Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 August	7 August >

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 speedy delete as a test page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROJECT GIUDELINES

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

Test page by new account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djembayz (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

If you meant to mark the article for speedy deletion as a test page, you need to place that template on the article itself, not the AfD page. Conifer (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Support deleting, because it looks like spam created by Djembayz. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 00:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the page. This was my first time attempting to do a speedy deletion with the page curation tool, and it hasn't worked. Couldn't fix the speedy deletion tag in the article when I found the error, the display turned into junk. Have removed tag from this page. Can you show me how this is done? --Djembayz (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IFA Paris

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

Completely unsourced puffpiece for non-notable entity. Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OrangeMike beat me to it. ukexpat (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I haven't yet done my own search for sources. From the description this could be notable, but clear evidence of that is needed. DES ^(talk) 02:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the SPA has now added some references but none of them appear to demonstrate the required notability.--ukexpat (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are primary; press releases, pseudo-press releases, brief mentions. Interesting comment here about the org.'s PR push...I guess Wikipedia articles are part of the strategy. Vrac (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm perhaps that should be cited in the article, is studyrama.com a WP:RS do you know? DES ^(talk) 16:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an example of what I meant by a pseudo-press release, what they call a "publi-reportage" in French, it's basically a press release made to look like a news story. Language such as this "[le logo]...souligne le dynamisme et le caractère innovant de l’école. Les majuscules transmettent les notions de stabilité et de fiabilité d’une institution de qualité" is a good example, not the kind of thing an RS would write. (Apologies for the French if you don't speak that language, Google translate will still give you the gist...) Vrac (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Vrac's comment on "publi-reportage" is also very telling. Search turned up no noticeable coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Thornton LLP

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources discuss this organization at length. Mentioned in the refs only casually. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least this should be merged to the parent company. I don't see outright deletion as an option here. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. US branch of a major International accounting firm which is by itself the 6th largest accounting firm in the US, according to Accounting Today.[1] The company has been covered on wikipedia since 2005, there is no real reason to remove it now. Don't delete an article because it is imperfect or could be better sourced. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anyone know for sure if the $1.4 billion in revenues is for Grant Thornton specifically or if it's actually for the parent company? We should always keep articles on companies with more than $1 billion, but I know sometimes subsidiaries/divisions exaggerate their significance by using data that's actually for the parent organization. CorporateM (Talk) 05:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are revenues for US, global revenue is on the order of 4-5 billion per this.Vrac (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The US firm is a massive operation in its own right, tons of coverage. Vrac (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable US firm. The fact that sources are not in the article is not a valid rationale for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Extensive coverage of this firm evident in basic searches. A merge to Grant Thornton International is conceivable (and can be discussed outside of AfD) but deletion is not appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Air Barrier Association of America

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement (even minimal) and better notability, here, here, here and here. There's also no obvious move target. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Searches on News and Newspapers returned only tangential mentions and zero results, respectively. Other searches also showed no notability. Since it's been around since 2001, I'd expect much more activity if they were notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MNP LLP

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Citations are self-serving. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MNP is the fifth-largest professional services firm in Canada and the largest Canadian-only firm, with over $500M in revenue and almost 4,000 employees. The four larger firms in Canada all have entries (PwC, KPMG, Deloitte, and Ernst & Young), as do the next two similar/smaller firms (Grant Thornton International and BDO International).. Given its current status as the largest independent Canadian accounting firm, the only Western-Canadian based professional services firm and its history as a nationally-relevant firm born in Manitoba, MNP clearly meets the notability requirements for a corporation. Citations listed as self-serving are from an ISBN-listed publication on the company's history, providing a valid source for the material (and for which truly independent sources are often rare). The historical information provided is of similar quality and detail as the Wikipedia pages of the peer organizations listed above. Agree that the page requires a wider range of independent sources for both current and historical content and language revisions for a more neutral tone. Also agree that the page is currently in development, but that does not justify deletion. Thanks, Yyzipedia (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - organization is clearly notable per YYZipedia. AfD is not cleanup. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 4,000 employees; they would be notable no matter how mundane their operations are. CorporateM (Talk) 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable firm. I think the nominator need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:05, 8 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraklis & Lernaia Hydra

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

Granted this is Greek and before the widespread use of Internet but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from various browser links (YouTube, social media, forums, etc). Summarily, I'm seeing anything to suggest improvement this article that has not been heavily edited since December 2006. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Searches do not show notability. In addition, there is no reference to the group on the Greek Wikipedia either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the article, unsourced, useless listing of alleged members, fails all criteria of WP:NBAND, despite [this. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farleon

