Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 31 October	2 November >

Guide to deletion

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 redirect to Sleepover. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slumber Party

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG. TheKaphox T 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sleepover in case someone uses this capitalisation. Blythwood (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. That, or move the article Slumber Party (song) into this space. TheKaphox T 21:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to sleepover - The band isn't notable however the term is so it's better off to delete and redirect (IMHO deletion is best so that an ex band member/associate can't recreate this article). –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though further discussion and improvements needed Sam Walton (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT characters in video games

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

Yes, this is a case where deletion is cleanup. Why? To the extent this is not a WP:CFORK of LGBT themes in video games, it is fancruft and an increasingly unmaintainable list.

As elsewhere in popular culture, LGBT representation (particularly romance) in video games is increasing to the extent that it is now more remarkable if a recent Western game that includes romance options does not allow for LGB romance - and this trend is, if anything, set to increase. This makes the list unfeasible to maintain after about the 2010s, as can be seen from the amount of (mostly unsourced and trivial) content listed for the most recent years. There has been an OR tag on the list since 2013, which indicates that there are not enough people interested in the topic to maintain the list in anything approaching reasonable quality.

The synoptic approach to the topic in LGBT themes in video games is much more appropriate for an encyclopedia, as it discourages endless lists of minor characters and/or WP:OR speculation (e.g., from the article: "In Dead Rising 2, it's hinted that two minor villains are in an incestuous lesbian relationship"). This list should be redirected to LGBT themes in video games, and perhaps some content (mostly about early examples and firsts) can be merged to there or to the individual game articles. Perhaps a more focused list such as of transgender characters could be feasible. But as it is I don't see this list as particularly useful. Sandstein 23:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely fails WP:CFORK. TheKaphox T 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN - the concept of LGBT characters is notable when treated as a group, as shown by the references both in this article and at LGBT themes in video games (as was already agreed upon in the first nomination), and because the arguments given by nomination are traditionally considered as ones you should not make, as it explicitly contradicts the WP:NOTPERFECT policy. Moreover I don't think it's a coincidence that this deletion is posted right after the possibility for an article cleanup has been discussed at the article's talk page. That Sandstein has decided to start this potentially destructive "deletion is cleanup" discussion without commenting the different possibilities first at the talk page is extremely rude. Diego (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BTW I *have* been regularly performing maintenance on this article, including the detailed structuring per year and adding some topic-defining references, but that's obviously not enough effort for Sandstein. May I suggest that you could participate and do some cleanup yourself, instead of posting a menacing "clean it up NOW, or else" AfD? Diego (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that discussion you mention. I noticed this list in a "see also" link in a related article. As concerns WP:IMPERFECT, no article must be perfect at all times, but if an article looks so bad for so long, it's clear that there is not enough interest among editors to maintain it in a decent shape. In such cases, we're better off with no article (for the time being) rather than an embarrassingly crappy one. Sandstein 13:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you go posting deletion discussions in articles without first checking what discussion is going on at their talk pages? I know my posts above are harsh, but may I request that you retract this AfD and discuss it there? I do NOT believe that removing access to the current list of characters and references, which is what would come from a deletion, will do any good in helping build a better article. (Oh wait you're an admin, right? Deleting content doesn't affect you as it does us mere mortals with standard edit rights). Diego (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at worst Merge Listing of characters that have been confirmed (either direct in-game, or through developer comments) to be LGBT is completely reasonable for a list associated with the theme of LGBT depiction in video games. It should not be written as proseline, but a table would be better. It is not so much a CFORK (as only a few examples are highlighted on the theme page), but more an exhaustive listing of known characters, which would have been reasonable to include at the end of the theme's page if there was space. Perhaps if this was table-fied and the non-sourced entries removed it would be short enough to re-include on the theme page (hence the merge). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it passes WP:LISTN. If its getting "un-maintainable", then I recommend setting up some inclusion criteria rather than deletion. (Limiting it to just core cast or characters or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:LISTN. The list needs work, and likely should be reformatted into a table as Masem suggests, but the subject of LGBT characters in video games as a group is clearly notable. I agree with Serge that the list needs an inclusion criteria that includes sourcing showing the list members are shown/known to be LGBT, not just hinted or rumored. Following cleanup or format change it should probably move back to "List of..." too -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – even just on the value of WP:TNT. I'm not hellbent against such a list, the current thing has no inclusion criteria or working basis. Listing Big Gay Al because he appears in South Park Rally; having a whole paragraph on Namco High while we don't even have an article on it; and just generally listing dozens of unsourced items; it doesn't even describe how the character Jean Armstrong is LGBT; just the line "strongly hinted to be homosexual, although he denies this"; Abu'l Nuquod is original research to the next level; etc, etc. Surely, if this article uses sources that aren't used in LGBT themes in video games, that content can be merged, but I don't believe the current list has any value (and it may even be downright offensive or dangerous). ~Mable (chat) 14:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are definitely a lot of entries that have to be removed from this list based on speculation or implication, and in other cases, there's a lot of excessive details to try to justify that. This list probably can be cut to at least a third of its current size after stripping away the OR entries. But there are cases of characters confirmed to be LGBT within game or by its developers (the Persona 4 being one I know we can source readily off the top of my head). Cleanup is absolutely necessary but deletion is not. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT is something you cite where there's virtually nothing of redeemable value at an article, so much so that you may as well just start over from scratch. That's a bit off the mark when you've got plenty of legit entries that can easily be reliable sourced (Persona 4, Fire Emblem Awakening and Fates.) Your stance (and the nomination in general) flies in the face of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the idea that "this is useful information" doesn't get much traction among most Wikipedians, but by the same token the argument that "this is not useful" should never be the basis for deletion. This list *is* valuable, and contains a large number of verifiable LGBT characters that could or are already sourced as such; removing those low quality entries that can't be made verifiable is possible, but this is not the venue to do it.

There is a reason why the policy accepted by the community explicitly warns against using AfD instead of proper content maintenance for legitimate topics, and I see no arguments in the delete comments that would support following a different approach this time. Nobody has ever tried to perform a systematic cleanup, so deciding in advance without ever trying that it can't possibly be done is a large stretch IMHO. It is certainly hard work, and I found it daunting to do it alone on my own, that's why it never got made; but now that we have the attention, maybe the editors here may volunteer to get the thing in better shape, rather than sweeping everything under the rug? Diego (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were not properly displayed through policy and, well, I don't know what to do with this. I just hope it gets either improved or deleted soon because, as I said, this list is downright dangerous >.> But yeah, neutral, I guess. ~Mable (chat) 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've already started trimming out some of the worst examples, and I've started up a discussion on inclusion criteria here. Anyone feel free to contribute there too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't see much discussion of here is that the list is quickly becoming unmaintainably large even if much of it could be sourced. As LGB characters become increasingly common (T probably not so much), to say nothing of homo-erotic innuendo etc., this list is increasingly WP:IINFO, just as much as a "list of male video game characters" would be. I agree we should cover significant LGBT characters, particularly early and pioneering examples, as part of a discussion of how video games as a cultural medium address LGBT issues, but just making a flat list seems ... intellectually undisciplined, and completely unreflective of how significant (or not) any individual character may be. Sandstein 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people want to remove all context of the entries with a bare list, I think they just want to improve the formatting some. I mean, right now, its basically written as a list already, but it lacks any sort of bullet-points or list formatting. The point would be to either convert it to actual prose with paragraphs, or add actual bulletpoints and clean it up a bit. Moving in the direction of a list may make more sense because trimming may be the way to go on a number of entries. For example - the entry related to Chrono Trigger/Chrono Cross - there may be a valid entry there, but there's a lot of WP:OR to trim out too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That's because deletion discussion is not the place to discuss inclusion criteria for notable lists. Up until recently the total amount of these characters was noticiably low, much like female protagonists not too far ago. Now that it's a more visible topic, it's time to define and enforce a more strict criterion. Again, none of this should be the focus of an AfD discussion that should be about the relevancy of the topic as a whole, not the current status of the page. This is the wrong venue for this case, until AfD is definitely changed to "Articles for Discussion". Diego (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't want to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but see Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth to see how these lists exist for other media types. The article needs reworked, reformatted, cleaned up, sure. But that's not a valid deletion rationale. All of the related lists use a table format to organize even larger lists of characters than this, and this list should follow suit. An inclusion criteria, per WP:LISTN, can be draft to help aid with managing the list contents. But this isn't where we should be discussing cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:LISTN, but yes cleanup and a discussion on inclusion criteria is definitely needed. ansh 666 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only list of its kind. These kinds of lists are vital to LGBT visibility. It should be cleaned up and improve the citations but deleting it is a form of LGBT erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.13.80 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework. An exhaustive list is potentially not feasible or maintainable, but a list of major notable characters which have caused controversy or otherwise been notably LBG is a useful article. A potential candidate for WP:NUKEANDPAVE? --Indrora (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, the article is in pretty bad shape. But there are plenty of sources that show there are LGBT characters in video games. We're also showing the evolution of the depiction of those kind of characters: from offensively comedically, to well-grounded and thought provoking. I've removed some of the more nonsense examples just now. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing a solid deletion rationale. Artw (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN and all of the above. JAGUAR 17:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm definitely sympathetic to the nom's thoughts on LGB characters becoming extremely common now, and this list swelling to encompass a huge number of games going forward, to the point of unmanageability. I've done my fair share of sourcing valid entries and trimming junk from the article in the past, and always plan to come back and do more. I think a good option could be to limit it to early and/or groundbreaking characters, but drawing up criteria that don't slip into WP:OR territory seems challenging. But I would say that can all be hammered out on the talk page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to "History of LGBT characters in video games", and cleanup like so: There is a Platonic ideal version of this article that frames the trajectory of LGBT characters (and/or themes, vis a vis the LGBT themes in games article) within the context of the larger cultural acceptance of LGBT people in popular culture. This version is not a list or listicle, but an actual discussion of individual characters of impact, the academic discussion of them, and their effect on both other games and media in general. In no version is it acceptable to make a taxonomist's indiscriminate documentation of every single instance of an LGBT character in a video game. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope this AfD doesn't turn out to be like the one I did to Sexuality in Star Trek. In that (and in the previous two AfD nominations of the article), editors said that it just needed a rewrite. Unfortunately, nothing has been done to rewrite it at all (aside from a few minor edits) since that AfD, and it was likely the same story with the other two. I have no further comment on the matter at this time. — Gestrid (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly what I was worried about, though I am already pretty happy with the improvements this article did get. If the article gets improved in this manner every time it gets nominated for deletion, it may become an FL by the time it is nominated for the first time :p A girl can hope. ~Mable (chat) 10:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game Power 7

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

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an objective party is willing to clean it up. A few half-decent sources do exist, however the article in its current state is advertising, as the nom says.104.163.140.57 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt given the past deletion of which yielded no actual better signs of an article therefore not serving any beneficial time, I'll also note this is such a blatant advertisement it honestly needs G11, and there's nothing else to suggest seriously better, especially given the severity of advertisement, delete by all means. Looking at the history again, I see not only the fact of an advertising-only account focusing with it, but the fact they started this article as a in-mainspace sandbox. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World records in International cricket

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

Delete per the WP:RS and WP:VERIFY tags already applied. Adds no value, is of no use to WP:CRIC and, realistically, will not be maintained. Pointless. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so many issues (even if ignore the over use of flags...). Most importantly it's in many cases a fairly arbitrary list of statistical "feats" and statistics - so NOTSTATS probably applies as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Please make it go away. (per BST). Harrias ^talk 21:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article's creator is relatively experienced editor, I can't understand why this was started in the first place. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Also per WP:LISTCRITERIA. If I wanted info like this, I'd hit Cricinfo or Wisden before Wiki. They at least are going to be up-to-date. Narky Blert (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of it is unsourced; much is dubious. In addition, the phrase "world record" isn't normally used in cricket. St Anselm (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and arbitrary use of statistics. My personal favourite is "First player score a century in a birthday". Jevansen (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that Vinod Kambli wasn't! Narky Blert (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Colors

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources available, aside from this one, which is essentially a family profile that mentions the band.104.163.140.57 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another local band with nothing like WP:GNG coverage. Narky Blert (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawks For Targets

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

Multiple issues (outdated, COI, SPA, promotional.....) but most pertinent is failing of WP:Music and quite likely WP:GNG. A couple of links (e.g. BBC) by virtue of a Leeds/Reading booking in 2011. Few of the links are live (e.g. nme) so all we're really left with is a tumblr post and some photos hosted on BBC Rayman60 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Ahead pf their debut album's release they gained considerable attention across the music industry, as a band who may soon break into a wider level of recognition". That was in 2012, and they didn't do so. WP:BAND failure. Narky Blert (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BAND. Unfortunately there really isn't anything substantive available to verify the information in this article. An archive version from 2012 of the NME page mentioned above [1] is completely empty. The most recent entry on the band's Facebook page, from 2015, states that they are taking a "hiatus" – it looks very much as though they are no longer active and therefore the likelihood of finding more sources to keep this page seems remote. Richard3120 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Baltimore shooting

