiderone 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Arrow characters. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Chase (Arrow)[edit]

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

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

notability Daff22 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: To List of Arrow characters. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Arrow characters. No need to have an article for a character that only appeared in one season of a 6+ season show. - Brojam (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep I'm seeing a lot of current coverage for this character's appearance in an upcoming crossover. If not kept, also consider the TV section of Prometheus (DC Comics), where the TV incarnation and chase are briefly covered. Overall, however, there appears to be enough RS coverage to sustain an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the appearance of Prometheus-X, the Earth-X version of Prometheus, in Crisis on Earth-X belongs at Prometheus (DC Comics), not this article. The characters are not related and will not be played by the same actor. - Brojam (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Arrow characters. Reporting of the crossover would seem to indicate that the character of Prometheus will be appearing in the crosssover, but not Adrian Chase. (source - http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/29/arrow-prometheus-crossover/) This information would therefore be included in the live-action section of the Prometheus (DC Comics) article, not this one. Daff22 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Welll written article, why nat keep?92.40.120.164 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2017 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 15:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Z370[edit]

Intel Z370 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There already are articles covering this: List of Intel chipsets#LGA 1151, LGA 1151#Kaby Lake chipsets (200 series). Note that the 270 and 370 chipsets are mostly identical. Thus it may not warrant an extra table yet for the 370 until more of the 300 series is released next year. Pizzahut2 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator Replacing with a "merge to" tag. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2017 (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 Lifehouse International Church. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifehouse International Church Yokohama[edit]

Lifehouse International Church Yokohama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ad for a non-notable church. Several previous nominations for speedy deletion and proposed deletion opposed by the main author, who also appears to be the pastor of the church. Tal 12:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Lifehouse International Church. insufficient separate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge (merge if any sourced content worthwhile adding to the relevant main article's subsection). Individual congregations are rarely notable, I even have difficulty finding much information in English on the organization itself, actually... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (briefly) or just redirect -- Even as a church of 500, it is still only a local church, which need something special about them to qualify as notable; I see little to do so here. I would love to be able to have an article on every local church, but that would need a change in WP policy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (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 Lifehouse International Church. Material can be copied over as desired. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifehouse Osaka[edit]

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

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

Advertisement for a church that isn't separately notable. Should be merged into Lifehouse International Church Tal 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Lifehouse International Church. insufficient separate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge (merge if any sourced content worthwhile adding to the relevant main article's subsection). Individual congregations are rarely notable, I even have difficulty finding much information in English on the organization itself, actually... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge briefly or redirect. I fear this is merely another NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2017 (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 Convert to Wiktionary soft redirect and protect. Consensus is clear that this has no place as an article, with even the keep !voters saying this is better off as a soft redirect. There is no opposition to a soft redirect, ample support for protection, and no desire to get rid of th page history Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thicc[edit]

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

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

No valid content from its beginnings, nor in any intermediate version that I can fathom, except to refer to Urban Slang. Therefore warrants deletion under WP:NOTURBANDICT. I am unable to revert recent edits to a sound version because non exists, as far as I can tell. Warrants a WP:SPEEDYDELETE, but appears to have failed a previous attempt. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There has never been any encyclopedic content on this page, and since the subject is a slang adjective, it is doubtful that there could be any. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - I wouldn't say it "failed" a speedy attempt but rather the tag was removed by a timely SPA. For that reason, a speedy still applies to me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC) I amended my !vote as I did not consider the page could be protected following a redirect.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and protect - Page is WP:NEO and should be protected due to persistent vandalism._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTDIC and the documentation Template:Wiktionary Redirect, and protect. Probably not enough sources on the terminology to support a Wikipedia article, but it is a slang term for which there is a Wiktionary entry, so we should direct searchers there. We should protect it to prevent vandalism. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and protect as a Wiktionary redirect only. As a word, thicc fails WP:GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT by extension. The word appears often enough in popular culture to guarantee that people will come searching for it, but it belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Commander Spock (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a redirect, as intended. I first created it as a Redirect to "Big Beautiful Woman". The term, "Thicc", was also used as a meme, which was reported in The Daily Dot, NY Mag, and SPIN. It's not enough sources for an article itself, but good enough for a redirect, especially if protected. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Other than One Thicc Bih, the term is used almost exclusively derogatorily. Delete and protecc. Wumbolo (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NEO, WP:NOTURBANDICT. Should be salted given history. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have no clue what this page is supposed to be other than trolling, by all means blast it to oblivion with whatever deletion tools you can find. Dysklyver 15:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This article should be Kept, Protecc, but most importantly, be a redirecc to Wiktionary, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As noted above the current article has no meaningful encyclopedic content. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I would have tagged this as G1 if I saw it in the new pages feed. Having reread it multiple times and this AfD multiple times I have no idea if this article is about a person or a term, and the keep !votes here haven't done anything to help me understand what this subject is. This article is incomprehensible nonsense, and should be deleted as soon as possible. On the off-chance that this is a BLP (which on my fourth re-read I am not entirely sure it is not), then it is a BLP about an instagramer that makes negative comments without any sourcing, so delete it as a BLP violation. This is absolutely the worst article I have seen in my time on Wikipedia, and that includes the August 2007 Bellsprout article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