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

After several source searches, the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. The first AfD discussion was closed as no consensus after receiving no participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, current citations are promotional, press releases, or mere mentions; or from non-RS sources. They show the person exists, but do not go to the notability. And I agree that they do not rise to level of fulfilling WP:BASIC. News, Highbeam, JStor and Newspaper searches return zero results. Books returns zero results to do with this particular person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert of a non-notable musician/music producer, refs in the article are Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and listings in sales/download outlets like Soundcloud and Beatport. Nothing in-depth. Web searches turn up exactly this type of stuff. Kraxler (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2015 (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 L-1 Identity Solutions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bioscrypt Inc.

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

Can't find any coverage beyond press releases for this company. Sam Walton (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is true that they are the market-share leader for their field, we should always have an article on the largest, most significant company in an industry, even if we only have enough source material for a stub. That being said, this information about being the largest in the industry is cited to a press release saying an analyst firm made the claims and I am not familiar with how credible the analyst firm is. CorporateM (Talk) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment - IMS appears to be quite reputable. A News search shows that they are very frequently cited, by notable and reputable sources. And their report, "The World Market For Electronic Physical Access Control Equipment" is done periodically, (latest one I could find was 2013), and quoted in numerous industry sources. That said, I could find no link to the 2007 report, or to any of the actual reports. RS articles which mention the reports (which I could find) all point to the 2013 report. Other PRs from other firms note other years of the report (2012, 2008). But without independent corroboration, that claim should be struck from the article, if the article remains. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - A news search returned only press releases; Newspapers returned zero results; Books returned quite a few results, but all of a tangential or listing nature, which does not rise to fulfilling WP:BASIC; Highbeam returned results which are either non-substantial, or of press release nature; and JStor returned zero results. That said, I think there is enough independent citation to include the non-promotional aspects of this article in the L-1 Identity Solutions article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to L-1 Identity Solutions, the parent company. Stand-alone article not warranted, due to lack of in-depth coverage anywhere, the refs in the article are press releases, directories and trivial mentions, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Isaacson

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:academics with few publications and citations in the low double/high single digits. WorldCat holdings in the double digits. No awards. Fails wp:author - one non-academic book, very small press, zero library holdings in WorldCat. Fails due to promotional language. Fails due to lack of third-party neutral references. LaMona (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate AFDs like this, that is, AFDs about a person, probably a very fine person, written by an SPA who probably loves that person and wishes to honor him, but where, as in this case, it is clear that the book was published by a "press" created only to publish that book, the article creator appears not to understand that regular newspapers have to write about you before Wikipedia can, and searching produces nothing resembling a RS. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2015 (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 snow close per my comments below. I'll e-mail a copy of this to whomever wants one, just let me know on my talk page. The content here is potentially a BLP issue (particularly with the Phillips addition), so this would need a lot of work and research before something like this could be in the mainspace - if it could ever be a mainspace article at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of incestual relationships

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

This list has both notability and original research issues, as well as a (theoretically curable) heavy dose of recentism, with all but one entry alive or recently-deceased (raising BLP issues). The inclusion criteria are arbitrarily vague and not based on reliable sources. When both participants in a supposed incestuous relationship are notable, only one is listed. With the exception of Patrick Stübing these people are not primarily known for incestuous relationships, and no source groups them together. In all, I see no indication that such a list would be encyclopedic in the first place, and if it were we could just as well start over and write a new list. Huon (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - salacious and will most likely be based on rumor; additionally, not of encyclopedic value. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a thoroughly trivial and miscellaneous topic: not at all encyclopedic. Perhaps we could tack something of the sort onto a list of the Ptolemaic pharaohs (they typically married their sisters) or various kings of Spain (they often married their nieces, if I remember rightly), but a list of this sort is thoroughly useless. PS, this article can't stay at its present title; the adjectival form of "incest" is "incestuous", not "incestual". Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I reviewed the article and it simply doesn't look likely to improve and there will surely be issues. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I may snow close this early, if everyone is OK with this. There are several huge issues with the way the article is laid out at this point in time. There is possible merit to having a list of the sort that Everymorning describes, but this isn't that list. Part of this is because there is a BLP issue here: this is the sort of thing that lends itself to rumor when it comes to living people. For example, while Phillips claims that she and her father did have an incestuous relationship, there are people who claim that it is false. That's why the section about this in her article is labeled "allegations", as there is a legal issue there. Putting something in an article like this gives off the impression that it did happen. The other issue is that people might have an issue with the word "relationship" since there is an inherent bias with the word. While the term isn't used solely for willing, consensual relationships, that is the first thought that comes to mind with the term and some might take exception with its usage if there might be a better term. I will say that if I snow close it early I am willing to send someone a copy of the article if they want to try to find a better format for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically TL;DNR, this article is a BLP nightmare waiting to happen in its current format. Plus I'm not sure why "List of pansexual people" is in the article at all. Being pansexual does not mean that you are into incest. I'm not pan, but I know people who are and they'd be pretty offended at the comparison since it plays into the stereotype that pansexual people are down for anything, anyone, anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 8 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gurnow