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

While this was covered in the news, this would be an example of WP:NOTNEWS. This was an event that has no lasting impact, unlike the Dawson murder case that happened in Baltimore. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to The Baltimore Sun, there were 31 homicides in the last month (mostly shootings). This article fails WP:EVENT and as the nom said, WP:NOTNEWS applies here. There were no fatalities and I see no lasting impact. APK whisper in my ear 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, as said above, this incident is not notable enough in a long-term context. South Nashua (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOTNEWS. No fatalities, no reason to believe this is anything more than an ephemeral gun violence incident. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. This feels like run-of-the-mill gang violence. Parsley Man (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashovania's Demon

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

A self-published book. Book was just released. This appears to be the first book by the author. Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Dlafayette24 concerning a CreateSpace book just published by one Derrick R. Lafayette. No evidence provided or found to indicate that this meets any WP:NBOOK criteria or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Createspace is a service for self-publishing without regard to literary merit (createspace.com).From Wikipedia:NBOOK: "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability". Thuresson (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic people of Iran

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Procedural nomination for IP editor 112.120.188.231 (talk) and I am neutral on the outcome. Reason left on the talk page was: This is a redundant article. Its content copy-pasted from other articles like List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" (same article), Iranian Azerbaijanis, Khorasani Turks, Ethnicities in Iran, Demographics of Iran and etc. Either should be deleted or merged with List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Iran has significant Turkic population. 3 other wikis use the same article. Naturally english version of wikipedia could have the same. The article has relible sources. Hundreds of thousands of such articles could be found in en Wikipedia. They all have relible sources; this has too. There is the article List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" since years in Wiki. When a thing has a list then logically it could have also an article. Matreeks (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the ip who nominated this article. It does not provide anything new. The user just copy-pasted its content from other wiki articles (mentioned in my rationale). The above comment by User:Matreeks proves that he have just decided to create his own version. He thinks wikipedia is a big blog service and articles are just like blog posts, so everyone can create duplicates, redundants and forks as much as he/she wants. Maybe a safe zone for his future povs, analyses and ownership. Just wants to have an article on English wikipedia without providing any valid reasons. He created a duplicate version of that list. And List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" is a similar article. The list has those ethnicities too. And it's easier for readers to browse the list and click on main articles if they're interested. Plus, read Ethnicities in Iran and Demographics of Iran, both of them cover same information. And all sections of this article are copy-pasted stuff from articles of those ethnic groups.118.241.110.61 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring your taboos in wikipedia without logical reasons. Wikipedia is not a good place for biased mindes. I think you may have personal problems with Turkic people and you want to censor the reality about them. The article List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" is only a list that reflects the name Iranian Turks. In overall Wikipedia Turk means citizen of Tukey but Turkic has total another meaning. We need this article in Wikipedia which is about more than 30 million people. Turkic peaple of Iran is a neutral article and reflecs the reality of Turkic people who live in Iran. This article is steadily under extension. Matreeks (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks". Seems that the two complement one another. I see parallel articles such as Iranian Arabs, Assyrians in Iran, Persian Jews, and so on. Seems appropriate. Also seems to expand on other articles beyond a copy-paste. Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is pov synthesis probably for irredentism. Iranian Azerbaijanis are not a true ethnic Turkic group, they are a population that have adopted a Turkic language and certain aspects of Turkic culture and so should not be grouped together with much smaller but genuine ethnic Turkic groups like Turkmen or Qashqai or Afshar. All the population groups detailed in the article already have their own individual articles and Ethnicities in Iran is sufficient as the main article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you say they are not true ethnic Turkic groups?! We are not more in Nazi Germany! pleas do not forgot it! Faanee (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a people aside from a shared language and culture? Azeri Turks do indeed fall under the Turkic category; there are reasons to delete this article but Azerbaijanis "not being a true ethnic Turkic group" is not one of them. Yilangren (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DNA investigations indicate they have a different origin - the genetically Turkic groups are descendants of incomers, the bulk of Azeri Turks came from native populations who became Turkified. "Iranian Azerbaijanis, also known as Azerbaijani Turks, are a Turkic-speaking people of mixed Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic origin" - (sourced content from Azerbaijan (Iran)). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article is a good article about Turkic people of Iran with sources. I can not understand why it is nominated for deletion! Apparently many Turkic people live in Iran (some resources claim it as tens of millions). We have now many such parallel articles in Wikipedia. Faanee (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)— Faanee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Possible WP:SOCK, made his first edit in this page. -- Kouhi (talk)

Confirmed as being sock of Matreeks [2] who has already given an opinion here, so I have struck out this keep opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per IP's comment. This is overkill. There's already an article about them. -- Kouhi (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete which is surprising considering I would've assumed similar pages exist for other countries (e.g. "Turkic people of China" or "Iranic people of Uzbekistan"), but they don't, and solely based on consistency I vote delete. If such other pages existed, keeping this one would be a no-brainer. In fact, to be honest the article List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" should be deleted too if we're going to be consistent across geographies (but I think we should focus on this article for now). Yilangren (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CONTENTFORKING. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nicky Romero#Protocol Recordings. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Recordings

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

Not notable vanity label owned by the DJ Nicky Romero, mainly used for his own and associated releases. The sources are largely WP:PRIMARY and do not indicate notability based on reliable sources. The article list the non-reliable Beatport chart. The number of artists appears inflated. I checked the Kelis discography and see no mention of the label. She might have appeared on one of the singles that was released through the label, but that hardly warrants listing her as signed to the roster. Karst (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:INHERITORG. As the nominator states, being owned by a famous DJ and releasing records featuring notable musicians does not confer notability on the label itself. Kelis' contribution is guest vocals on a 2013 release by Don Diablo, "Give It Up", but she is NOT signed to the label. Likewise, Calvin Harris and Nile Rodgers have appeared on a couple of tracks as guest artists... in fact the majority of the roster is simply guest artists so it's pure WP:SYNTH. None of the tracks have made a major national chart so they fail WP:NSONG as well. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nicky Romero#Protocol Recordings. Given that he's notable, his owning a label that has released material by other notable artists is itself encyclopedic. There may actually be nothing to merge but the redirect is still appropriate rather than deletion. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicky Romero#Protocol Recordings; anything useful can be picked up from the article history, although it's probably not needed. But a redirect may be useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - This looked notable on its surface due to the artists listed. However, many of these are just collaborations and not signed to the label. Very misleading. I was unable to find anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and at this point would recommend it be merged into the person article for Nikcy Romero.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. It is indeed but Afd is the wrong forum for a redirect. I've nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:R3. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mdamfasmsmg

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

This appears to be a pointless/nonsensical redirect page, so I propose deleting it. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Beatz

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

It lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:REFERENCE. Only relates to WP:Trivial mentions. No official evidence to prove his contributions, whatsoever. DBrown SPS (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The only articles about this person are either short promotional articles, or primary source interviews such as: [3], [4], [5]. Delete, as it lacks reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that you nominate this for deletion and it hasn't even been a full day of its creation is astounding. But as of right now I am finding other "reliable sources" (in Magnolia's words) to clarify his nobility, because he is a notable producer. JayPe (talk) 16:37 1 November 2016 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: JayPe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Keep this appears to be significant independent coverage, as does this, this, and of course this. Meets GNG. You'll note that I list several of the same pieces as Magnolia677. The four sources I've listed are: notable publications XXL (magazine), The Fader, Exclaim! and a division of Vice Media. The other editor is objecting to them as non-independent sources, which is not the case, even if one is an interview. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." Interviews with the subject of the biography are not secondary sources, they are primary sources. Regarding the links mentioned above:

[6] - An interview.
[7] - Four paragraphs of vacuous, intelligence-numbing filler.
[8] - Two paragraphs of...nothing.
[9] - Another interview. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood what WP:PRIMARY is saying -- that's a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research and to be sure, an interview subject's statement about himself should be used with caution when attempting to verify statements of fact. But if an independent news source decides to publish an interview with an artist, we would consider that as contributing to WP:BASIC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I do see that we have an essay Wikipedia:Interviews but that's not terribly helpful - or well-written. I can see how editors may come to different conclusions based on what policy says -- or doesn't say -- but again, a news source deciding to publish a piece on a non-affiliated subject doesn't knock if off the table for WP:N, simply because it's been presented as an interview rather than rewritten by a journalist as an article. That would make no sense -- far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My read of Wikipedia:No original research is a bit different, as it says in multiple places that interviews are primary sources. Anyway, there is next to nothing published about this person (secondary sources), other than what this person has said about himself. I went looking for some article about this person, but anything not published as an interview seems to be just rapper magazine mush. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing with JayPe and Shawn in Montreal. Xboxmanwar (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources for music such as Fader, Exclaim and XXL Magazine so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

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

This is a low-impact crank journal run by people like Dean Radin and specialising in promotion of alternatives-to-medicine; it's widely mocked for its publication of outrageous nonsense but not, as far as I can tell, actually discussed in any meaningful way by reliable independent sources. I looked long and hard for any reality-based commentary and found only blogs. Oh, and RationalWiki, which is scathing of course. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion C1 by having a JCI impact factor, which I assume it does as one is listed in the article. The content might be of little value, I don't deny, but the inclusion criteria for a WP article are clear on journals with impact factors. It is unfortunate that we are unable to include the view of such journals when it is well known within the academic community that they are publishers of nonsense and a home for cranks, but only as common knowledge and not as the sort of RS we'd need to comment in the article. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But simply having an impact factor does not remove the need for reliable independent sources. That's the problem with subject-specific guidelines, they are great for creating a directory, but Wikipedia is not a directory, of journals or anything else. I cannot substantiate anything beyond mere existence from reliable independent sources. That's unlikely to change given that this journal does not publish anything that is useful in developing new insights. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not having secondary sources discussing journals is often the case, as the guideline notes. As I understand it, the accepted practice has been an IF is sufficient. Changing that practice is a different discussion, but I anticipate the standard approach will be applied here. I'm not saying the practice is a good one, nor that the journal is worth the electrons inconvenienced to display its website, I'm just saying that it is standard and applied dispassionately that means keep is the appropriate outcome. EdChem (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not just an IF. The journal is also in Scopus. And it is not just in PubMed (in and of itself nothing special), but included in MEDLINE. It's even in the prestigious subset Index medicus, so apparently the people at the United States National Library of Medicine take this journal serious. So it clearly meets our inclusion criteria. If there are reliable sources that the journal is "widely mocked" and publishes "outrageous nonsense", that is definitely information that should be added to our article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:JOURNALCRIT Atlantic306 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sandra discography#Compilation albums. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best Of Sandra

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

Unremarkable recording. Just another 'best of compilation. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this album has actually charted, in her homebase of Germany [10] and in France [11], albeit as "blink and you miss it" chart entries. This 2016 compilation was released well after her 1980s/early 90s heyday, and comes after about 27 similar "greatest hits" compilations. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandra discography#Compilation albums. Nothing else to see here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandra discography#Compilation albums per above. It has actually charted in Germany and France, but this is already referenced in the Sandra discography page. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hill View Park

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

Just another park. Imo there are probably many 'hill view parks, so not a suitable candidate for redirecting to the place where it way be found. Whose article is a ghastly lump of tourist brochure cliché that, were I feeling more ill-tempered, I would copyedit the living daylights out of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this page was to be kept, it would need to be complete re-written from scratch and sourced. Outside that, there's not a sign of notability of the park in itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches turn up only passing mentions, even at non-RS tourism sites, when searching for both "Hill View Point" and "Hill View Park" (as this article has a bit of an identity problem). The only potential RS I can find to even name-drop the location is from the Times of India here, which is far from in-depth. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Yes, it is a common name and there are many hill view parks in India. Anup [Talk] 00:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Safronoff

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

honestly, it's extremely rude to put that wiki for deletion without sending me a message about that award problem, or you could at least edit the wiki in order to remove that award thing and explain the reason why.

sincerly yours Allaze-eroler (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. imo there is a slim claim of notability for his first novel Spire (novel) since it has won an award. I know nothing of such things, but imagine that if this award is substantial to confer notability there woul be a list of winners or the like on wp. There does not seem to be. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award Safronoff won, the IndieReader Discovery Award is a vanity award given to self-published author. There's not a claim of notability to this award, and in addition the coverage I have seen of the author have come from press releases. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable science fiction writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akaki Tsilosani

