Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 8 July 10 July >

Purge server cache

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. As the only substantial contributor supports deletion and no one else has supported retention, this seems to meet speedy deletion criterion G7. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grizraz Hearteater

edit
Grizraz Hearteater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree. I think I created this page years ago when I didn't understand notability guidelines. I would say move any relevant content to Tailchaser's Song, but there's not much that merits moving. The reference to Orpheus and Eurydice is interesting but probably original research - there isn't that much of a parallel anyway. Nat2 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle B. Mercier

edit
Kyle B. Mercier (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)

Winning a minor, regional technical award is not sufficient for notability. Tdslk (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No disrespect to the editors who have tried to tidy this up since it was created by an account that was only active for one hour, but the notability is just not there. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzeria Venti

edit
Pizzeria Venti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A not seemingly notable chain of restaurants. I found one brief passing mention here (warning, seems to have NSFW popups on it) but nothing else Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swapping to Keep. @Northamerica1000: can you drop me a line and show me what search queries you used, because the standard Google web and news results drew a complete blank, preventing me from doing anything about the article. A shame, this would have been a good speedy - DYK candidate (I looked into improving the article after declining the CSD). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and compromise with Draft instead because all of the links above are simply local press talking (note especially the local TV stations) about its local businesses, there's still not enough substance to suggest a convincingly independently notable article of its own. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The suggestion to redirect to Harlem Shake (meme) certainly seems reasonable, and is in line with WP:ATD, but I see a clear enough delete consensus here that I'm going to go with that. If somebody wants to recreate this as a redirect, no problem with that. Discounting all of the keep comments which appear to be result of canvassing on reddit and express no policy-based reasoning. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Frank

edit
Filthy Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A source mentions the subject uploading the first Harlem Shake (meme) video, all other sources are to the subject themselves. Falls well below WP:GNG & WP:BIO. JacktheHarry (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i think his article should stay since he is pretty famous youtuber --24.184.132.160 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this article should stay up. Miller's character has been on YouTube for a while, and other youtubers with lesser subscriber counts have been kept, so why not Filthy Frank, who has a much higher subscriber count than many other YouTubers? Perhaps it should be a Wikipedia policy that if a YouTuber has 1,000,000 subscribers, they should have their articles kept, yet well maintained. Unfortunately not much information is known about Joji Miller beside his name, birthday, and background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.173.116.171 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 153.173.116.171 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
  • Delete – besides the source of the BBC and Rolling Stones about starting the Harlem Shake, trivial like GAB has stated, there's nothing notable about his character besides the 'He has a million subscriber' status. WP:NRV – WP:BIO Adog104 Talk to me 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This YouTuber has done a number of different things besides the Harlem Shake. While his subscriber count does not inherently make him notable, his videos have become a part of modern-day pop culture. He has also worked with a number of other notable YouTubers, like JonTron, h3h3, etc. and has had panels at events like PAX. It only seems reasonable to keep this article. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage in media, only reasonable reference is used on "this video compilation helped create the Harlem Shake Internet meme". Just not enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Filthy Frank Show is an internet series much like h3h3 Productions, JonTron and the Angry Video Game Nerd. Those three series are never up for deletion here on Wikipedia but one has to ask themselves: why? Those series are as notable or even less notable than Filthy Frank. One may also argue that having many subscribers on YouTube does make you notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page but it, in my opinion, does. In the modern world that we live a very watched and subscribed to YouTube channel is very much like a a high-rated television program. The channel is also notable in the traditional sense because albums, merchandise, and fan art have all been made in tribute to the channel's flagship show and is responsible for the creation of the Harlem Shake Internet meme, which is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page because the meme was truly one of the largest pop-culture phenomenona of the 2010s. Due to this, this article should not be deleted and Wikipedia as a whole should consider changing its standards to what a notable person/show/etc is. --User:ZSJUSA
— Note to closing admin: ZSJUSA (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheHarry (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Frankly [haha], this is sort of WP:NOT#ESSAY (if this can be applied in AFD's); like other articles, other YouTubers are up for discussion at any time. As much as I like Frank as a YouTuber, he doesn't appear to have the sufficient criteria to pass either WP:BIO, WP:NRV, or WP:GNG for that matter because most sources about him are primary and the information about the Harlem Shake is trivial (which could easily be merged to the Harlem Shake article and is up for debate). In addition, many other YouTubers have merchandise and music and fan art, but that doesn't contribute to their notability (unless their music is notable of course). Adog104 Talk to me 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm a fan of Filthy Frank and I don't believe he is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. The same goes for many other "YouTubers". Ghoul flesh talk 01:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Like others have pointed out, Miller is just as notable as other YouTubers with Internet shows that also have articles on Wikipedia. Miller has even collaborated with some other YouTubers that have articles on this site. He created an Internet sensation and is now famous in the present day. Perhaps his article shouldn't be as extensive as it is, listing a variety of characters that are on the show. It's a little ambitious. But I think the article should be kept. Legocityfan119 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are all primary, there is not coverage of this person in reliable secondary sources to connote notability. MLA (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely as there's still none of the confidently better substance for his own article, note that these Keep votes are noticeably from fans. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Harlem Shake (meme), where he's already mentioned as an important figure to that subject. That's about where the coverage stops though. The article isn't egregious enough to necessitate deletion, and I don't think anyone would dispute that The Guardian, Rolling Stone, etc. covering him in relation to the Harlem Shake merits inclusion in that article (going with redirect rather than merge because he's already covered to the extent necessary in the target). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to American Public Health Association. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. Less clear between delete and merge. Going with merge, partly as a compromise, partly to comply with WP:ATD, and partly because it seems to make sense.