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

Article does not make a case for subject's notability. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the author is represented by a small press, both of his books have received substantial recognition. In fact, his book about Edward Snowden has been listed in the Wikipedia entry about Snowden under the Further Reading section. As for his novel, Nature's Housekeeper, the forward was written by Buddy Hufaker, the president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, an organization which was founded by the environmentalist's children in 1982. He has also received kudos from Survivorman Les Stroud and Ishmael author Daniel Quinn. In addition, several essays and articles penned by Mr. Gurnow have been used as source material for a variety of Wikipedia entries: H.P. Lovecraft, William S. Burroughs, D. Harlan Wilson, Roger Ebert, Robinson Crusoe, Waiting for Godot, Existentialism, Tor (anonymity network), and a handful of film write-ups. BrocktonBomber (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure why User:Orangemike is objecting. As article's contents state, Gurnow's work has been referenced in the UC Davis Law Review^[1] and in a Routledge anthology^[2]. Also contained within the article is mention that his writing has been publicly praised by Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert^[3], million-copy selling author and Oprah guest Daniel Quinn^[4], and Discovery Channel's Les Stroud^[5]. He has been interviewed on various national radio stations by such Wiki-recognized names as Mancow Muller [2], Howie Carr [3], and Jeff Crouere [4], as well as by Kevin J. Williams, director of the documentary Fear of a Black Republican, for Politisite [5]. Furthermore, his work is listed on the EBSCO Information Services database [6]. (As for WorldCat holding libraries, his first book is in 115 collections worldwide [7]). Lastly, Gurnow has been elected into Poets & Writers [8] (a writer must be elected into PW.org by a majority vote [9]). SnowdenFan | Talk

References

^ Kwoka, Margaret (2015), Leaking and Legitimacy (PDF), UC Davis Law Review, 48.4, p. 1398, retrieved 8 June 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Martin, Brian (2015), Secrecy, Law and Society, London: Routledge, p. 233, retrieved 8 June 2015
^ Ebert, Roger (19 July 2007), Unwild About Scary Harry, RogerEbert.com, retrieved 8 June 2015
^ Ishmael.org (2015), Daniel Quinn's Annotated List of Suggested Readings, retrieved 8 June 2015
^ Stroud, Les (15 May 2015), Les Stroud Official Twitter Page, retrieved 8 June 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete this writer has published 2 books. Each [10] book [11] has generated a write up in this local paper, the Southeast Missourian, and nothing in any other RS. as User:JJMC89 points out, the books were also mentioned once on twitter and once on a fellow writer's blog. The only remaining claim to notability is that each of 2 academics dropped a footnote to one of Gurnow's books, The Edward Snowden Affair. However, merely having a couple of footnotes....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the movie review thing. Still seems too thin a bunch of reeds to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Please do not violate Wiki policy of deleting external citations before entering into the deletion discussion in order to state there are no reliable sources.
Returning to your comments, 1) If the academic citations were "catch-all" overviews, you'd have a fine point, but they're not. They are exacting studies of the subject Gurnow wrote about, ie., a law professor (Kwoka) AND the Harvard of British presses, Routledge, deemed his first book worthy of including it in their research. 2) Wiki does not ask for volume but quality of sources. Gurnow's second book was applauded by a well-known television personality (Stroud) and a bestselling author who appeared on Oprah (Quinn). 3) Yet, going with "more is better," as stated in the original article (prior to your removal of sources), the introduction of his second book was written by the president of one of the largest conservationist/environmental non-profits in America, the Aldo Leopold Foundation, Jennifer Pharr Davis also praised the work [12], and the Wilderness Skills Institute positively reviewed the novel [13]. 4) As for a lack of media coverage, why did you ignore my documented citations that Gurnow has been interviewed on numerous national radio programs about his writing? 5) Lastly, and returning to quality sources, not volume - Given that he won a Pulitzer, I don't see how Roger Ebert's statement that Gurnow's work in the field is "very admirable" is anything to sneeze at. SnowdenFan (talk)