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

Not notable. Yes the article is referenced; no, none of the references are substantial. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Prof. Akaki Tsilosani is a prominent Georgian transplant surgeon, founder of TALIZI Clinic. He is recognized worldwide among fellow surgeons worldwide as one of the leading surgeons. He is a member and expert of International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS), American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine (AAAM) and Asian Association of Hair Restoration Surgery. There lots of web sources in different languages about him and his achievements, which clearly meets the Wikipedia criterias. There surely should be an article about A. Tsilosani in English Wikipedia too. If an article needs some modification please let me know exactly how to improve it. Thanks Zetalion (talk) 23 December 2024

delete fails GNG and was a copy/paste job from https://www.ishrs.org/users/akaki. Just tagged it for copyvio. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article is a copyvio from the website stated above. Also, no one noticed that I already tagged under CSD G12 which was removed by the author (diff). Ayub407^talk 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so you did. hm. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love Wikipedia and work almost 10 years! I highly respect all contributors and admins. But please explain how the titles/descriptions of the books/publications may be copyright violation??? International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) just copied the list of Doctor A. Tsilosani's list of publications on their website. Titles can't be copy violation at all. Otherwise should the titles on the original publication be renamed??? Thank you in advance! Zetalion (talk) 23 December 2024

You copied everything from that page, even down to the line breaks. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Alan Spencer-Churchill

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

Thoroughly unremarkable footnote in Debretts. Strictly one for @aristocracy' fetishists. TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peerage doesn't connote notability. The subject doesn't pass WP:MILPEOPLE and I'm not convinced the spare routine coverage merits WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the existing refs appear to provide significant coverage of him, nor do the above Google searches (although they did reveal that he once had his photograph taken while wearing a rather striking striped shirt). Qwfp (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; merely a footnote of a trivial nature. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how a third son has to find his own way in the world. This one married for love, so no money there and became an early capitalist in the tourism industry, though there was no such concept at the time. He was therefore more 'Upper Middle Class' than 'Aristocrat', all through an accident of birth order, so no discernible fetishism there. I agree the stripy shirt in Ireland is fun --Po Kadzieli (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) He may only be a "footnote" in the categories you have put up so far, but he had an entrepreneurial focus that would have been despised by his family and he did not look to be slotted into a safe conservative seat. Do you not think it admirable that he did not apparently seek to be photographed by a society photographer? In my view he is notable if only for trying to earn his living. Have a look again, I've added pics. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ if only because I would not be caught dead in that shirt. More seriously, (and responding to Po), the images add nothing to show notability in the article. Not notable as an aristo. If his notability depends on his role as an entrepreneur, it is not shown in the article. I would change my contribution if the article were edited to show his notability in that regard, though. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my Delete vote based on the remarks below about his possible notability as a "different" 19th Century businessman. I don't know enough specifically about aristos not getting their hands dirty like tradesmen in the era, though, to convert my vote to a Keep. So, I still think it needs work to demonstrate notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lineagegeek makes a good point about the business angle. As a toff, I agree, Alan has not much to brag about, but getting into ships and Argentinian beef is kind of notable. There are loads of references to him in the press in relation to businesses contracts etc. Unfortunately, a lot of them are now tied up in subscriptions, so the only alternative is hours in libraries. I bet many of you will not hang about for that and that would be a shame for a chap cut off in his prime. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable as a 19th century British businessman and philanthropist. I suspect that better sources are available and article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep but I would like to know a good deal more of his business interests before being sure. If he was notable, it was probably for that. His title only indicates that his father was a duke. He was not himself a peer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as businessman, and an unusual one for the time, with his background. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as an early capitalist: that would not make him notable now, but in the 19th C. it is a break from commonality. Also suggest the intimation by the filer that all keep-!voters are 'fetishists' verges on a personal attack and the uncivil. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! Another source of notability is that after Alan died, his widow married a Mr. Caulfield, but she kept the name, 'Lady Alan Spencer-Churchill'. In fact, her own death in 1888 was announced in that name. So that speaks for itself, no? --Po Kadzieli (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. We have notability criteria. Please read them. What you're talking about isn't listed and therefore we don't consider the subject notable. This is not a subjective thing. We're assessing if the subject meets out objective criteria. If you're going to be a partisan about this you're going to have a bad time. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. I have read the criteria. I am not sure who the 'we' are to whom you refer. As for the threat of 'a bad time' comes across as very unpleasant indeed in the context of a soit disant cultural organisation. If that is the case, I'm out of here. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Po Kadzieli: I'm sorry I was unclear; there was no threat. "We" refers to us Wikipedians, the aggregate that shows up to discuss. The assessment is what we, collectively, are doing by !voting. Wikipedia becomes a difficult place when we can't cooperate and cooperation becomes impossible when we either don't agree to the same rules or try to reinterpret what prior consensus has already agreed upon. Wikipedia is easy and enjoyable when we make our determinations dispassionately based on objective criteria. Whenever editors veer from that norm we get into all kinds of hurtful arguments and everyone loses. You seem to be imagining the word "notability" to mean whatever you want that to mean. My warning is that this approach is going to take you against the grain and you might think we're out to get you or that we don't value you as an editor. Please return to our objective criteria and forget any perceived ownership or investment in the article. None of this discussion is personal in nature or driven by grudges or politics. If you start to make these mental gymnastics to push to keep the article you'll find yourself sore as a result. I hope that makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not notable as a military person, passes WP:GNG as an early businessman. I hope that more information can be added, as what is there is quite interesting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this person seems to meet gng. WP:MILPEOPLE (which is an essay not a guideline) writes, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article." I agree that this is not a very high bar and it can be argued that routine coverage can provide these details. However, I think this quote is supported by gng, Significant coverage is coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Significant does not, here, mean that the coverage should be a long article. So in an article like this one which is arguably a collection of short mentions about a subject from a variety of sources, I think the important question is, "Is it original research to connect these sources to the subject of the article?" In a biography, this often depends on the subjects identity being clear in each source. In an instance like this, the subject has a fairly unique name (Alan Spencer-Churchill), a frequently used title (lord, military officer), known occupations (soldier, merchant, investor), and a life story with enough detail that each source clearly fits with the others to describe the same individual. Thus, I do believe that connecting the sources is not original research and the subject meets gng. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Slattery

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

Withdraw she just barely passed WP:N, despite my claims to the contrary. Hairhorn (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skater that clearly fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating, with no other claim to notability offered. Minimal coverage, fails GNG. Declined PROD. Hairhorn (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slattery actually does meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating, specifically item #4: "Competed at a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event (Skate America, Skate Canada International, Trophee Eric Bompard, Cup of China, Cup of Russia, NHK Trophy, Bofrost Cup on Ice)"(Bofrost Cup on Ice bolded for emphasis). Seeing as she competed at the 2004 Bofrost Cup on Ice, even with placing 7th, this would satisfy this area of notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I missed this one, sorry about that. She was under the wire for almost everything. Hairhorn (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Bulb model

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

Not remotely suitable as a Wikipedia article. It looks sort of like a text book example to illustrate a mathematical method, except that it is too incoherent to belong in any decent textbook. We don't have articles that just give textbook examples, and also there is no sourcing for it, so no evidence whatever of notability. A deletion proposal was removed by the creator of the article, without any explanation. I think it could be considered to qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A11 as made up by the creator of the article, but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt and bringing it here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads more like an essay or a paper for a math class. The only source in the article is to a Wikipedia article, which in itself is a red flag. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unadulterated essay. Unrelated, but what bothers me more is that it calls itself a "model" while describing a literal scenario. Where's the metaphor, man? (This is because it should actually be called "Modelling a system of lightbulbs" and be posted somewhere besides Wikipedia) 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Question: Specifically what is the counterintuitive result? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to the claim of the author, this article is not similar to "Ant on a rubber rope". The latter fits the categories "Puzzles" and "Recreational mathematics"; the former does not. No counterintuitive result. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The article makes no claim of notability, and the lack of sourcing suggests that the topic is not notable. Ozob (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even coherent enough to be entirely sure it's not some kind of (time-consuming) prank. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 05:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Josh Pyke. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Empty Flight (band)

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

I've declined a speedy for copyvio as the other site states that is a copy of this article. I also declined a speedy for spam as I didn't thing it promo enough for that. However, despite the presence of one member of the group with his own article, I am uncertain about whether this group is notable enough for an article of its own (and slightly suspicious because a mention of a possible early 2017 reunion...). Not an easy name to Google - I used -"scared of horses" and -"eddie lin" to eliminate two irrelevancies, but still found a lot of stuff that referred to empty aircraft rather than a band. Peridon (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Peridon: the Facebook post was written five days ago, but the article was created today. Wikishovel (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't notice that, and went by the wording. But the intention obviously was that it become the WP article as they were including the attribution in advance - I don't think I've come across that before. Peridon (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article itself makes the case that the band is not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and per Hairhorn above. Wikishovel (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh Pyke. Lacking decent sources. May have had rotation on Triple J [12] (satisfying WP:MUSIC)but better sourcing is needed. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. There is only a passing mention there, though. Peridon (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (As the dab/surname page) Sam Walton (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balhara

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the surname list that it now is. The clan was indeed going to fail GNG but the nominator is well aware that we convert to surname lists where this is a possible alternative. That's what I did, somehow missing the fact that the thing had been nominated here. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about converting to a "surname list" without using that in the title; Balhara (surname). I would like some input on the concern of this being a "surname list" article as opposed to clan or just a "name" article. However, obviously a surname in at least 4 countries, without a doubt, and also a clan in India and possibly Pakistan, so there should be mention. There is evidence that Balhara (shown also as Bahara), is an ancient Hindu dynasty that ruled in Gujerat (The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia ..., Volume 1 page 230). As a set index article it seems to serve a purpose since there is named content. The DAB page states "an ethnic group of people in India.". There appears to me some etymology that the name means "King of kings", Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency ..., Volume 1, Part 2 - page 17 to 23. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting Raj sources - we do not use them, per WP:HISTRS, numerous discussions at WP:RSN, the info at User:Sitush/CasteSources, etc. And it is plain daft to cite the description on a dab page in support of it being a clan - the dab only exists because of the article. No need to add "(surname)" to the title if it is the only article using the name: plenty of examples of recent conversions by other people that follow this example & the parenthetical dab word content is redundant. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So no sources considered "Raj" are acceptable at all under any circumstances?

I am not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation, but it does sometimes have a use, and I mentioned that be cause many, many set index article (lists) do use it and "plenty of examples of recent conversions by other people" doesn't necessarily mean a lot. Would this reference, or this one, be considered reliable to support content. Otr500 (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Balhara (disambiguation), and list the notable persons there. No sources have been provided at this AfD that it's needed a clan, and per WP:V that is not allowed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As there's no primary topic here, there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. In fact, according to WP:DABNAME, Balhara (disambiguation) should be redirected to Balhara. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the dab page it now is. And having kept it, redirect Balhara (disambiguation) to this base name. (It should never have existed, as the old page at Balhara should have had a hatnote directing to Kingdom of Balhara, and those are the only two entries on the dab page). PamD 11:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it complicates matters when people do such drastic edits on a page in the middle of an AfD process. "Convert to dab page" as a !vote would be clearer: let the AfD discuss an article which has at least some resemblance to the page as nominated. PamD 11:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had the nominator followed WP:BEFORE, it would've saved the time of many good-faith users here. In any case, you can't blame others for doing the obvious thing. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as dab/surname page clan non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Prasad Reddy

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

Well, first of all this is an unsourced BLP, but obviously it's not that simple. It contains a big list of references, many of which mention the subject. Furthermore, searching for his name brings up many more. The problem is that I can't find sustained in-depth coverage for him. His name pops up in a number of news reports giving interviews and soundbites as a spokesman on behalf of his various employers (notably National Cyber Safety and Security Standards), there are links to videos of him giving speeches, but I'm really struggling to find anything about the person themselves. I'm unconvinced that he's independently notable. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Holy linkspam, botman. I'm on the fence about this, but I'm pretty sure his appearances are entirely as a representative of someone else who's actually in charge. Even as (additional) director, he hasn't actually done anything notable within his organization. If nothing else, it's WP:TOOSOON 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage. Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 00:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources appear to be trivial "John Smith at Big Company said..." spokesman quotes rather than telling us anything substantial about Reddy as a person. The "Effulgent Star of the Decade" award doesn't seem hugely significant if a hundred people get it every year. --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He seems to get quoted a lot, but not finding (in English) any coverage of him personally at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but Khamosh