After the copyvio purging, there's not really much here to merge, but I guess at least some mention that it exists would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Spiegelman Award

edit
Mortimer Spiegelman Award (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 reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Neither of the 2 sources in the article is reliable. The article was previously deprodded by Michael Hardy. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I scarcely need to point out to any closing admin that "too short of an article" is not a valid argument for deletion in cases where we have more than content to establish context, as we do here. This isn't even a particularly short stub. I don't see much in the way of RS though. I'd suggest we redirect and merge to main article, which doesn't even seem to mention this award in American_Public_Health_Association#Awards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -There are at least five other pages of people that mention receiving the award, I agree it should be selectively merged into the Awards section on the APHA page.Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Leave out the list of winners (WP:Undue), but the first sentence in the lead section and reference would easily fit into American_Public_Health_Association#Awards. I would create a sub-sub heading just for this award though as I don't think it fits into any of the ones already present. AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd never heard of either Spiegelman or this award before, but it seems to be a major professional honor. I've added 17 citations from the first three pages alone of a Google search: the sources are a roll-call of major U.S. research institutions. Both Pitt and the NCI call the award "prestigious". I strongly suspect that most or all the winners are already, or are likely to become, independently notable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A general consensus to keep has been established. Although whether to keep as an article or to merge has not been decided. — Music1201 talk 19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or, if not, then delete. Missing in the sea of promotional press releases about individual winners is any coverage independent of them and about the award as a whole (or about its winners collectively rather than individually) that could be used as evidence for its significance or notability. This is probably true of other articles here about other academic awards, but that's not a reason for keeping this one. So I don't see how to justify this as a separate article, but it can still be mentioned in the parent article about the organization. I do not agree with the relisting comment that the consensus is keep or merge; it seems more strongly delete or merge to me. I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:American Public Health Association, which I believe should be a required step whenever a merge is proposed at an AfD; without this step, there is too great a likelihood that a local consensus for a merge formed within an AfD will conflict with a local consensus not to merge among the editors of the target article, and then what do you do? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As Hx7 discovered, almost all of the article was directly copied from the source listed in the creation edit summary. I have removed those parts but too little is left to make a useful article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just found a major copyvio on the target merging article, American Public Health Association. I have actually requested RD1 but please check the rest of the article and please copy text into Google to see if they match with any websites, particularly apha.org. Hx7 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I've found even more copyright violations at Mortimer Spiegelman Award. It appears to have been copied and pasted from this link. I'm going to have to go with a delete because I don't think it would be possible to rewrite the article without close paraphrasing of all the words in the lede. Hx7 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hx7, Suslindisambiguator added what you say copyvio within the {{blockquote}} template. So this seems a blockquote/copyright violation misunderstanding case. And @David Eppstein and SwisterTwister both of you are silent to what Narky Blert wrote that Both Pitt and the NCI call the award prestigious. And to DGG my query remains on whether you would vote to delete the Fields Medal too. Solomon7968 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:EINSTEIN. Some very few awards are so famous that even though they are a junior award, they are notable. Most are not. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Manipal University. Clear consensus here for not keeping as a standalone article, and implementing some flavor of WP:ATD. There's less clear consensus on the amount of material to merge, but it would certainly be less than everything that's here; I'll leave the details up to whoever performs the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Manipal Racing

edit
Team Manipal Racing (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)