reply - Almost everything you use as an argument for retention is a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED alias WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. I've sold books to Charlton Heston, Tony Shaloub, and Tony Bennett; that doesn't make me notable. I was on Ben Stein's show, and he said I had a nice singing voice; that doesn't make my singing notable. We need substantive coverage of Gurnow as Gurnow, by reliable sources; and that's what we don't see any sign of here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Reply: Yep, you hit the nail on the head, "almost everything," meaning the national radio interviews (credible and reliable - as I outlined earlier, i.e., conducted by hosts recognized on Wiki), which focus on Gurnow qua Gurnow (or, in your terms, "Gurnow as Gurnow") qualifies under Wiki policy. Furthermore, your analogy with Stein commenting on your signing voice is a false comparison: It would legitimize your stature as a singer if Stein was a recognized singer, but he isn't; conversely, Gurnow was recognized by authorities in the field he has written upon (Quinn/Stroud) SnowdenFan (talk)

Delete (a message from the subject of this article): Thanks guys, but no. I appreciate that someone would take the time to create a Wiki page about me and am humbled that others have come to my defense yet, returning the favor in kind, I’ll openly state all the hub-bub isn’t necessary. I have a personal website for such purposes and my publisher has set up more than enough social media for the same reason.

Being in the public eye, I’d rather not have to potentially contend with http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/rachel-johnson-in-the-grip-of-wikipedias-orange-mike-8613948.html. Thank you. M. Gurnow

Reply: Sorry to see the subject himself would like to throw in the towel, especially since I feel the "case" by Orange Mike is far from solid. His (Orange Mike's) rebuttal about selling books to various celebrities and being lauded by Ben Stein for his vocal abilities were, as SnowdenFan pointed out, "false comparison[s]." Now, had Orange Mike written the books purchased by Charlton Heston, Tony Shalhoub, and Tony Bennett, then there would be a case for notability -- especially if those three gentlemen had provided praise for the writings, as Daniel Quinn and Les Stroud did for Mr. Gurnow's work. BrocktonBomber (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- reply No, no, if my reasoning is weak, then the article should stay; but where are the links to the NPR interviews about Gurnow? I find a link to a political blog, with an interview about Gurnow's Snowden book; but that's about the book, not Gurnow. (And my analogy was to your, "Gurnow was praised by somebody you never heard of who leads a foundation set up by the obscure children of somebody who is genuinely notable; so that makes Gurnow notable by inheritance and contagion.") --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to a reply to a reply: What you’re essentially implying by stating the interviews don’t focus on Gurnow, but his work, is that Picasso isn’t noteworthy in-and-of himself; only his paintings are noteworthy. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum; a person's art is what makes him or her notable. You can’t separate an artist from his or her work anymore than you can interview a book, which is what you are saying has taken place with the Gurnow interviews since he’s talking about his writing and not himself. In short, you're wanting a radio or print discussion about an artist, but one that doesn't mention his or her work. What would be the topic? Conjecture as to what the person eats for breakfast? (On that note, and if you want to be technical, listen to the interviews: In almost every one, the interviewer inquires about how Gurnow, as an artist, created the books).

The credential is that a person appear on a noteworthy medium, Gurnow has and several are clearly listed in the article (Wiki-recognized radio programs and hosts, no less). Done deal. Nowhere is it required that the subject must be excluded from the discussion, which is what you're demanding. That said, examples such as these have also been clearly provided in the original Wiki entry, cf. Quinn, Stroud, Politisite. For good measure, I'll go ahead and add in a 2014 book review by Pure Politics.

Your inheritance/contagion argument is also skewed: A foundation needn't be chartered by a notable name to be noteworthy. The Aldo Leopold Foundation itself is noteworthy in that it is one of the largest, most influential conservation non-profits in America. (Using your line of reasoning that only Aldo was noteworthy and, by deduction, anything done in his name but not by him, i.e., his non-noteworthy children who started the Foundation, isn’t credible is analogous to declaring that the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change isn't notable because Martin Luther King Jr. didn't start it.) Clearly, the bottom line is the impact of the group, not who it is named after. Hufftaker, in-and-of himself, might not be a household name but, as president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation (since Aldo's ghost might have trouble typing up an introduction), he is representing the influential conservation group and, as such and by proxy, the Aldo Leopold Foundation deemed Gurnow’s novel worthy of being introduced.