actually, depending on who this Cat is, and if she's out or not, it may even be a cynical WP:Attack page. But who knows with this gibberish._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did think of that as well, which is why I mentioned the BLP concerns. It could also be G2 as a test page, G3 as pure vandalism, G11, as an partial advert for Cat, A7 as nothing here makes Cat seem remotely significant. I won't tag for speedy deletion because it wouldn't be uncontroversial given the above comments, but this page meets several of the criteria IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive it somewhere and then delete speedy delete.-I have just now read the article and I am speechless. Wumbolo (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and then Soft redirect to Wikitionary--Popular enough to merit a soft-redirect.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, either to Wiktionary or to another Wikipedia article such as Big Beautiful Woman. "Thicc" is an obvious search term, but it's hard to see how one could write an encyclopedia article about it. —Kodiologist (t) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It is a vandalism only page. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Prince[edit]

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

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

Biography of a former mayor, which is just written as a basic summary of her birth and death details without any actual substance about her mayoralty. The city is one where the mayor is selected internally among the city councillors on a yearly rotation, not directly elected by the voters, so there's no automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of being a mayor. But there's not enough sourcing here to actually pass WP:NPOL #2: all we have here is an obituary in the local newspaper, a straight wire service reprint of that exact same article in another newspaper (which thus combines with that first reference as a single datapoint toward notability, not a separate datapoint in its own right), a legacy.com obituary (which is not a notability-assisting source at all) and just one article that was written while she was alive. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantial than this, but there's no automatic presumption of notability for the "everybody on council gets a turn" kind of mayor. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being the "first x mayor of place y" is not alone a sign of notability. There is a lack of sources to show the coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not an obituary.Acnetj (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Just using the sources in the article, we see that the LA Times wrote an extensive article about the topic ten years after the topic left politics, stating, "It has been 19 [years] since she became this city's first woman mayor and more than a decade since she quietly bowed out of elective office. But at 59, Frances K. Prince remains a behind-the-scenes force in the community she nurtured through its adolescence...For a long period, 1969 to 1984, probably no one had more impact than Prince on the public life of Thousand Oaks."  There is no claim that the material is not reliable, or that WP:ATD should be ignored as per IAR.  In short, there is no argument for deletion here.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One article is not a WP:GNG pass all by itself, and that article claims nothing about her that would constitute an automatic pass of any SNG in lieu. In cities where the mayor is "selected" by an internal "everybody gets a turn" rotation within the city council, there is no automatic presumption of notability at all unless they can be sourced to a much greater volume of press coverage than this. Yes, there is an argument for deletion here: it's called WP:NPOL #2 and WP:GNG, neither of which she's been demonstrated as passing at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is the guideline we use to determine if a topic should be standalone or merged to a broader topic.  It is not a deletion guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. Just using the time period from 1964-2017 there are 12,816 matches for her in California alone in newspapers.com. She easily meets GNG, does not have to meet any secondary criteria. [13], [14], pt 1 and pt 2, [15], [16], pt 1 and pt 2, pt 1 and pt 2 and the 2nd page of the 1997 article cited above [17] clearly show that she was extremely involved and often noted in the media for things to do with city planning, regulating growth and conservation from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, i.e. nearly 3 decades. SusunW (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only BEFORE in resources that I have access to. You were able to find improved coverage in a database that you can access, and that's great, but you don't get to cast aspersions on my failure to somehow magically know that there was improved coverage in a database I don't have access to. I did check all of the databases I do have access to, and that's all anybody has the right to expect of me in the BEFORE test. Not everybody has access to the same resources, so any given editor's failure to find what you found does not mean that other editor isn't being diligent enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Bearcat, that you can't be responsible for what you don't have access to. However, I found multiple sources in a basic google search indicating she had received multiple awards from local civic groups, the LA Times long article, as well as several books which I had no access to, indicating from the snippet she was involved in international relationships to create a sister city project with Armenia. As I am not in the US, my search is clearly different, but there were sufficient indications of notability before I dug into newspapers.com to make me search farther to improve the article. I apparently incorrectly assumed that you would have gotten those same google results. I apologize for my failure to AGF that you had done BEFORE. SusunW (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I didn't see the same Google results; it's that winning local awards from local civic groups isn't a notability claim at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I did not include them in the article, but the LA Times piece made it clear that she had a significant impact on the city and the Armenian link, which I couldn't find anything except a snippet about in newspapers.com also made it obvious that she wasn't your run-of-the-mill appointee. SusunW (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being a mayor is not automatically notable, but neither is it automatically non-notable. WP:NPOL #3 states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion". We have a contemporary in-depth profile in a major newspaper (the LA Times), three obituaries in other newspapers far from her center of activity, and lots of incidental coverage. That meets the criterion to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The three editors above set out the case in fulsome detail, and I agree with them. Edwardx (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and barnstar to SusunW. WP:HEY. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Carefully weighing the references and sources, also taking into account that I often agree with Bearcat on AfDs, I came to conclusion that it should be keep per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Shah[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Most sources cited in the article are dead links or primary source interviews. A search for more significant biographical details in reliable secondary sources yielded only short mentions about him. This source has some detail, but does not seem sufficient to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete created by a SPA. cited sources are no RS. There seems to be a case of namesake here. [18]. --Saqib (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly lacks significant coverage in third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Sheridan[edit]