NN university club, no matter how one looks at it. First Ghit is Facebook, no news, no coverage, no awards, etc. SPA created. MSJapan (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Merge to Manipal University - I actually do find some sources with our tools, which limits hits because I can only check English language sources. While these sources are light, the scope of the racing team makes me expect that reliable sources in other languages exist, just need to be found and included in the article. DeVerm (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
update: I just realized that the university does have an article so if not enough sources turn up then the article can be merged there instead of deleting it. DeVerm (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
update: with no Indian sources being offered this argument I used is fading, which reduces the basis for a separate article, so I favor a merge now. DeVerm (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manipal University By all means, this is a student club. We don't keep separate articles on them. The information in the article is unsourced and I couldn't find any sources to verify all the technical details. Nothing to merge here and I would recommend a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect? — Music1201 talk 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you view Formula Manipal then? It's a circuit racing team instead of an off-road racing team, but also a student initiative from the same university. There are hundreds of universities that compete in these classes; I don't know if they have Wikipedia articles or not, but there may be hundreds of articles to be deleted when following your reasoning. Not that it would be wrong, I can't find the guidelines that state that university racing teams are not to have articles or even mention in other articles? DeVerm (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closure made based on policy-related arguments. The article passes WP:LISTN and a whole category of related topics exist. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game of Thrones directors

edit
List of Game of Thrones directors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The information in this trivial list is already adequately covered in List of Game of Thrones episodes. It was previously created and deleted in the form of List of directors of Game of Thrones. — TAnthonyTalk 14:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OT: can be a category instead? -- Y not? 03:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the work of individual directors has been the subject of multiple independent RS'es. Saying the individual episode articles covers this ignores the fact that multiple directors have been responsible for multiple episodes, creating an overlap that cannot be adequately covered in either the directors' articles or the episodes' articles. The fact that this list is currently trivial is neither contested nor sufficient reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL): A better set of search parameters. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per my nom, List of Game of Thrones episodes notes every episode and every director (plus other info), making this list completely redundant and inferior, and unnecessary.— TAnthonyTalk 17:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you said that. But that list covers things from an episode-centric viewpoint, rather than a director-centric viewpoint. Enough RS'es are talking about the individual directors that there's room for both views of the material. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other shows like The Simpsons, Doctor Who and Family Guy and so on have lists like this one. I think keep. But it could be improved. AffeL (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2016
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monita Chatterjee

edit
Monita Chatterjee (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)

Appears not to meet GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Her Scholar citations don't seem especially high over a long period of time, and the 40 or less cites are much more common than the earliest much higher ones. All GHits are primary (personal) material, and she does not seem to have won any prestigious awards or been inducted into any prestigious professional societies. I'm just not sure that in the absence of anything else, being the director of a lab with five staff members (and only one post-doc out of the other four, and all classified as "research assistants") quite makes the cut. Also created by an SPA with a likely COI, User:Auditoryprosthesis, whose only three edits were to make this article. MSJapan (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Xxanthippe: OK, so now that I've learned what the metrics actually mean, that's good. However, if she is indeed borderline, how do we deal with the caveat in Citation metrics that says GS h-index might be higher than true RS citations? It seems like it might make a difference here. MSJapan (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though citation metrics are adequate (which are more supplemental than for establishing standalone notability), there doesn't appear to be anything notable in sources to write for this BLP. Being the director of a lab (i.e. most any research professor) does not pass the bar for academic notability at all. Everything else is extremely basic and non-notable biographic information. This person may be poised to get coverage in sources in the future, but right now there aren't any independent sources of any significant coverage beyond a directory listing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've made some cleanups to the article, and added a keynote address she gave. I think that and the citations already listed by Xxanthippe are enough for notability through WP:PROF#C1. As well as notability we need verifiability, of course, and the sourcing we have is also weak (mostly her own cv), but that should be good enough for the factual claims of the article as long as we don't rely on it for anything evaluative. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative Note, this was reopened for further discussion by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on July 9. Thanks, Nakon 19:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In terms of our notability criteria things seem to be not so far above borderline but I'll go for keep because we have quite a nice small article that seems to me to be an asset. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to what's mentioned above, I'll note she's one of only two authors on several of her most well-cited papers. Sometimes in the sciences a paper will have 20 authors, diluting significance especially for those not in the first part of the list. That this really represents her work bolsters the worth of her h-index rating for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asra College Of Engineering & Technology

edit
Asra College Of Engineering & Technology (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)