NOTE: I have added the Pure Politics interview, included those brought up during this discussion that weren't in the original entry, as well as updated Gurnow's publication listing (there was quite a bit missing, including several cover stories for national magazines.) SnowdenFan (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist, though this unattractive discussion is not likely to get better-looking. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject has requested deletion, and notability is rather slim. No harm done leaning over backwards with BLPs. Kraxler (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that the request was made by Gurnow himself. Look at the timing of the request in context of the discussion and the account itself - a SPA. The subject has an IT background and wrote a book on computer security. It is reasonable to assume that if that were him, he'd have at least coded his post properly. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure speculation, somebody signed M. Gurnow. Let's WP:Assume good faith Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject has requested deletion, which I take on good faith. (IP address he used is from his state. Seems silly to argue it's a fake post. Signature claim is silly, as it's exclusive to Wiki.) Subject does have some coverage [14] etc, but not enough yet for GNG, seems WP:TOOSOON —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krax and Wikimandia/Мандичка: This is the reason I stated I doubted it was him: The IP is NOT from his homestate, which is Missouri. The IP was out of Kansas (2 sites reporting) or Chicago (2 reporting): http://166.175.186.160.ipaddress.com/ and http://en.utrace.de/ip-address/166.175.186.52 or https://db-ip.com/166.175.186.52 and http://www.iplocationtools.com/166.175.186.52.html.

Also, as of 8/6/15, the author has recently listed on his personal website two more media interviews in the next two weeks, one a NY radio station, WCWP, and and television interview on a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate, KBSI. Regardless, as I outlined previously, under Wiki protocol, Gurnow already qualifies under the notability guidelines (see previous comments). SnowdenFan (talk)

For all we know, Gurnow may be travelling in Chicago or Kansas, or anywhere else, and an IP tracker which returns two different states for the same IP's location is either mistaken or the IP is dynamic enough to move around the states. As to his notability, of the 29 refs in the article 15 are by Gurnow, and many others are not independent like amazon and his publisher, the second book review external link is dead, and here you come up with Twitter as a reference. No need to WP:BOMBARD this. Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points: 1) "For all we know, Gurnow may be travelling." As you noted, we should follow Wiki policy and issue benefit of the doubt, meaning WP:Assume good faith. The dynamic IP is most likely due to him being on tour (his newest title came out in May). He mentions his various speaking invitations on his blog (http://primitivarum.weebly.com/blog). 2) On your note that 15 references are by Gurnow: The subject is a writer. It is difficult to claim his work has appeared in X publication if we don't list/display what he's authored (it would be by him in respect to references if these appeared on his website, but they don't: They're are on individual, independent websites such as Fifth Estate, American Atheist, Word Riot, Literary Kicks, etc. As for the Amazon sales citations: Not sure how this isn't independent - they are screencaps taken from Amazon.com proving his books are international bestsellers (http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales.html and http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales_ii.html); if you are implying they are fabricated (again, we're told to WP:Assume good faith), then they are there for the world - including Amazon - to see. If Gurnow or his publisher were to misrepresent the world's largest bookseller's data, it would make him/it liable to legal action. Doesn't seem likely. 3) As for your comment, "And here you come with Twitter as a reference": This is from the official, validated Twitter account of a well-known television personality, Les Stroud. It allows authentication of a blurb which would otherwise only be sourced by the subject's publisher. 4) Not sure what you are talking about in respect to the last cited book review: The link is active.