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

Non-notable book, getting trivial coverage from association. WP:NOTINHERITED §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It probably meets BOOKCRIT#1 which states, A book is notable if, The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

Sources: Outlook India, Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times-2, Telegraph India, Telegraph India-2, Firstpost, Free Press Journal. For more, click here or do a simple Google search. Anup [Talk] 06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extracts, excerpts and newsbites are different from book reviews. Which of this is a review? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times-2. Anyway, the guideline says nothing about "book-review", it says, "subject of two or more non-trivial published works". Anup [Talk] 07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 book reviews: Hindustan Times and Bollywood Hungama. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HT's review is just paraphrashing of book, an non-lazy form of quotefarming but not review. A Bollywood film portal is not a suitable reviewer of literature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read HT review carefully. Does the 2nd and the last para look like mere paraphrasing. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. These two paras of the ten paras of article that you mention have two common repetitive points: that the book is well-researched and it has lotsa gossips and trivia. Makes the book more notable now! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still feel that the 2 required sources for meeting WP:NBOOKS should be reviews? --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again asking for my feelings/thought? Ready to be offended again? The two or more sources should be non-trivial as NBOOK says and all lengthy sources that simply copy-paste book's content do not count. Also, they have to be about the book. This should exclude press coverage of book release and actual life of Sinha. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can express yourself without offending others. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:BOOKCRIT, multiple reliable sources present. Most of which are non-trivial. Pratyush (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had created this article after finding multiple reliable sources which covered the subject in detail. It passes WP:NBOOKS. --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic under discussion satisfies the inclusion criteria. @Skr15081997: use these sources to expand the present one-line stub? Anup [Talk] 09:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any justification for a "standalone" piece for this topic. This one-line article on book is already covered in author's article. If and when more target article is edited to add more verifiable contents and it becomes a possibility that holding contents on this book in here, might make navigation difficult, we can do a split. Anup [Talk] 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NBOOK also says This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among many other things. Are you suggesting a 'merge', therefore? I think, that could be discussed given the size of existing article. Anup [Talk] 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though the author is significant, the book is not. We need expert reviews about the article. - Vivvt (Talk)

Sorry I was under the impression that it's an autobiography but it is not. Looks like author is also not notable. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: ~~You seem to be messing it up here. Author is one-time Bollywood superstar (worked for more than 4 decades), and two-time member of parliament (last election won in 2014 for 5-years).~~ Article is one-sentence long and is "already merged" in the target article (a redirect therefore?). Anup [Talk] 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author of this book is Bharathi S. Pradhan. It could have been an autobiography if Sinha himself had been the writer. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be any evidence at all that the book is notable--just routine coverage. No suitable merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I have a little query after reading your opinion. If the given sources merely indicate routine coverage, then what kind of coverage proves notability? Just a small query. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the references are about the subject of the book, not the book. It can be an unclear distinction, and if a book is really important over time we could make a separate article. As an example, Even for famous people, most bios are just listed in the Additional Reading--the most famous bios only get a separate article, and the usual distinction is a major prize in the books own right. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

I do think the references are talking about the book, see about the book, again about the book, book review, about the book and many others, try a google search. Since the book is a biography, a news article talking about the book will talk about the actor because the whole book is about him. I don't know what is done with other bios, I believe you in good faith if you say so, but according to my knowledge there is no such guideline. What I do know is the notability guidelines for books (factors which determine whether a book is notable or not) are listed at WP:BOOKCRIT and the subject clearly passes the 1st point of BOOKCRIT, which makes it notable enough to have a separate article. Pratyush (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three "about the book" refs are literally quote farms and "the review" is paraphrasing of quotes! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan 1234, can you amplify your opinion a bit. As far as I can see, this meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason given by nominator was trivial coverage resulting from association (WP:NOTINHERITED). But a search for the book's title yields numerous incidents of significant coverage in media. Now just because the book happens to be the biography of an actor-turned politician does it makes the book ineligible for an article in spite of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Of course the article is just a one-liner. We could solve this issue by expanding it. Deletion won't help. The kind of coverage received by the book is same as that received by any other notable book, or is there any other type of specific coverage the book hasn't received? I don't think so. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You very well will fluff it with trivia, add all names of celebrities who know nothing about writing and came to the inaugural ceremony and blabbered their hearts out, you will then go on and write book review written by film critics who are unsuitable for doing that, you will write what fellow-politicians tweeted about the book content and then you will select few quotes from the book and increase the article length; nothing of it amounting to stand-alone notability and failing WP:AVOIDSPLIT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What made you think all that? Does WP:NOTINHERITED is the only reason you think the article should be deleted for? --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your past track record. Re-read all comments so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks. Try to keep the comments related to the subject. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was asked and here it is. If you can't digest it, you are free to not talk to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong but your 3 comments above indicate that you are a bit angry with me or this whole discussion. Remember my friend Dharma that if the concerned parties keep a cool head then results might be produced easily. But in the end we are free to disagree. You have stated your viewpoint very clearly. I myself don’t know about any politician’s tweet regarding this book and if this becomes a reason for disagreement, it can be solved at the concerned article’s talk page. You have mentioned my past track record Dharma, but as far as I can remember I never added someone’s irrelevant blabbering or random tweet to an article. I’ll glad if you show me the diffs to any such edit. The author is a well known film journalist and columnist and based on the provided sources, the stub can be expanded into a decent size start-class article. Thanks for the time you are putting in deletion discussions. We need more editors like you. Thanks again. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, NBOOK also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book." Why aren't you taking all your sources and writing a small para about this biography in Sinha's biography itself? If author is notable, you are welcome to work on Draft:Bharathi S. Pradhan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to author page (whoever that is). Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try having a look at WP:BOOKCRIT, specially the 1st point. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable, and neither is the author. Optionally redirect to Shatrughan Sinha, who is the subject of the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect and expand the article Shatrughan Sinha with a new section possibly called Anything but Khamosh, a biography, including the references. The book attracted attention of independent sources and definitely deserves a mention in the main article about the actor/politician. It is in my opinion a better option than deleting possibly valuable and verifiable piece of information. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I don't see how this is independently notable. Now open for over 40 days, this discussion is getting stale. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG& WP:NBOOK. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Andjelić

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

Non-notable rugby league player who is yet to play at pro level. Pretty much all his coverage is due to featuring on a reality TV show, which isn't sufficient to meet the GNG per WP:FAME. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made his international debut in the WC Qualifying match against Wales.Fleets (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable in the field of rugby and hasn't done enough in reality TV to warrant an article for that either Spiderone 12:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He may well be in rugby, but he is a rugby league player who has played representative rugby league for his country of birth in World Cup Qualifiers against Wales and Italy.Fleets (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps the article could be expanded with the reality TV information. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Been up 4 weeks and not much discussion has occurred, I would say consensus is more or less a keep however they're only weak keeps so I have no objections to speedy renomination if wanted however the title issues/dabs should probably be discussed on the talkpage, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's

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

This is just a list of WP:PTMs, and not useful as "Dawson's" is not a title for any of these entries. You'd need prior context to clarify what you are referring to. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there's one or two plausible (non-primary) topics, plus agreed many WP:PTM. Leaning towards keep per WP:TWODABS, moved PTM -> see also. A search may find more so leaving for now. Widefox; talk 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge with Dawson. Clearly TWODABs, but also a partial title problem. Montanabw^(talk) 08:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Koch

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

This article is autobiographical, was dictated by Koch to a friend to write for self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiaevery (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Koch himself wrote this article and dictated it to a friend so it could be created for his own self promotion and advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assis1971 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Assis1971 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sofiaevery, I note that you created this article five years ago, so you are presumably the friend to whom Koch dictated this. Could you expand a bit more on your reason for your change of mind about its suitability for Wikipedia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an oral history project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that the article was in this state before the nominator gutted it. That comment should be taken simply as a statement of fact and not as an argument for keeping or deleting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for deletion cited above are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The previous version of the bio was terrible for all sorts of reasons, but didn't egregiously violate WP:BLP in a way that could harm a living person, and it least asserted notability, such as firsts, and cited a source for it.[13] Many of those links to Koch's own website were mirrors of reliable sources; such links are not ideal but they were evidence that the sources exist, which is what AfD is concerned with. These edits deleted everything and replaced it with only a single negative event, turning it into an Attack page.
Koch was the subject of a profile in Outside (magazine) in 2003, and again in 2004. Koch was interviewed on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 2003, and was the subject of an article in Sports Illustrated in 2003. There's a few pages at least devoted to Koch in a 2012 book published by ABC-CLIO. Could stop right there. WP:GNG met. But there's also a large number of short-to-medium pieces about of Koch in Outside and in other sources [14][15][16][17][18]. And the incident the attack page is based on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that this is anything other that a bad-faith nomination, being made by the creator of the article after deletion of everything other than a claim that reflects badly on the subject. I always try to assume good faith, but the evidence here is clear enough to override that assumption. I think the best way to deal with this would be to close this discussion, but allow an editor acting in good faith (maybe Johnpacklambert?) to nominate with a proper rationale, and without obvious sockpuppetry, if it is thought that the subject is not notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem belongs at WP:AN/I or WP:SPI or whatever. If an editor is misbehaving, seek sanctions at the appropriate noticeboard. The topic either meets the criteria or it doesn't, regardless of who is making the arguments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG via sources found by Dennis, "Oral History" is not a valid convincing theory either as the sources exist. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the disruption behind the article, the subject does meet WP:GNG. The article itself is riddled with self-published sources and deadlinks and needs to be rewritten, but there is an in depth in Sports Illustrated [19] and Outside [20]. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Townville Elementary School shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. A1b2C3d4 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, received a lot of media attention, very tragic but memorable 73.162.238.253 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per extensive coverage, plus the fact that the perp survived and there is 14 years old means that there is already geographically extensive coverage of the question of whether he will be tried as an adult (coverage of perp here:[21]) Certainly, if not kept it should be WP:REDIRECTed to List of school shootings in the United States, but my opinion is that the coverage of the event and the legal proceedings in its wake carry this past WP:GNG, and it is preferable to keep an event about a crime, than to create a separate article about the perp (whose age has already generated an unusual amount of coverage).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if WP:NOTNEWS, then why bother creating and updating election news in Wikipedia (for example, the plethora of information on the 2016 USA Presidential election) as it happens? Why not wait until it has been settled, and then create a (much more concise) article about it?

Also, according to wikipedia guidelines, space is not an issue.

Also, a main road is now being named after the youngest murder victim.

Of course, given the sheer number of school shootings in the USA, perhaps this is indeed a non-notable event. :/ --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, NOTNEWS is irrelevant to extensive coverage and media attention. rationales are the main issue.BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move - Keep, or move to Townville Elementary School. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the school is not a notable subject. It's currently a redirect to the community article and it is very doubtful inclusion of information on the shooting would elevate it to notable. It would be 1E. John from Idegon (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the town's article, which is currently a stub, or to the list article of american school shootings. Note that current sourcing is shockingly bad, to the Mail (a shamefully inappropriate source), and everipedia (never heard of it, but it claims to hold all wikipedia content, and more !!). -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would absolutely be on board with "[merging] to the town's article, which is currently a stub, or to the list article of american school shootings". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2010s, where it is already listed. As the list shows, such shootings are all too common. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregor. I also have to note that these shootings pass GNG for widespread coverage. That they have become all too common does not negate their notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't seem like a likely search term to bother with a redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hugh Mungus Incident

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Redirect to Rudy Pantoja? this person has received quite a bit of coverage.JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a solution, but that, in turn, redirects to gag name. The incident is mentioned, though. Kleuske (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to "Trigger feminist" or "Cult of outrage" - but they don't exist either ...yet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to gag name, as suggested by JohnTombs48. Merge the content to that article in summary form (a couple of sentences). This incident gained a lot of attention on the web, but it fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) guidelines. utcursch | talk 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trivial meme; and NOT NEWS. Not importantenough even to be used as an element in Gag name. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- barely literate prose & minor incident. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to gag name). All sources are directly-involved drama manufacturers. It's like Youtube comments are leaking... 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A manufactroversy that will have no lasting importance. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect - It does seem like a big enough meme to have a Wikipedia Page and the women who filmed it is a minor public figure having appeared on Democracy Now and been a conference speaker and is a regional regional community organizer (please note in this last link there are multiple photos of her leading fairly sizable protests over different causes). But if it is decided to delete this article; instead of redirecting it to Gag name I would suggest merging it to the section Rudy "Hugh Mungus" Pantoja in h3h3Productions which deals with the incident.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbusta (talk • contribs)
Keep - This is an incident that has had millions of people following it. It is noteworthy.--Franz Brod (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Rudy "Hugh Mungus" Pantoja in h3h3Productions per Mrbusta— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs)