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

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

In its current form the article does not appear to display any form of notability except by the fact he was 'one of the first African American teachers in Baltimore City'. However given he was not the first I don't think even this is enough to pass the notability guidelines for people therefore I propose deletion. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. There are citations that indicate that the The Baltimore Sun (the newspaper of record for MD) says she (not he, as you have written) was the first African American teacher in Baltimore, and another that indicates she was a "prominent" teacher in the Baltimore Afro-American which is the longest running African American family owned newspaper in the country. Furthermore, even if she were only one of the first African American teacher in Baltimore, she would still likely be the first African American woman teacher in Baltimore. As an aside, (honest question) is there a rule that specifies that we can only include the first African American, or woman, or queer person person to fill a certain role? In good faith. --Theredproject (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to publish original research, and with the lone exception of the obituary, that is what this article constitutes. There have been multiple scholarly books on the history of African-Americans in Baltimore published. If Someone could show mentions of Roberta Sheridan in these works, than keeping the article would be justified. Since such has not happened, having the article is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per JPL. I too could only find a couple of passing references to her as a pioneering teacher, and everything else is textbook WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keepp If the MSA has a bio, I'm going to count that as sufficient notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to establish notability. As they said in the 'ol days, just references not maketh an article. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 05:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I think this article has some merit and since this article was barely created a week or two ago, then maybe we should give it some time to see if it can get expanded to something better. If better sources cannot be provided or if there is little content then maybe it can be removed at a later time. But I think giving it some time would be wiser at this point.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added two sources, one from the 2000 Congressional Record calling her the first African-American public school teacher in all of Maryland, and another from a 1994 book about a long controversy that ended with her hiring. I think this much-later attention to such long ago events, plus the two contemporary sources we already had (not counting the legal documents which add nothing to notability), are enough for WP:GNG, especially in light of WP:RECENTISM. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG, per David Eppstein's comment above. The first line of the current version is basically ready-made as a "Did You Know?" item for the main page. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the "first female AA teacher in Baltimore" is a sufficient claim of significance, in my mind. Here's the Congressional Record doc: Congressional Record Vol. 146-Part 2. The article would be an acceptable stub on a historic figure. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the new sources support the article subject's notability. Cook's Kitchen (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First African American teacher is a historically notable achievement. I found this biography in the state archives [19] which contains a list of references. This article can be expanded easily.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG per David Eppstein.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2017 (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. WP:CSD#G11 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaption[edit]