Again, under Wiki policy, his interviews (many conducted by noted radio hosts and one by a famous director) alone qualify Gurnow under the notability guidelines, atop his recognition by noted authors, television personalities, Pulitzer winners and environmental groups. SnowdenFan (talk)

Primary sources can not establish notability. Period. WP:GNG requires "significan coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I wish people would just read the guideline instead of writing WP:Walls of text with lengthy arguments which are totally beside the point. You keep confusing "importance"/"achievements" with "notability". They are different things, just read the guideline, please. Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Piles of self-published sources and interviews in non-notable venues do not meet the threshold for inclusion spelled out at WP:N. If the subject is requesting deletion then it'd be a slam-dunk per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but we cannot accept random IP users claiming to be the subject. If someone wishes to encourage the IP to file a request via WP:OTRS, that is the way to proceed. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I feel as if this discussion has become a broken record. Ignoring that we're debating the legitimacy of an internationally bestselling author who has been translated, anthologized, referenced at international conferences and in law and literary journals, again, Gurnow has been cited, interviewed or given accolades by numerous people/sources, all of which have their own Wiki pages, thus are hardly "non-notable venues," thereby constituting "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject": Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, Les Stroud, Daniel Quinn, Jennifer Pharr Davis, Jeff Crouere of WGSO and Howie Carr of WRKO. And, as I have also already stated, he's due to appear on WCWP and the Fox Broadcasting Network in the next 10 days (as listed on his personal website). SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by name-dropping or attention-seeking. Kraxler (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find little worth in engaging with users whose name contains one of "fan", "truth", or "anti-", as it is clear they're not here for encyclopedia-building. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I first started reading Gurnow's work several years ago, back when he was writing reviews for horror films. His postings on The Horror Review were many, something like 300-400, if memory serves. Unfortunately, it would take some time (like probably a full day, at least) to tally exactly how many since the site was sold a while back and the old reviews were all “archived,” and annoyingly so. Whereas they used to be accessible under the individual reviewer's moniker, all of the reviews have been submitted under Horror Bob's real name (Robert Brodmerkel), so now one has to click on every single review and scroll to the bottom of it to identify who wrote it. There are approximately 178 pages of reviews (mostly past, some present) with about five reviews per page. These include books as well as films. Like I said, it would take a substantial amount of time to correctly tally Gurnow's input in this endeavor, and it is time I do not have, especially since the effort would (more than likely) be written off as “non-notable” due to the following reasons: 1) the fact that they would be considered primary sources, and 2) the venue the work appeared in, despite the fact The Horror Review debuted on the WWW in March 1999, and, thanks to its buyout by Journal Stone Publishing, continues to remain online. If I thought writing online reviews for horror films was noteworthy (personally, I do, but professionally, even I'd give pause if that was someone's only source of notoriety) then I would have submitted a Wikipedia page for Mr. Gurnow several years ago. But, I waited until he had two books out, one (the Snowden book) that received respectable coverage, and another (his novel Nature's Housekeeper) that is finally starting to generate some much-deserved (in my opinion) interest.

I agree with Kraxler that “notability is not established by name-dropping or attention-seeking,” but it is often established via writing, especially if several of those works have been published, either online or in print. Gurnow has done both – the former, extensively; the latter, minimally. And, obviously, it seems to be Gurnow's scarcity of availability in the latter medium that has precipitated this entire circumstance. By the interpretation of Gurnow's supporters, evidence abounds as to the subject's “notability”; however, according to the opposition, this is not the case, despite the fact they have failed to provide any significant evidence to support their stance, only reiterating the “lack of notability” issue that prompted SnowdenFan to apply a “broken record” comparison. Besides the repetition provided by the opposition, other weaknesses in their argument have surfaced. Granted, it's been a couple of decades since I took my Rhetoric & Critical Analysis class in college, so I'm a little hazy on all the fallacies, but I do believe that Tarc is guilty of the ol' Poisoning the Well ploy, or at least some form of Ad hominem. So far, the only quality debate in this entire discussion pertained to the IP address of “M. Gurnow” and his “request” for deletion. For argument's sake, let's say that the actual subject did post that message (I, for one, have no reason to believe he didn't). Considering the fact that Gurnow provided the link to the Rachel Johnson article that mentioned her incident with Orange Mike, who, as we all know, is the one who placed the Gurnow article on the deletion block, it leads me to wonder if this “request” was really more of an acquiescence. In short, perhaps he (Gurnow) saw his situation akin to Peckinpah's doomed Wild Bunch – why fight a bloody battle you know you're going to lose, even if the cause is a justifiable one? – and he didn't see the purpose in expending his energy on it. But, like The Wild Bunch, there are some of us (high five, SnowdenFan) who don't mind getting a little bloody, even though we already know we're going to lose this one.BrocktonBomber (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, BrocktonBomber. The discussion's went from "Why is Gurnow notable?" and you and me addressing the prompt time and again, only to be met with the facepalm of "Name dropping doth not make a subject notable" (the implication being, apparently, that the Wiki names that have applauded, reported on and hosted Gurnow shouldn't have their own pages), all the way down to the no-no of a personal attack by an admin on my username. We all know what type of finger-wagging would ensue if a mere editor would have done the same to an admin (Tarc, if you'll notice, until now I let slide the fact that - clearly - I've contributed to numerous topics and even created two pages, none of which are Snowden related; I suppose if I'd have went with "RockiesFan," my baseball edits would come into question - contrary to Wiki rules, you're suggesting that who is saying something is more important that what's being said).