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) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Wilhelm Dedekind

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

A7 speedy contested; subsequently, claim of significance placed. Prod removed after that, and an unreliable source added. I've not been able to find any reliable sources to support GNG/SNG. My suggestion is to delete this article. Would look forward to hearing comments from other editors. Lourdes 11:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion; as aforementioned, GNG/SNG is in effect here - adding to this, following the links within the given source reveals a probable copyright violation, as the two texts are remarkably similar. 1Samario1 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a Genealogy article with no claim to notability and no reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article in effect says that he was born, lived, and died. I cannot see any notability here. Nothing in German Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With some regret, DElete unless there is major improvement to create a narrative text, not a series of notes, and to provide details of his ministry and achievements, currently largely lacking. I cannot judge the merits of the source, but the article fails to prove notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Bodh Narayan Jha

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The article is sourced only to (1) a one-sentence Facebook page, and (2) a web page hosted on the web hosting site Weebly, the full text of which is "Dr Bodh Narayan Jha Our Source of Inspiration", and for which the "who-we-are" page says nothing but "Coming soon". Neither of those is a reliable source, and neither of them gives substantial coverage either. No evidence of notability found anywhere else either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: A PROD was removed by the creator of the article. A speedy deletion tag added by Juristicweb was removed by an IP address with no other edits except one to the talk page of this article. Personally, I regard it as borederline for speedy deletion, so I have given it the benefit of the doubt and brought it here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Article lacks indepdent reliable sources to verify claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seemingly fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Even if he was a notable person, nothing could be found online for him for reasons explained at WP:INDAFD. Anup [Talk] 14:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey Resort

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

This article appears on its face to fail WP:GNG. It looks to be a WP:COOKIE resort. Dolotta (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 11 October 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, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG long as I found some RSes in here. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 07:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The only attempt at a notability claim ("Abbey has the world's tallest wooden A-frame") is uncited. Copy is promotional including news on the "$40M renovation" and the footage of its meeting place. Wikipedia is not a planning guide for corporate meeting planners. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Offers virtually nothing of historical or architectural interest, one link doesn't work, the other is to its own webpage. Nothing but an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. It's a hotel/resort and has the usual ads, listings etc that you would expect from a hotel/resort, but nothing better. The one source cited aside from the official website is a dead link which is hosted by some hotel consultancy service, so I expect it isn't third party. The best source I found was this review of their restaurant, but as it was published in a local paper I don't think it meets WP:AUD. Hut 8.5 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Minimal debate, even after several weeks, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motel Motel

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

Not notable band that has released one EP and two albums that did not trouble chart. The international tour appear to be a cultural exchange with Egypt and a number of festival dates in the UK. Fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. Karst (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding coverage in reliable sources. Sam Walton (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 11:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bednash v Hearsey

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 12:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment to talk page. Hope this helps. But the user above is uninformed: the Court of Appeal case is always significant, and in this case it sets an important precedent. Wik idea 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it must be noted that the above comment is from the page creator. Second, it is wrong. We have no guideline suggesting that such cases are "always sigificant"; the closest thing is an abandoned proposal. The appropriate guideline is therefore WP:GNG, for which there is currently no evidence of being met. —swpb^T 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Wikidea is correct on both counts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the guideline that supports this. There is none. Without a specific guideline identified, your comment should be struck from consideration as completely unsupported. —swpb^T 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. It's how caselaw works; decisions made in higher courts are followed by lower courts; they have legal significance. Their legal significance makes them notable - both to lower courts, and as a result to us. Don;t expect to read about this case on page 3 of The Sun, but in all other respects is like the hundreds of other such cases we have articles for. Now stop WP:Badgering, please, and accept that others have a different view from yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading GNG, then reading WP:OTHERSTUFF. GNG asks for reliable independent sources, of which we have zero, and OTHERSTUFF points out that the existence of similar articles is not a valid argument. Taking apart flawed arguments isn't "badgering" (another page it doesn't appear you've read), it's exactly how AfDs are supposed to work. Make a valid case to keep if you can, but falsifying policies and guidelines isn't going to fly here. —swpb^T 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzz. The article asserts the notability of the case. Additional references would always be welcome, but AGF the existing reference is more than enough. Really, swpb, you don't make your case haggling like this. The article is keep. That will be the result. Deal with it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many blatantly incorrect statements can you make? 1) An assertion of notability alone is worthless; GNG requires sources. 2) WP:AGF is a guideline governing editor behavior; it has zero relevance to the question of whether an article meets a notability guideline. Anything else you want to throw at the wall? —swpb^T 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the good faith of the person who added the reference which I cannot read (it's behind a paywall). So we have an assertion of notability. We have a source. And we have you being uncivil and abusive in a rattle-out-of-pram sort of a way. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who added that source made no statement to the effect that it offered significant coverage of the subject; the only implicit statement that can be assumed is that it supports something in the article (we don't even know what, since there's no inline citation). The source could mention this subject in the most trivial way, and still be added in good faith. There is nothing to AGF about regarding notability. Abusive? For not letting you have the last, wrong, word? Good luck with that. WP:HARASSMENT, which you linked to, makes it clear that false accusations are themselves personal attacks, so you might want to stop digging approximately now. —swpb^T 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed with your continued WP:Badgering. As I asked earlier, please accept that others have a different view from yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not what WP:Badgering says. At all. Have any opinion you want about this article, but do not lie about guidelines and expect it to go unanswered. —swpb^T 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the opinion that you have been hectoring me to change my opinion. That amount to harrassment, especially when you were asked many rounds ago to desist. But I would not expect a bully to admit bullying, so I'll not look for any insight from you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on Wikipedia policy, article is not notable without 3rd party reliable sources, WP:RS. Cotton2 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as its entry in Vulnerable Transactions in Corporate Insolvency [22] or Directors’ Decisions and the Law: Promoting Success [23], [24]. It's fairly specialised law, but the RS exist, and afaik there is no deadline. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those demonstrates significant coverage. Try your searches with quotes around them. Your first source mentions the case exactly once, in a footnote, and says nothing about it. As I hope you know, trivial mentions don't count toward GNG. The second source may offer significant coverage, but that would need to be confirmed, and the links you provided can't do that—searches for various forms of the case name turn up nothing. I have to wonder, did you not expect anyone to look at the links you posted? —swpb^T 18:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did expect people to look, yes, but I also expected them to have a fucking clue. The first reference mentions all of its cases as footnotes. That is how it is structured. A narrative text with footnotes to supporting cases. Quite a conventional model for a law book. You can probably spare me your counter-opinion, but I guess you won't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See again: trivial mentions don't count toward GNG. Period. Are we supposed to imagine that the footnoted case is the source of the legal doctrine in the body text, or just an example of it? It doesn't say, and so we can't assume. Then try on Wikipedia:Civility. The closer will weigh arguments by their soundness, not by their volume, or their level of rage. —swpb^T 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pity the poor closer, having to read through this crap. You affect to not having a clue about the way in which common law works: cases informing specific and often very narrow and technical points of law; caselaw being described and referenced to narrative by footnotes. In your estimation, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co would be 'trivial' because Treitel on The Law of Contract has only a single footnote to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"specific and often very narrow and technical points of law" does not notability make: shall I point you to our notability guidelines again? Of course a narrow legal precedent can be notable, and many are, but there is absolutely nothing to show that this one is. If that other case had the complete lack of reliable, significant sourcing this one has, it would be non-notable; but that clearly isn't the case. For your notes on fallacies to avoid, add WP:WHATABOUTX. —swpb^T 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, "specific and often very narrow and technical points of law" does not notability deny. Indeed its specificity, narrowness and technical nature does not speak at all to its notability, as any rational inspection of WP:N would ascertain. We have multiple RS in the areas of insolvency / duties of directors pointing to this case, which amounts to significant coverage sufficient to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Our sources are reliable. Our sources are secondary. Our sources are independent of the subject. But hey, I'm here all night. Entertain me. Point me to this unicorn policy which equates specificity with non-notability, if that's the best you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"its specificity, narrowness and technical nature does not speak at all to its notability" I couldn't agree more. Of course, a "keep" argument requires positive evidence of notability; there's no converse condition where the "delete" argument is expected to prove a negative. As to sources being reliable, independent, and secondary, that's fine, but you conspicuously leave out that other word in GNG: significant. —swpb^T 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well yes, if you ignore the bit where I said We have multiple RS in the areas of insolvency / duties of directors pointing to this case, which amounts to significant coverage sufficient to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your case all over: fingers in ears saying "la la la can't hear you". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Significance" is a per-source property: you don't get to "significant coverage" by adding up trivial mentions, no matter how many you have. This is how GNG has always worked. If you don't like that, you need to take it up on the guideline talk page. —swpb^T 19:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do you obviate significant coverage by dismissing it as trivial. What are you holding out for? A complete book dedicated to this one case? Do I need to take you through it again. Enough reliable coverage to write an article without independent research. See above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough reliable coverage" is simply false, by all standards but yours. I already explained why your two new sources don't demonstrate GNG, and that seems to be all you've got. —swpb^T 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"by all standards but yours". As if anyone but you has actually opined on the matter. I get that you don't find any of the three sources compelling, but you don't seem to be able to articulate what would suffice: and I very much think that you're sufficiently wedded to this Quixotic AfD that nothing'll move you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two. Three links, but two sources. I guess you were hoping I'd miss that. And there is, of course, no basis for the attack that nothing would "move" me; you just haven't found anything that does. —swpb^T 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be 'forgetting' the reference in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, according to the Vulnerable Transactions in Corporate Insolvency book, it looks like this case was unreported. In most American jurisdictions, unreported cases don't have precedential value. Did this case set a precedent that affected the outcome of other cases? If yes, can you cite two or three cases that rely upon Bednash v Hearsey? If this case did affect the outcome of other cases, then my vote will be to keep. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a database which would enable me to find such things, NCFF. But my logic is: if the case is of no precedential value, why is it listed & discussed in books of insolvency / directoral duties? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In legal academia (and sometimes in court cases), jurists and scholars will occasionally cite unpublished or unreported cases (i.e. cases without precedential value) if the case involved a unique or interesting facts, or if the case applied legal rules in an interesting manner. I only have access to databases that list cases from the United States, and it doesn't look like this case has had any impact over here. I checked HeinOnline's database of law journals, but that also doesn't show much discussion about this case. The Belcher piece (cited in this article) may say something about this cases' impact, but the article is behind a paywall and I can't access it. Does it say anything about this case's lasting impact? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, fwiw, here's more info on the reference in the article pointing to Legal Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, March 2008, pp. 46–67 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2007.00072.x ‘Something distinctly not of this character’: how Knightian uncertainty is relevant to corporate governance. The paragraph pointing to this case reads:

Insolvency law is another area where directors are expected to consider both probability and risk. Under s 214(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 directors can become liable for wrongful trading if the company continues to trade and ‘. . . at some time before the commencement of the winding up of the company, [a director] knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation’. Personal liability and disqualification are possible consequences of wrongful trading. In several disqualification cases arising out of wrongful trading the courts have held directors to be unfit on the ground that they took unwarranted risks with creditors’ money. [55]

and the citation in the paper is 55. Re Living Images Ltd [1996] BCC 112, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Ashcroft (No 2) 2000 WL 877739, Re Richborough Furniture Ltd [1996] 1 BCLC 507, Re DGA (UK) Ltd 2001 WL 482928. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Tagishsimon and other relevant assessment. I do not have the access to UK databases or Westlaw, but it is an appellate-level decision that appears to have value as precedent. I'd suggest posting at WP:Law and see if there are folks who have better access to UK source material. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think any court case that can reasonably set a significant legal precedent is notable. South Nashua (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an important legal issue resolved, in a major appellate court. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Videolink2.me

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

A directory-like WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable video chat service; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Created by Special:Contributions/Lina_Dunaievska with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources at this time; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. I'm not finding any independent coverage - just catalog listings and a couple of company tutorials. Kolbasz (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any potential referencing through news, books, scholar, HighBeam, Google, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tiësto. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFTR:HRS

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

Not notable sub-label associated with the DJ Tiesto. One Billboard article that that hints at possible notability, but this is WP:TOOSOON. Fails the criteria for WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPANY. Notability is not inherited. Karst (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to the original edits to the article as a redirect to Tiësto. -- GB fan 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tiësto; this seems to be an appropriate target. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesg