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

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

Notability. Yet another start-up with a keen editor but a lack of _independent_ coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an entitity with no indications of notability or significance. Entirely promotional article with WP:SPIP sourcing. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaq Hussain[edit]

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

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

Not much to his credit. Most of the sources discuss other Urdu poets rather him. He only received Pride of Performance which is received by hundreds annually so not notable in its own right. Fails WP:NWRITER and fails WP:GNG. Created by SPA account User talk:Safi z. Greenbörg (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I have no issue with keeping this even though it was created by a SPA. the subject has Presidential Pride of Performance award which is notable. this source says "Ashfaq Hussain, one of the pioneers of Urdu literary activities in Canada". --Saqib (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Mar4d Please don't be bias and try to work as neutral. I don't think I have done any disruption yet. Don't ping others if you have personal issues with me which I know we have some. Try to resolve them with me, I'm always ready to talk. Greenbörg (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qurram Hussain[edit]

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

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. No achievement yet. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Greenbörg (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Are you sure you even did a basic search before you nominated this? He's a mainstream artist, and a member of the band Josh. Easily passes notability. Mar4d (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Power~enwiki:, @SwisterTwister: and @Od Mishehu: who have dealt with this user's disruptive nominations flouting WP:BEFORE in the past. I am about close to done with this. Mar4d (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you care about articles of Australian citizens of Pakistani origin but if they don't meet our guidelines then don't get upset and start attacking others. Stay calm that's the way to go. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merella Fernandez[edit]

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

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her credit Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable career. most of the coverage she has got is in CTV so the coverage is not independent. --Saqib (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources, non-notable career, fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a holdover from years ago, when people used to think that all you had to do to get a television journalist into Wikipedia was to take her primary source staff bio on the website of her own employer, rephrase it just enough to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, source it to itself and voila. But they were and still are wrong: a journalist actually gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage in sources other than her own employer, not just by using her own employer's website to verify that she exists. But I can't find any valid reliable source coverage about her at all: on a ProQuest search, all I get is CTV News transcripts in which she's up next with the headlines during either Canada AM or Power Play, and one article in which she gives a brief soundbite on diversity in newsrooms. There's just nothing here to make her more noteworthy than most other working journalists who don't have articles. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unref'd BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Abidi[edit]

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

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Created by SPA User:Majoka00. Greenbörg (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More than enough coverage about him and his books such as The Age article already on the entry and this and this duffbeerforme (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Shad[edit]

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

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article created by a SPA. i can see she has contributed to various publications but i dont see any coverage on her. I don't see her meeting GNG. --Saqib (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:SIGCOV not found. No claim of having authored a notable work, or of other notablity for a writer who, judging by photo on page, is youngish. May merely be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unref'd BLP by SPA whose 1st edit was creating this page. Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Sultan[edit]

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

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-central roles in TV shows are not enough to make notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence found that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR.  gongshow  talk  07:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a few bit parts and some roles in more obscure works, but no coverage of the person themselves that would allow us to write a good quality article on them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz Khan (hydrologist)[edit]

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

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Started by SPA User:Shaki997. Greenbörg (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof with 11,000 cites and an h-index of 47 on GS. Did the nominator look at this? [20], to be found in the link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Khan[edit]

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

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

Not much to his credit. Just promotional stuff. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWRITER. Created by SPA User:Q sadia. Greenbörg (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the bio contains many non RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local minor politicians are not inherently notable. Current references are either primary or only mentions, not profiles. I could not quickly find any other material other than social media sites. Is there any vaguely independent profile anywhere? Aoziwe (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Shad[edit]

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

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Started by SPA User:Ftmshad. Greenbörg (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for the reasons presented by Greenbörg. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep this source says "Novelist, poet, journalist and playwright Ashraf Shad has a very impressive portfolio of writings to his name." but apparently none of subject's work/book is notable so i would go with week keep. --Saqib (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (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.