Returning to the topic at hand, Wiki policy strongly advises against relisting an AfD over and over using the ruse of "needing better consensus" just because an admin doesn't like the current tide of debate. Aside from deck stacking, this is because - and Wiki acknowledges this - it is hard and time-consuming on editors like us.

I'll admit that Gurnow isn't Stephen King or Tom Clancy, but he nonetheless clearly qualifies by Wiki standards. I believe this article is prime for an appeal in the next few days due to the obvious motive in the admins' repeated relisting, name-calling and what remotely smells of sock puppetry, cf. look at the time stamp on Krax and Trac's most recent comments (then check the user histories: Tarc logged in and out just to make the comment), and/or in-house meat puppetry, cf. this page went uncontested for nearly 2 months after its creation and - after the first week of casual debate which didn't spark any admin's interest other than the nominator - all of a sudden a large number of admins have jumped in (this after the nominator up and disappeared from a page that he posted the AfD on, a page which he avidly participated in its debate prior to its relisting...). An appeal will also hopefully get more eyes on what's taken place here, say nothing of perhaps bringing it to the attention of a Steward or two. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, laughably absurd; I have been around this project for ~10 years as has Kraxler from what I see in the creation logs. You may go pester the Stewards to your heart's desire, but seeing how both you and "BrocktonBomber" are for all intents & purposes single-purpose accounts, I'd be wary of an unfortunate rebounding there. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you clearly noticed, I already filed the request so, for your sake, I hope you're right. As for Boomranging, if BB and myself were one-in-the-same, would I have stuck my neck out with the request...? user:BrocktonBomber, Tarc is aware of this as well and quickly admitted he has multiple accounts, stating "I also edit under the accounts "Jimbo Wales", "Willy on Wheels", "HAGGER", and Grundle2600" cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reaper_Eternal SnowdenFan (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc is Jimbo Wales? Do you know who you're talking about? Please check out Irony. Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of note admin Bearcat just browsed the page and, not only did he not deem it in need of deletion, he took the time to spiffy up some of the citations. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat removed two duplicated citations. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Look again, they are still there, he simply understood the repeated bibliographical information from the matching, earlier citation wasn't necessary (originally inserted so no one would ask for validation). SnowdenFan (talk)

Amended above. Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Krax, that you'd edit your previous comment from "removed citations" to "removed duplicated citations" once I said something so as to look as if you'd done your homework the first time (as you note, decade-long editors do have an image to uphold) and, as you noted (I wasn't going to say anything), yes, Tarc admitted to assuming the name "Jimbo Wales" on Reaper Eternal's talkpage. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Irony? Kraxler (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from it being one of a suspicious number accounts, I think the use of "Jimbo Wales" has less to do with irony and more to do with implication when confronting newbies. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor Writer's Guild award-winner Chris Townsend, who is gear editor for The Great Outdoors and author of The Backpacker's Handbook, just posted a review of Gurnow's latest book: http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com/2015/08/book-review-natures-housekeeper-eco.html. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal blogs are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as there's a difference between an official website and personal blog. Chris Townsend's review, just as Daniel Quinn's, appear on their official websites, not XXXblogger.com or XXX.wordpress.com 108.234.142.52 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a bit of irony for you to chew on, then; "christownsendoutdoors.com" is hosted by blogger.com. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony, yes, in that you - a veteran Wiki editor - think you can make a false statement and no one will fact check what you've said: ChrisTownsendOutdoors is hosted by Google - http://www.whoishostingthis.com/?q=christownsendoutdoors.com Talk about your Bad Faith edits... SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm My dear SnowdenFan, blogger.com is owned by google, so what I said was quite correct. I think it's time to develop some other interests within this project, as this article is headed towards deletion. Better luck in the future... Tarc (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the creator of the page; merely a person attempting to highlight the fact that, by Wiki standards, the article is valid. No more, no less.