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Rm prod. This is a standard Unix command". To which I will reply "So what"? This kind of stuff may belong on Unix wikia, but has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I repeat: this concept does not show its importance, it fails GNG, and NSOFTWARE. And yes, I am aware that we have many similar articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an argument useful for showing we have more garbage like this to shed. Seriously, even an Encylopedia of Computing wouldn't mention the vast majority individual Unix commands (ok, ok, sudo and several others are notable, I am not saying delete them en mass, but mesg (or logname or whatis) are only good example of what should NOT be in an encyclopedia). If you think otherwise, please frame your counter-argument based on notability policies. Thank you in advance :) PPS. I will also point out that several other Unix commands have been redirected, without discussion: Bg (Unix), Fg (Unix), as well as Lp (Unix), the latter following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lp (Unix). I hope we can agree on where to redirect this and similar entries on non-notable Unix commands in a spirit of mutual cooperation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss merge if not enough text is available. Mesg is an obviously good search material. Viewers would certainly want to be able to search Unix commands in English Wikipedia. Btw, Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This concept does not show its importance, it fails GNG and NSOFTWARE. GNG never mentions importance. WP:NSOFTWARE is an essay. Mesg easily passes GNG with the thousands of refs (books for example).
Bigger issue, could this be merged elsewhere? Bg (Unix), Fg (Unix) and Lp (Unix) were all subprograms of a larger process. For bg and fg, these two commands are part of controlling various jobs, thus they were redirected to job control (Unix). For lp, it is a print command under System V printing system, thus the reason for the redirect. The problem with mesg is that it doesn't fall under another system. It's used in conjunction with Talk (Unix), Write (Unix) and wall (Unix).
...but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an argument useful for showing we have more garbage like this to shed This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not an argument for deletion. Does this have "Significant coverage" in "reliable", "independent" "sources"? Yes. Is this something listed under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? No. Therefore, it passes GNG and be kept. Bgwhite (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be so kind and point out that significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? Because the article is unreferenced, and nobody has mentioned refs here yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already gave some, look at the "book" link. An unsourced article is no reason for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Care to look at WP:V? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:GNG per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ... you realize that the article is unreferenced, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP is full of Linux nerds, so this would be a hard fight :D . For additional rationale: most of these fundamental Unix commands deserve pages because they have a strong and demonstrable lineage in computing history. These pages help to explain not just what programs do, but why they do it the way they do. For instance, tar (computing) reveals the ancestry of a program that might look counter-intuitive or pointless if you didn't know it used to be for WORM tapes. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to withdraw my ~~vote~~nomination if someone could add a section about this command's significance. With references. Or just point to those references here. All I see so far are arguments that WP:ITSNOTABLE because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry that you believe the master UNIX specification is non notable, or that this is a voting procedure. Mesg is detailed in corporate and educational guides, such as https://answers.uchicago.edu/page.php?id=16197, https://kb.iu.edu/d/acjl, http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/ssw_aix_61/com.ibm.aix.cmds3/mesg.htm These sources confirm the content of the article and vouch for the widespread use of mesg, but don't warrant inline refs because they just paraphrase the manpage.

AfD is not a "guilty until proven innocent" system. No admin in their right mind is going to entertain the idea of you holding out your "vote" until someone does your due-diligence research for you. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary Morphogenesis

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

Non-notable concept. Zero coverage in independent sources. Kolbasz (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable neologism spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kurdistan Free Life Party. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Defence Forces

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Merge with Kurdistan Free Life Party. Pahlevun (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources from a quick Google search include [25], [26], [27]. SST flyer 10:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources above are not covering the subject deeply. They are only passing mentions about them being offshoot of PKK and PJAK and notability is not inherited, it is not enough to prove notability. Pahlevun (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Kurdistan Free Life Party, but otherwise fails as a stand alone stub as not notable in and of itself. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Best to avoid recreating a redlink and the group may eventually qualify as a spinoff. For now, could be a plausible search phrase. Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kierzek and comments on preceding article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Kurdistan Free Life Party as it doesn't seem to have enough coverage to warrant a separate article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clear consensus to keep this page. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Library system

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

Not a useful article: a "library system" is either the library service of a university, local authority etc, or it's an Integrated library system (Library Management System in UK), the issue, catalogue etc system. This article doesn't improve the encyclopedia. PamD 07:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we have a number of librarians who can comment on this better then I can. I think the article refers to the concept of "main library with branches". It may be notable... or not. I did find University of California. Library Systems Development Program (1971). Library System Definition: Functions and Interfaces. so at the very least this merits a closer look at sources and usage. Could be just redirected and merged to library, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Library system article is about the systems that involve buildings, main libraries, branches, librarians, other library employees, and that can or not use a Library Management System to control and perform library operations. Thanks.--P2prules (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been curious about library systems before, and I could have used this article. Icebob99 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable topic of how regional libraries are organised; sources presented at the AfD / available in the article sufficiently meet GNG, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh Hunter

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable film series that does not list any independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. No significant RS coverage can be found.

The page lists several awards. The awards (even if not PR driven, of which I'm not convinced), do not overcome the lack of RS per WP:WHYN. For closed AfDs on comparable articles, please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother-Daughter Exchange Club
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlvana (2nd nomination)
Redirect for discussion:Big Tits at School
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wet Asses (group nomination: five articles were deleted)

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. No independent reliable sourcing, claimed awards fall far below the NFILM standard of a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 07:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Som Chand Gupta

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:86.17.222.157 with the following rationale "contest deletion - clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN". However, unless the article is simply badly worded, it seems that the subject was never elected - he served as an unelected party official (secretary) and failed at a local election, neither of which makes him notable in light of the cited guidelines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG (an unelected politician lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources). Anup [Talk] 13:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerrazzi

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

Promotion for non notable business. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Whilst there is a lot of sources but most are primary, used over and over again. Others are about other people with some not even mentioning this company. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source I checked (Rolling Stones) does not seem to mention the company at all. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. At best could get a short entry at some List of American record labels or such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply an advertisement and the information and sources yield nothing else actually better therefore there's honestly nothing to suggest both notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Space (Connecticut)

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

No indication of importance, only one independent source. Just another music-poetry venue, like the thousands in the surrounding cities. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable event venue; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any reliable sources about this venue. Sam Walton (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harad (toponymy)

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

No such word is Slavic languages. Someone not well-versed in slav ling "back-formed" it from diminutive haradok, which is actually for horad. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article covers, according to its own description, the same topic as Gord (archaeology). That makes it NOTDICT at best. If it's not an actual word, it's not even that. Cnilep (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Fazlet

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

PROD deleted by creator. This article smells very promotional, and I was unable to find secondary source coverage of the subject to meet GNG. agtx 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. Loaded with WP:EL and nothing but promotional material. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the PROD nominator, I find this article's only claim of significance is that this person has founded several companies, but that is only significant if the companies are significant, and I find no evidence of this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I tried to save it via trimming and research, but there's nothing availbale for sources. Page had a dozen inline URL's. Principal source, used extensively, was subject's Linkedin page. Unquesitonably a speedy delete.104.163.140.57 (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Day In Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve - A Lifescape To Experience

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

This page has no context. Apparently is about a film but absolutely WP:TOOSOON. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... it technically can be speedied as just being an infobox, but in the defense of the article creator they'd only just created the page minutes before people started tagging it for various types of deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON, but if speedy is available we might as well get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "no context" speedy deletion was added 20 minutes after the article was created -- sufficient time for the author to have written at least one sentence about this film, which turns out to be a fairly well produced amateur film released directly to YouTube. Nicely done, but not notable in any way. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Why are we even discussing it? This discussion can easily be challenged via deletion-review (content/sources different from previous deleted one). I'll restore the speedy tag. They are welcome to re-create it with more content and possible sources that might exist (do not rely on Google search results for India-related topics.). Anup [Talk] 23:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. (doesn't qualify for speedy -enough content to identify subject of article). Anup [Talk] 00:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (For some reason, it didn't close before) Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Tennessee vs. Georgia football game

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

The game had a thrilling ending, but nothing extraordinary. It was just another hail mary. At least a half-dozen games every season end on a hail mary pass. The article was created a mere three days after the game ended, so long-term historical significance could not have been taken into account. On that note, the game will probably never have much historical significance since both teams are now largely irrelevant this season after losing several games. Lizard (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or possibly redirect to Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry#Notable games. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for it, just redirect to rivalry page.CollegeRivalryAlternate (talk) 2 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeRivalryAlternate (talk • contribs)

The difference between this and PaJH is the circumstances. The plays may be similar but this one holds much less significance in the larger picture. Lizard (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes it was an exciting ending, but this game doesn't mean much in the scheme of either team's histories. Tennessee isn't going to go undefeated and be a surprise national champion, and Georgia isn't going to come off the rails into a dark time in program history. If both or either of those happened following this game, it would hold legitimate significance as turning points in these programs. But as the nominator said, a thrilling yet non-extraordinary ending. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia–Tennessee_football_rivalry#Notable_games, which has about as much detail as is needed. ansh 666 19:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hofschröer

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

Request for deletion at WP:BLPN here Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:REALPROBLEM.

So I used to live in Los Angeles and...

I attended edit-a-thons where we'd get potential new editors. These wannabe-Hollywood types, when they weren't name-dropping who they worked with or talked to, tried to convince me to help them "have an article on Wikipedia" for ego and promotional purposes. With only one exception I refused them and I explained that they don't want Wikipedia to have an article about them for exactly this situation. Notability is not temporary and you can't turn around and ask us to delete the article about you because it doesn't read the way you want it to. Too bad for Mr. Hofschröer and his apparent bad behavior. My undergrad is in history and I have a soft spot for historians.

The subject is notable under WP:PROF as seen here, here, here, and here. All of those sources are academic work and nothing of the BLP nature so we ought not just delete it. Sadly, the current article doesn't reflect that and I'm a proponent of WP:REALPROBLEM. I'll cut Hofschröer a break and ask the closing admin to move this into my userspace and salt the mainspace entry until time goes by and I can write a fair and well-written article. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. A deletion request by a friend / acquantance / colleague of the subject doesn't cut it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I point out that the subject does not pass WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of the GS citations to his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep While I would prefer it removed due to the problems involved, he easily passes GNG on his books alone. Unfortunately his less than academic antics mean the popular press thats accessible is weighted towards negative actions. This however is not a reason by itself to delete. Currently the article is fair in accordance with the sources available, so userfying until more time has passed just seems like an excuse to get it out of sight until it can be reinserted with a more laudatory tone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. any problem raised can be fixed but the problem itself is not a reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have had this article since May 2008, based upon his notability as a historian and author. Notability is not temporary, so he does not suddenly become non-notable in July 2016, because of his conviction. Appears to be a COI/PoV nomination - Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences strikes again. - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lean to delete because (a) this person genuinely is only marginally notable (and that mainly for being something of a thug) and (b) it's more trouble than it's worth. I have sympathy to those who are impatient with a person who used Wikipedia for self-promotion only to demand deletion when the hens come home to roost, but equally we should show some class and allow people to exit with at least some dignity. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF; I too have a soft spot for historians, but unfortunately he does not apply. The sources are generally either merely poor (Sources # 1,2,10: LinkedIn, Napoleanic Soc., Amazon) or WP:PRIMARY and only mention him in passing (9 10). The only reliable sources the article currently uses (4 - 8, the newspapers) do not reflect any notability as a historian at all- they are testement to his recent conviction, which is therefore the only thing he is 'notable' for. And therefore he also fails WP:PERP. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly want to keep, simply because I find the story behind this guy interesting, but per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's argument, I must agree. There simply aren't any reliable sources that make the subject notable enough to merit an article of his own, all scholarly debate aside. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 00:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (the Talk Page) as it is being abused by Tirailleur to push his own particular agenda, including libellous claims against others (myself), an agenda he is also pushing on an external website. He does seem to be a little too obsessed. The Article page is worthy of retention, as the subject has produced a large quantity of material about the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, so it is a reference point for anyone interested in that subject and the background to the more contentious issues related specifically to the battle of Waterloo. His more recent activities should just be left as mere statements of fact from the media - anyone going for major rants about them is really trying to exploit the current climate in the UK about these matters to push an agenda about a battle, which took place 200 years ago. DaveHMBA (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- The books look low level ones for fans. He is explicitly an amateur historian. I get the feeling that there are some COATHANGER issues here too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hofschroer is notably mainly for being a convicted paedophile. As a historian, he is mainly known for making a nuisance of himself by libelling historian who debunk his books, usually for abuse and misrepresentation of sources material. Most importantly, though, the page about him is being repeatedly defaced by vandals who use it to repeat his conspiracy theories and the smears against the police, his family and the social services that the judge at his criminal trial dismissed. Left like that it brings Wikipedia into severe disrepute. Tirailleur (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think you can make a reasonable case that the subject is notable. Certainly his work has been the subject of reviews in reliable sources (e.g. [28] and some of Chris Troutman's links above). However it is going to be rather difficult to cover him while remaining compliant with WP:BLP given his conviction for possessing indecent images of children [29] and the large number of people trying to insert poorly sourced content claiming there has been a campaign of harassment against him. Given that his notability is somewhat borderline I think think it's worth trying to do this. Hut 8.5 13:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Candy Funk Party