Suspected non-notable educational institution, possibly fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Hx7 15:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been improved by several editors and per the statement below, I'm withdrawing the AFD nomination. Hx7 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom pbp 20:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cree-L Kofford

edit
Cree-L Kofford (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)

Has not had independent sources for two years (Deseret News and Ensign not independent of the LDS church). No independent sources came up in a Google search. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) #‎Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious organizations, where consensus is forming that articles such as these must be subject to GNG rather than being deemed automatically notable pbp 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is also discussed in a book called "Cree-L Kofford"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj19tfchufNAhVH-GMKHSjKAwcQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q="Cree-L Kofford"&f=false Contemporary Mormonism: Latter-day Saints in America, published by a respected company unaffiliated with the LDS church. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 19:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Sinha (admiral)

edit
Tapan Sinha (admiral) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article may fail WP:GNG. No references found to verify the subjects notability. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 14:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Temptations of Satan

edit
The Temptations of Satan (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)

Declined PROD: This film has not been the topic of any in-depth discussion in reliable sources. See https://books.google.de/books?id=ajXwxJuYd5gC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555 for example: not even the plot has been described in detail. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Neither of the two references do more than just mentioning it. Slashme (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
year/type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep as a sourcable topic representative of the birth of early American cinema. We do not expect a 102-year-lost-films to have the coverage we might expect of something far more recent. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only source that has been found so far that isn't a catalog entry is the book that I listed that says that not even the plot of the movie can be discerned from the surviving "synopses" of the film, and vaguely speculates about what it might have been like. That shows that NFILM 1 (multiple full-length reviews) isn't satisfied, and to date, we don't have a second non-trivial article published about the film, so NFILM 2 isn't satisfied, and certainly none of NFILM 3-5 are satisfied. I've looked at the "find sources" links above, and they just serve to underscore the lack of coverage as far as I can tell. Also, at present, the article makes no claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR, and likely the first criterion of WP:NFO. This was a five-reeler, a feature, according to the American Silent Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Feature Films, 1913-1929 ref. It got a theatrical release. If movie reviews even existed in 1914, it would have received them. If not, well, back to IAR. For it is a cornerstone of WP:POLICY that "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." To insist upon deletion of a century old lost film by a notable filmmaker because it doesn't follow the 'letter of the law' goes against that good advice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because it was (and so is) a notable film. There is no need to invoke IAR because the notability guidelines themselves allow you to use common sense. Thincat (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say that it's a notable film, but:
  1. the article makes no claim of notability, and
  2. it doesn't seem to have been covered at length in multiple reliable sources.
So I don't see the notability, and with the amount that is currently in the article, why not merge to Herbert_Blaché. It's a short article that doesn't even mention this film except as a note in his filmography, so redirecting The Temptations of Satan there will allow that article to have more substance. If his article becomes unwieldy and overgrown, sure, then it can be split out. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no article ever has to overtly state "this topic is notable because..." and while covered at length is fine, it is not a policy nor a guideline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is expecting an article to say "this topic is notable because…", but an article about a topic that doesn't say anything about it that makes the reader understand that it's notable, is a problem. For example, there is CSD A7 "This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". If you're writing about a topic that's important enough to include in Wikipedia but you don't mention what's so interesting or important about it, that's not helpful to the reader. --Slashme (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think a merge there would be a good idea so thank you for suggesting it. With hindsight it's a pity you didn't go ahead and do that rather than come to AFD. Still, delete is not a suitable step on the way to a merge. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To determine notability, we can use common sense and logic supported by guideline... one of which states it can be determined when a "film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema" and also when a "film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". In 1914, the United States was only then growing into the film creating country it is now, so we have a historic notability per guidelines.. like it or not. And too, we can certainly and logically believe that a film by a notable filmmaker was reviewed and spoken of in 1914 media, without expecting that pre-World War 1 media will be somehow archived online for 102 years. Book refs are expected and quite satisfactory. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So is it a unique achievement? No: it wasn't even this director's first feature-length film. Was it a major part of his career? I see no evidence of this. And I agree that we shouldn't get hung up over online sources if book sources exist, but I haven't seen anyone give a reference to another one, online or not. There's room to include the whole text of this article in the director's article, and the film isn't even mentioned there, so why not redirect and merge? --Slashme (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never found the 'explicit claim to notability' argument a compelling one, for that just comes down to semantics -- in my view. That said, Slashme is right that redirects are cheap and I'd have no objection to doing that, until such time if any when other material becomes available. Even the sole book ref states, rather amusingly, that little can be divined about this film from any existing descriptions, so the prospects for any growth here seem very limited, at this time. Neutral Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 19:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchelsis

edit
Kanchelsis (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 19:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

edit
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (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)