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

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

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

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

Delete all. Minimally sourced article about a band which makes no claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything -- this quite literally consists of a single sentence asserting that they exist, followed by bulletpointed lists of member and session musicians and the titles of their albums, and says nothing else substantive about them that can even be measured for whether it passes an NMUSIC criterion or not. And the only referencing here is to AllMusic -- but having a profile on AllMusic is not an automatic inclusion pass on Wikipedia in and of itself. AllMusic is a database where the only inclusion criterion is that the musician exists -- whereas our inclusion criteria require that a musician has garnered certain specific levels of media coverage for attaining certain specific levels of concrete and quantifiable achievement besides just existing. So AllMusic is acceptable as one source amid a diversity of sources, but it is not a source that can singlehandedly carry a band over NMUSIC or GNG as the article's only source. Also batching their three albums, as those will have to be automatically deleted A9 if the band article goes. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, RCFP, groooovy man Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent third party coverage that conveys notability. Seems to be making a claim that existence = notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too groooovy to delete. Multiple independently notable members, WP:NMUSIC#6. International coverage

"Albums of the Week", Liverpool Echo, 14 August 2015

"ROCK CANDY FUNK PARTY We Want Groove (Provogue)", Sunday Mercury, 10 February 2013

"Listening Post", Buffalo News, 2 March 2014

Miers, Jeff (18 January 2013), "Discs: Patricia Barber, Dopapod, Rock Candy Funk Party, Matt Herskowitz", Buffalo News

First two are from England. Jazz Times review [30]. Also [31]. Not the greatest site but Glenn Astarita is a professional music journalist. Just enough to satistfy WP:NMUSIC#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per stated sources above. passes WP:GNG. JohnTombs48 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is the side project of Joe Bonamassa and backup band for him, period, full stop. I hate his music, but he, and this band, can literally fill a stadium and play on PBS during their endless begging periods. There is no other band in this genre that is as big. Ask your parental units. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RightNetwork

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

WP:ONEEVENT. It's founding was covered in media. The network folded. Nothing is left. Mentionable on the page for Kelsey Grammer or Ed Snider, but not worthy of its own page per WP:ORG/WP:MEDIA. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator and poor references. Meatsgains (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No shortage of in depth coverage. A random sampling from the first couple of pages of a Google search... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. I don't think 1E is applicable to the founding of a media outlet. It may have been short lived but the coverage more than rings the WP:N bell. In fact I can't recall any article with this much coverage being deleted at AfD on the basis of lack of notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not persuaded that this falls under ONEEVENT. Rather, a couple of notable, deep-pockets conservatives were like, "Let's start a media network." And they did. It failed. We record lots of enterprises that failed. As long as they were notable while they lasted. Sources brought by User:Ad Orientem establish that this one was.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are 'some' notability present, in my opinion, it should not have its own article space. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the quality of the article leaves much to be desired, but the subject matter is notable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the sources presented at this AfD appear to be sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant coverage in reliable sources found by Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) in USA Today and The Huffington Post among other sources demonstrates that RightNetwork passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as it's still advertising the fact the once-new publications that talked about this advertised it, and with it, advertising its sponsor and connections in advertising itself, hence it's enough to delete. As it is, for the article to then name Comcast as what was later not a customer is unconvincing and therefore hinted at PR alone. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. this article is not "advertising" anything. This short-lived attempt to establish a news network [32] happened. Recording that fact is an appropriate role for an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how this can be considered advertising when it's for a channel that no longer exists and hasn't for more than 5 years. Even their website is permanently down. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article certainly has its problems, attempting to use Youtube as a source(!) not once but twice! (What the-?) That said it's clear that substantial mainsteam reliable source coverage exists, even if the channel itself was short-lived. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of disappearing gun installations

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

This duplicates almost completely the list of significant installations in the Disappearing gun article. I still- I nominated this for deletion once before - do not see this as adding anything to Wikipedia except bytes. Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- See below // Original comment: yes, the subject is covered adequately in Disappearing_gun#Significant_Installations and the list article is not useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a separate page for a list already on another article? If this list has some additional info then why not just merge it? if not, then delete it. It has the appearance of an ego standoff to keep it separate when merging makes so much sense. I've decided to retract that opinion due to my inexperience in Wiki.Thanks.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOUT. This list is redundant only because the content was not removed from the initial page, which should have been done. The article about disappearing guns is long enough already. Move the applicable content to the list and keep the two separate. This was the conclusion from the previous AfD and it should be the conclusion yet again. Editors should boldly clean the mess rather than nominate for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the list in the article is of significant installations. They would have to remain, although perhaps not in list form, of course. This list is apparently a substitute for a tag; if actually populated, it would have several thousand entries...more, depending on how far the idea of "installation" was taken. This was the dominant form of heavy fixed gun for several decades in all developed countries, and for longer still in the US. Anmccaff (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chris: I tend to agree that this would work better as a separate article rather than a section of the disappearing gun article. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same guy who nominated it for deletion months ago, with everyone saying keep, nominates it again. Don't keep repeating an AFD hoping to get the results you want. Anyway, its too long to fit everything in the other list. Plenty of valid entries here, they all seem to link to forts notable enough to have their own articles that also have pictures of these guns there. Dream Focus 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and note in the meantime, articles have been added at a rate that suggest the list will be half-populated sometime about two hundred years from now. We no more now need a list of every installation than we need a List of Pintos by VIN, and the glacial pace of additions accurately reflects that.. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the arguments for keeping the article have been solid. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Most of the installations here are germane to the main page, and should not be removed from there -although, as I've said, they need not be kept in a list form. Simply removing them would not improve the article. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlefBase

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

Here is an odd one. An album for a red-linked artist (Gevolt), so could technically qualify for speedy delete, but it was declined back in 2011. I fail to see how a self-published album (℗ Gevolt Productions) notable. Renata (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page for the band was created, so the band is not a red-linked now:) - KremBrule (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing in the article that makes me think it meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. I would say move the relevant info to the band's page and delete this one. - Galatz ^Talk 17:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM at least paragraph number 1. - KremBrule (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes WP:NALBUM. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NALBUM with enough sources to allow an independent article of the artist Atlantic306 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This looks to me like a "List of X of Y," so per WP:LISTN there is no recognized way of determining notability. We have to base inclusion on whether or not it is useful, and I don't see agreement on that. Cerebellum (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor sports teams in the United States by city

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

WP:LISTCRUFT with no sources and vaguely related to the Minor league but without any real definition or significance (and also covered thoroughly in List of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada with the addition of Major teams). I attempted to add some definition by making it about top level organizations and was reverted. This page either is too vague for significance or needs to be more defined and/or completed with all minor league teams (although that is already covered in the aforementioned list. Yosemiter (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this list adds anything to the previously mentioned list of professional teams Seasider91 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems this meets WP:NLIST and the list of professional teams should be split given its size.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: How would you split the list of professional teams to reduce its size? If you add the word minor to the title making it only about minor professional (since Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada already exists), it would remove all four to six of the major leagues and still have dozens of leagues with dozens of teams listed. As the article in this discussion is currently written, ALL those teams also need to be listed here but by city instead of league. And per WP:LISTN, this is a "List of X of Y" with no determined notability criteria and must demonstrate its own notability. Since I believe the intent was show United States cities associated with minor league teams, which there isn't even an article about, I still fail to to see the notability of this article without making it more defined. Yosemiter (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: The original list of pro sports teams is close to being WP:TOOBIG (75/100 KB). I'd imagine it would be split along the lines of Major vs Minor league teams.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: I mentioned that in my comment, remove 4 to 6 leagues (depending on your definition of Major) from the list that currently has 50 leagues and I don't think that will make any less WP:TOOBIG. The only way to reduce that list would be to break it by sport (such as List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams and List of professional baseball teams in the United States by city). But in regards to the list nominated for deletion, does it make sense to keep it as is, or delete it and replace with something more specific (such as the one I linked for baseball)? Please note, that keeping it as currently defined, it would need to list every team from the 45 minor leagues listed on the list of professional teams. Yosemiter (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Agree with above that the split is good. Smartyllama (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Please elaborate, how does it meet GNG when there are no references? (First line in GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.") I agree that a split could be useful but how does this page, as currently defined (All minor league teams by city) currently be improved to meet any relevant guidelines. And if it seems like I am over responding it is only because I genuinely would like to know how this page could be improved. If you take a look at the edit history, I am pretty much the only one who has updated after the original creator made it. (Also, as I stated above this is a "List of X of Y" per WP:LISTN which has no inherent notability guidelines and is usually only accepted if there is an actual subject page for such a list to be attached to.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current undeveloped state, the page is less than useful to our readers. They are better served looking at List of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada. To fully develop the article, the table format will have to be abandoned so that all the minor leagues can be included. Per WP:BLOWUP, it would be easier to start over from scratch. Besides, readers can easily seach List of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada for their city using their browser search function. Sortable tables are also an option, but I don't think any of them are so long that they would really benfit from this. SpinningSpark 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a tough one, but I'm not convinced this is an Appropriate topic for a list. Someone interested in any of these leagues would look for lists of teams in those leagues (Triple-A, AFL, NBA-D, AHL). Someone interested in minor league teams of some given city would probably look at the sports section of that city's article (e.g. Cincinnati#Sports). It's not clear to me what practical value this list adds. The fact that it's currently a mess (we could certainly rearrange it fairly easily) and has no references (I'm sure the info is correct, referencing would be fairly painless) are somewhat beside the point. The list is somewhat interesting to look at (basketball in Prescott, AZ even though its census rank is #227? Who knew?), but I'm not convinced it's useful to anyone. So weak delete for me for now. Ajpolino (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an added note here, I'm not sure WP:GNG or WP:NLIST offer much guidance for this discussion. Certainly leagues and the teams on the list meet WP:GNG but that's why they have their own articles. WP:NLIST suggests that as each of these teams pass WP:GNG, they are suitable for inclusion into a stand-alone list. I think the most informative guideline is WP:LISTNAME, where I think the strongest argument for deletion is that this list is "too general or too broad in scope", and therefore has little value. It has already been split into lists for each league and for each city as noted above. Happy to talk more about this with those who disagree! Ajpolino (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or split (or merge) Per WP:TOOLONG, either delete the list article or split it up based upon sport, or something along those lines. Better yet if possible merge with existing lists. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I figured this would be a jumbled mess and an easy call to delete but this is actually a novel and useful method of indexing WP articles. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. SpinningSpark 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhita Rana

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

Non-notable actress/model and reads like a vanity page Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. This is pretty much promotion going on for a non-notable model. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate in Puerto Rico

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

This article was nominated for deletion three years ago and passed with a "keep". However, since then, the main improvements to the article have only been that large portions of irrelevant and/or Spanish-language content were removed or translated into English. The article still contains significant portions in untranslated Spanish, and even if it were translated 100% into English, it would still be just a group of disjointed topics rather than a quality encyclopedia article. Part of the problem may be that we don't necessarily have a clear concept as to what ought to appear in a "real estate by location" article; there are only a few articles whose titles begin with "Real estate in..." and none of them are currently rated as better than Start-Class or Stub-Class. So I would like to suggest that this article be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - I'm not convinced that this article should be deleted. You bring up some good points but I feel like users who are fluent in both Spanish and English should properly translate the content of the article. Now, I'm convinced it should stay as the page has been properly translated into English. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try and get the rest of the content translated soon, but I know enough Spanish to see that the article isn't going to be much improved by being translated into English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is now in English throughout (unless I've missed something). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable topic. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly stubbify as an alternative to deletion. A notable part of the economy. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qwan Ki Do