Publisher's notability is based on re-published press releases. For example, citation 6 in the WP article can be found on the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.'s site. I could not find coverage in reliable sources, so this article fails WP:ORG. Delta13C (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Changed my mind, and it looks like WP:SNOW is happening here. Delta13C (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment this article was sitting without any citations since 2013 and now the moment I start adding any type of citations, it is immediately nominated for deletion. There is something intrinsically wrong with that. However, I won't oppose whatever the community decides the fate of the article should be. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've reverted the article to the state prior to the recent edits I've done ... all bad additions of press releases ... and I've transplanted the AfD notice back to this version, which has 0 citations, which is the state it had been in for years. This is the version which should be considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW NeilN talk to me 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kylie Maybury

edit
Murder of Kylie Maybury (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)

Unremarkable unsolved murder. TheLongTone (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I thank you Paul Benjamin Austin- perhaps my original edit was not so far off the mark after all... thought it seemed familiar. Muffled Pocketed 12:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's blatantly obvious he's got a grudge, if anyone was to look at his history of AfD-ing. Not to mention the lack of civility about it. --GouramiWatcherTalk 14:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Anthony Bradbury? Muffled Pocketed 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why ask me? I am not involved. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well exactly. Disinterested rather than uninterested. Muffled Pocketed 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, can TheLongTone be disciplined for bad faith, lack of civility and use of the en-wikipedia to indulge his grudges and obsessions? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aniyan Midhun

edit
Aniyan Midhun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial arts trainer does not meet WP:MANOTE. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlin Bazovski Lobanov-Rostovsky

edit
Pavlin Bazovski Lobanov-Rostovsky (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 references, no assertion of notability The Anome (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin La Croix

edit
Justin La Croix (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)

Republican running for election in November against the Democrat incumbent, but not elected to anything yet, nor notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I can't even find any local press coverage of his candidacy online. OnionRing (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being an as-yet-unelected candidate for office does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — as always, if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to attain notability on the basis of the election. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates for state legislatures are not notable. If he wins in Novembmer, La Croix will be notable, but he is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He can have an article if he wins in November. But I have rarely searched a candidate and found less press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7. Any editor attempting to recreate the page would be well advised to make sure that the article is based on secondary sources well removed from the editor, publisher, and other related parties. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Creature's Cookbook

edit
The Creature's Cookbook (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:GNG with no secondary sources, does not meet any criteria of WP:BKCRIT. I can't find anything other than press releases online. McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources (the book's website, the publisher's Facebook page, a press release). You can click the WP:GNG link to find out about secondary sources - all Wikipedia articles require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source has been added. a tertiary website covering the release of the book. When discussing a press release written by someone, the only source that exists is the press release in question. There are no secondary sources for the "plot" of the book, and that is in the book itself. There are no secondary sources for publishing data except that released by the publisher. So all secondary sources that can be added have been added.--Kristina Meister (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A blog entry posted by the author's agent is not "independent of the subject". Typical sources for a book article are defined as: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews" and explicitly not "media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".
If Creature's Cookbook has not yet received any mainstream reviews or other press coverage, it is too early for it to have an article in Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while looking for sources to improve the article, I found a couple of sites identifying Kristina Meister as the author of this book ("Kristina Meister writing as the monster Simon Alkenmayer"). The article (and the now-deleted Simon Alkenmayer article) were previously claiming Alkenmayer to be the author and implying that he was a real person. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor of the project. The citation that was added was added in error. But if you would like to continue editing the entry with a vendetta and bad information, we would all just rather you remove the article. But when I attempted to delete, you put it back up. So do as you please and delete the entry. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could find no evidence that Simon Alkenmayer existed (just some jokey press releases describing him as a real-life "immortal monster who must eat humans to survive" who has a publishing deal), and two sources describing horror writer Kristina Meister as the author writing under a pseudonym. As the only other editor to have worked on this article, I've no objection to a speedy delete under WP:G7. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMetaldave64