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested deletion, and previously deleted via AfD, there are no reliable sources for this, and none that immediately present themselves via Google. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficiently sourced; COI/OR-ridden hagiography. Quis separabit? 23:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It can't be a hagiography because it's not a biography. I've also added scholarly sources and removed the uncited material. Tell me whether it works for you. Lourdes 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Changed !vote to delete; see discussion below. Lourdes) ~~Keep~~ Because Guy has nominated this, I'll only comment that contrary to the nomination statement, there seem to be considerable scholarly material and Google News sources available to support the article's existence. If the material currently contained is promotional, that should be deleted en masse and only minimal contextual encyclopedic material may be retained. The subject is of considerable interest and has been researched reliably. Lourdes 07:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case for WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that contrary to your nomination statement, there were quite a few reliable sources. You could perhaps consider striking/changing/withdrawing your nom statement (but of course I'll defer to your judgment on that). I've taken your suggestion and nuked all uncited and promo material. I've now quoted six scholarly research material on the subject within the article. In case the article is kept, interested editors can work on it to expand the same from the sources I've provided and from the many other reliable scholarly and news sources available online. Thanks. Lourdes 09:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was sitting on the fence with the article in the form it was when the AfD was proposed primarily because the references were so poor - my main question is Is the art notable? I don't particularly think that the new references address that but they sure are better than what was there before. The art itself (despite the references) is pretty obscure. I do think that Lourdes took a cleaver to the article where a kitchen knife would do based on what is in other articles of this type but it did need some paring down. OK so I am still sitting and hoping for references that talk about the art specifically not just passing mentions.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PRehse. Thanks for the points. I'm confused with two of your statements: "The art itself (despite the references) is pretty obscure" and "hoping for references that talk about the art specifically not just passing mentions". If you go through the references "Cojocariu, A. (2011). Measurement of reaction time in Qwan Ki Do. Biology of Sport, 28(2), 139" or "Adrian, C., Bogdan, U., & Alexandru, O. (2015). Evaluation of Anaerobic Lactacid capacity in elite Qwan Ki Do athletes. Gymnasium, 16(1), 85.Chicago" or "Cojocariu, A., Ungurean, B., & Oprean, A. (2013). Improvement of the endurance motor skill in elite Qwan Ki Do athletes. Sport & Society/Sport si Societate, 13(2)", these are full scholarly research reports on the art. Why would you consider these passing mentions? Lourdes 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Passing mentions is a relative term I guess. Those articles really don't talk about the art itself but just use the art as a benchmark in various studies (ie. the art exists). I have a few other issues on the references themselves, I don't think they are peer reviewed and my flags go up when, as I said, a relatively obscure art, is used as a basis - but I think they are acceptable for wikipedia's purposes. Now I say obscure based on my knowledge but then my opinion should not count and references do. I just would like to see more references that talk specifically about the art.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PRehse thanks for the detailed clarification. "Those articles really don't talk about the art itself but just use the art as a benchmark in various studies (ie. the art exists)" I absolutely disagree. The literature review in each of these references is more than detailed about the art. These are scholarly researches, not research reports. Scholarly researches like these give an introduction, an exhaustive literature review of the field, the hypothesis being developed, the experiment to test the hypothesis, the results, interpretation and conclusion. I'm not sure if you've gone through these references as they are not easily available (and I have to thank Wikipedia for giving me access to various libraries).

Actually most are downloadable in their entirety and the others the abstract. Most refer to one group in Romania that were used in a study - and that is the only detail there. Nothing on how wide spread the art is, how notable, its origins, nothing but that it exists. The art was chosen for the study based on availability not on it being exceptional in any way. The question remains do the references establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I disagree with your view that the researches are not peer reviewed. For example, quoting the Biology of Sport website, "Biology of Sport is the official journal of the Institute of Sport National Research Institute, located in Warsaw, Poland, published since 1984. Biology of Sport is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal..."

Other than that, the discussion about the detailing of material from the reference should take place on the talk page of the said article, and I'll look forward to discussions there. Thanks once more for your detailed response. Lourdes 10:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting PRehse and other editors to take a quick look at the book sources that I've added subsequently. Lourdes 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I'm leaning towards delete, I'd like to see some other editor's comments. I don't see what I would call significant independent coverage of this art, but others may disagree. Being mentioned in a book consisting of WP articles does not support notability. Coverage seems to consist predominantly of reports on tests that were done with students of this art. I don't think that is sufficient to show that art is notable. I'm more inclined to see this as passing mentions as these tests could probably have been done on students of any martial art. Papaursa (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Papaursa, I may be wrong but these two books which I have added as source[33][34] do not seem to be compilation of WP articles. They seem to be authentic content driven books. Do tell me how they appeal to you. Thanks. Lourdes 08:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that those books are not a compilation of WP articles. However, the fact that this art gets a few sentences in a 900 page book that claims to be a complete encyclopedia of all the world's martial arts does not strike me as significant coverage. The issue isn't whether or not the art exists, but whether or not it is notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Papaursa. I realize the growing consensus is that the sources do not sum up for notability of this martial art. I see sense in the comments of the editors who have taken time to reply to my queries. Phew... I tried though to churn up some sources. Am changing my !vote to delete too given the logic forwarded by other editors. Lourdes 09:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the efforts of Lourdes, I do not believe that this art has the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I also don't see evidence to show it meets the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. This is based both on my own search and the sources already presented. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as a week has not suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Fayyad

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

Non notable corporate officer and scientist. The position Chief Data Officer at Yahoo and Barclays is not intrinsically notable. The references for notability consist basically of minor notices--and his own publications Tu Che Di Gel Sei Cinta (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 00:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is an ACM Fellow. Let me have a look at the Google scholar cites in the meantime. The article needs a trim though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just searched for "UM Fayyad" on Google Scholar. Lots of cites (even if I take into fact that Computer Science is highly cited field). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy nomination I had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Townsend and this looks like a pointy nomination to me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Getzels

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

This is from the tail end of the unreviewed articles. I have no idea whether this will be considered notable or not. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - documentary director of PBS specials. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning Keep~~ -- has some notable credits as director and co-director. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are still in fact trivial and there's not enough motivating substance for his own notability; there's not a lot listed here and there's no inherited notability from other films. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts, as no new sources have materialised at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Parent article was PROD'd, so no merge target. czar 02:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whom Shall I Fear

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

Not referenced nor notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant media coverage. Hasn't charted anywhere; fails WP:NALBUM. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pouya Saraei

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

Per WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG the subject is simply not notable enough for their own WP:BLP Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is also described on the Persian Wikipedia, at fa:پویا سرایی: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Regarding Pouya Saraei.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources have been cleaned up and added, along with style fixes since originally posting the article for deletion. Still need a second set of eyes to determine if the subject meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had initially tagged the article for A7, which the deleting admin (Anthony Appleyard) proceeded to speedily-delete. The article creator, User:Arassaeedian sent me a message on my talk page explaining there is a version of the article on Persian Wikipedia, and I contacted the deleting admin to review the speedy deletion. The original message from the user was,

"Hi Thanks for reviewing my article with subject of (Pouya Saraei)... but it`s a question for me that why you voted for nomination of deletion? what was my fault? my article was about a famous persian instrumentalist that have persian wikipedia(https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/پویا_سرایی) and you can ckeck it... for example he is the first instrumentalist that played in the first persian traditional track that was about santour with oerchestra in modern music genre... it was published by Navona Records... you can check it or he has albums in iTunes and Amazon.com what can i do that my article become acceptable? thanks you for helping... best regards -- Arassaeedian (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)" Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article left a comment on the talk page of this deletion debate that probably should be checked Feinoha ^Talk 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That message is now here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Smegma. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dick cheese

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

Don't really know what formal rationale to use here. Originally created as this [36] in 2004 and promptly created into a redirect to smegma. Changed to a disambiguation page in 2006 for Richard Cheese (who I now know is a cover band and comedy act making a pun). Since then it seems to have only been the target of vandalism and not much more. Can't really see how having it adds value to the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect with full protection: Appears to be a vandal target. Perhaps salt it too. Montanabw^(talk) 08:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salt seems like a good idea here, I agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Smegma. More than 20 views a day, [37], often quite a lot more, indicating readers are typing it in and we should help them find what they are looking for. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. Modifying my !vote - definitely want to prevent it being edited, so full protection is really a must. Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Boleyn. Maybe the redirect would benefit from full protection once done? Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed. Sandstein 18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles of 2016 in English-speaking countries

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

Totally unnecessary amalgamation of other existing list articles on the exact topics. As all the lists are independently compiled and the only unifying factor is that they come from the "English-speaking world". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't include all charts from countries where English is an official language (South Africa?) and no indication as to why comparing charts between English-speaking countries is notable or important. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article was created by the editor Neegzistuoja and I'm a bit worried about his/her edits in general – some of them appear to be uploading images of politicians or other important world figures, but from Flickr accounts on the internet, so it is possible that we have a whole load of non-free image violations. I've left a message on the editor's talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought this article could list multiple charts to show which songs are most popular in a slightly more global sense, not just in individual countries, since there are often, but not always, similar successful songs in countries where the same language is spoken. South Africa should probably be included, good point. I can definitely see why this might not be notable enough, so I'm happy for it to be removed if that consensus is reached. Neegzistuoja (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnan Ganesh

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

Wikipedia as usual used by such people to create their profile and promote themselves. What so important and significant about such Biography is highly doubtful. Even doubtful who even Knows these couples? Is it really an encyclopedia material we are creating here. Non-Notable to read or even know about. Atleast in the present situation. Later they can also make article if become notable by public view. Light2021 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crush by Indian (no pun intended) elephant. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KATMAKROFAN:Could you please be a little more clarifying?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD which listed all of the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Currently Non-notable!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per Copyvio. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Ganesh

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

Wikipedia as usual used by such people to create their profile and promote themselves. What so important and significant about such Biography is highly doubtful. Even doubtful who even Knows these couples? Is it really an encyclopedia material we are creating here. Non-Notable to read or even know about. Atleast in the present situation. Later they can also make article if become notable by public view. Light2021 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 09:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Answer to nominator's question (Who even knows these couples?): Forbes, India Today, Times of India, Economic Times, more. A WP:BEFORE is always helpful for writing a good rationale. Anup [Talk] 23:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, typical Q/A answer are given by none other than those couple. How such things make anything Encyclopedic Notable, that is exact question and how many media references you can quote or who covered a script. How much they help in making a history or creating greater impact? Notability with impact that is what lacks in all those media coverage. Their company has already Speedy Deleted from Wikipedia. On what ground these founders have credibility to even Wikipedia material? Light2021 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You answered an unasked question! I was just saying they are not that relatively unknown couple as you interpreted in your nomination rationale (and that might be because you did not perform BEFORE). That's just it. I didn't argue for anything. Anup [Talk] 14:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happening to look at these sources, I see the exact blatancy I noted below with my own comments, noting that not only are these articles parallel with saying the same advertising-focused words, but they are interviews so they are founded with the same person who is both the advertiser and the advertisee. Therefore noting that they are news therefore they must be acceptable, is not the same thing if they are all sugarcoated with advertising, and we'll never compromise with that.

Delete -- promotion only; should be deleted same as Portea Medical. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article passes GNG. Clicking on HighBeam, there is a 2012 article from India Today which is a full profile on her, and a 2012 article which discusses her in part in the Hindustan Times. If you search for her name in conjunction with Times of India, you get: 2016 article about her and several articles about her and her husband who she works with and her name pops up in several books on Google book search. She's mentioned in a ton of other articles, too. Some of these were already listed in the article as sources. The article itself is pretty bare, and I don't see how it's "promotional" in tone just because she's notable for being in business. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly advertising everything there is to advertise about her and her businesses, and one note we have to always note as it is, is the fact Indian news is notoriously paid for and with advertising motivations at that, therefore we cannot barely take it as an acceptable news source at that alone, and looking closely shows this to be the case, therefore especially with such advertising blatancy, delete. Let me note that, to make it clearer, "a full profile" in an Indian news website makes it heavier to in fact be a paid advertisement, therefore we cannot begin to say it's acceptable.

The sole basis of "she's mentioned at other articles and some are listed here" is also not a convincing for keeping this, again especially considering the fact this sole article exists as an advertisement and (1) the fact this was never touched again but also the fact the account only focused with such advertising. Also, as a clear note, it also emphasizes the concerns when all newspapers care to focus with the same lines of "fluffpuff" so that's especially advertising-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@SwisterTwister:Can you explain the rationale behind your statement-"Indian news is notoriously paid for"?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Sshould be deleted same as Portea Medical.Mentions only in advertorial sources.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not enough independent coverage on the subject. South Nashua (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the assertion that some Delete !voters have made that she is only mentioned in articles is incorrect and means that they haven't properly evaluated the sources, many of which I took time to add to the article. Also, the idea that the news in India is paid for needs to be backed up with a reliable source itself. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill entrepreneur. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sources, here's an 11 minute interview from international source France24, she won The Economic Times "Woman Ahead" startup award, and here's Wharton calling her and her husband "India's best-known entrepreneur couple". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a number of sources deal with both her and her husband, no objection to retargetting the page to cover the couple and merging in the deleted page (ref the sparsely participated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishnan Ganesh). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's significant coverage of the couple but focussing on her in a book published by Penguin. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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