edit
SuperMetaldave64 (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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Do note that most of the sources currently in the article are from unreliable sources. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I created this article, admittedly, and know little to nothing about the subject of video games. Are not Design & Trend, Christian Post, GoNintendo, and Tech Times reliable sources? Are they not indeed independent of the topic in question? They are somewhat passing mentions, in the respect that they are mentioned briefly in the articles, but the topic itself appears to be the cause of their discussion. I believe that an interview with Denis Dyack indeed makes the subject non-routine for a Youtuber. I'm not asking and stating these sarcastically either, this is my first deletion discussion, and I definitely want to become acclimated to the discussion environment here on Wikipedia. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards, you need third party sources about him, not third party sources citing him. If "Tech Times did a story about SuperMetalDave64, then that'd be valid. WP:VG/S has a list of sources to use and avoid. Pretty sure GoNintendo is one to avoid, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see!!! This has been quite edifying, thank you for clarifying this, the notability guidelines on Wikipedia are more linked to availible information in fully reputible sources. That makes perfect sense. Sergecross73, NinjaRobotPirate, and Tokyogirl79. I do know that SuperMetaldave was linked to some some high profile leaks in and around December of last year involving NEOGAF, there may be some interesting coverage in there somewhere. I am too now, however, leaning towards deletion. This is more of draft material, rather than actual article material. My bad, again, thank you for giving a bit more insight into the inner workings on this site. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He got mentioned in a few articles as a source, but there seems to be very little information about him. Wikipedia isn't a who's who catalog where you get rewarded with an article once you quoted by a few news articles. We would need in-depth coverage about the person himself, such as analysis of his skill as a journalist and reliability. I don't see that. One or two of the sources did look like maybe they would go that way, but they merely speculated on the reliability of his sources. If someone can point out something that I missed, I'd be willing to change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A few reliable sources using the subject as a source for rumors is not on the path to meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything that's actually about this person. He exists as a person and as a YT personality, but this does not automatically make someone notable, nor does the amount of video views or followers. It's insanely difficult for YT (or other social media) personalities to pass notability guidelines and there are thousands of people with far higher follow counts that fail notability guidelines. Heck, PewDiePie's article was repeatedly deleted until 2013, long after his follow counts went into the millions. It's just that hard to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as still nothing at all minimally convincing for his own actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darius series bosses

edit
List of Darius series bosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The minutiae of enemy details from a video game is outside our scope as an encyclopedia, especially when it has no secondary sources. I would have just redirected it to the series, as Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, but I don't see such a redirect being useful. czar 06:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this list article has a "references" section, it is actually unreferenced, since the alleged references are spurious and are original research from the mind of the list creator. Unless reliable, independent sources discuss the wide range of these video games "bosses", we should not have an unreferenced list of them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article passes neither subject specific guidelines nor GNG. Fenix down (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samy T.

edit
Samy T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this for CSD#A7, but the tag was removed by the creator; so I'd rather avoid a revert-war by sending this here. The subject is a high-school football player, who does not remotely meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Already at MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Connorsonian Islam

edit
Draft:Connorsonian Islam (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Connorsonian Islam|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional sect. Cotton2 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's a clear consensus that this doesn't belong here as a stand-alone article. If anyone (Carrite?) wants to use the material in writing an article about the school, I'll userfy the article; just ask on my talk page. Deor (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce Tigers Football

edit
Commerce Tigers Football (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)

high school football team Fbdave (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to America! Carrite (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point, but unsourced does not necessarily mean that the information is wrong and unsourceable. Southern High Schools are harder to source out than from other regions of the country due to bad replication of back files of newspapers, etc. via newspapers.com and so on, but there is no reason to think this school would be an insurmountable task. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bio of a living person and if the article were re-tooled to be about the high school (and include the football team), I have no objection. I can assume good faith that the high school exists, online sources can be found, and give time for the article to develop.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes an article should be created on the school. This article has no bearing on that process. The majority of the article in question here is content that even if it could be properly sourced would be unencyclopedic either due to being out of guidelines or per WP:WEIGHT.John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont White

edit
Lamont White (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 notable per WP:NGRIDIRON: I can find no evidence online that he ever played in a Vikings game or any other professional game. The rest is mostly unreferenced claims about a semi-pro career playing and coaching, and some referenced ones about him doing community sports work with young people. No indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_9&oldid=1234119946"