Back to the topic at hand: Not sure why there is an emphasis on how a notable name recognizes a subject so long as it can be validated, cf. the book review appears on Townsend's official website (and not even under Townsend's blog link...) SnowdenFan (talk)

Actually, you're both right. Townsend's site is "powered by Blogger.com" (scroll to the bottom of the page on Townsend's site) which is "an online service owned by Google" (http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-Blog-on-Blogger). BrocktonBomber (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons cited by Kraxler, E.M.Gregory, and particularly by Tarc, who succinctly hits the nail on the head. Searches do not show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that Wiki scholarship is dependent on how various search engines calibrate their algorithms to weave through SEOs/header tags since the implication is the first hits are the most relevant given that Gurnow's citations are online for all to see, cf. the article itself, you merely have to go beyond Page 1 to find them which, in essence, is the sole purpose behind Wiki references - To eliminate the need to filter through a subject's social media, pages advertising a subject's product, etc., and highlight the "relevant" materials pertaining to the topic heading.

Returning to the broken record, let's review: Has Gurnow attracted independent, third-party recognition by numerous (Wiki) notable names? Check. We have Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, Discovery Channel's Les Stroud, former Oprah guest and million-copy seller Daniel Quinn, Britain's Mountaineering ambassador, Chris Townsend, alongside Gurnow having been the guest on several recognized radio programs by hosts such as Mancow Muller, Howie Carr and Jeff Crouere, say nothing of Kevin J. Williams, director of the documentary Fear of a Black Republican, having conducted an extended interview with him for Politisite. This translated, anthologized author has not only written two international bestsellers, his essay writing has won numerous awards, been on the cover of a handful of national magazines (Fifth Estate, American Atheist, etc.) and is included in the EBSCO database. None of this should need to be said because it's been made clear for all to see on the article page itself. SnowdenFan (talk)

Did you read WP:BLUDGEON? Very interesting essay. Kraxler (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Just because something is listed as a blog does not, in and of itself, constitute the validity and/or accuracy of its information. Case in point, The Tone Zone: The Official Raybeats Tribute Page, is on WordPress, yet it is, as the name conveys, the official information source for the band, endorsed by its surviving members, who contributed greatly to the site. I mention this because several years ago I made a contribution to Wikipedia using information from this site. A Wiki editor quickly removed the citation due to its source's origin (WordPress), despite the fact the information I used did not come from a blog posting but from the historical content on the site. (In fact, if you ever visit the site, you will notice that the comments sections have been disabled for the majority of the pages.) I bring all this up to draw attention to the fact that the creation of the Internet has rewritten – and consistently continues to rewrite – the book on what constitutes a reliable/valid/notable source. As I mentioned in a previous post, Gurnow wrote hundreds of film reviews for The Horror Review, a site that would, more than likely, be considered to be lacking notability, especially since it doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry. Yet, ironically, the site is older than Wikipedia, having debuted in March 1999, almost two years before the launch of Wikipedia in January 2001.

I did read WP:BLUDGEON. Alas, SnowdenFan may feel the need to keep hitting the point home due to the fact that the opposition keeps failing to address it adequately, which, in turn, has created an unappealing turn of events, which even Drmies foresaw (i.e., “this unattractive discussion is not likely to get better-looking."). But, then, maybe decreasing the level of the discussion's attractiveness was the point for its extension all along. After all, why else has this “discussion” entered its fourth week, despite not being officially extended? After reading WP:BLUDGEON, it became obvious to me that a well-written argument is not the issue with an ultimate decision regarding deletion, but, instead, it hinges on a casting of votes. At this point, it stands 2 (to keep) against 6 (to delete). (I'm excluding the deletion request by “M. Gurnow” due to the speculation regarding the source's authenticity.) Again, as I stated earlier, we (the 2 keep votes) knew all along we were going to lose this one; the writing was already on the wall long before Tarc's “[b]etter luck in the future” comment. BrocktonBomber (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrocktonBomber is right. Though Tarc may very well be proven to be correct that this article gets 187'd - at this juncture - it would be due to votes (which Wiki states is not the test of an article's live-or-die status), not the reasoning behind why it isn't valid since, as BB notes, the Bludgeon citation^ is unmerited: I (as well as BrocktonBomber) have been obligated to repeat myself because editors are submitting grievances which, time and again, have already been addressed and reinforced through citation (say nothing of being present in the article itself).

^ Irony of ironies (since, Krax, you seem fond of the term) - You have mentioned this twice amid having posted 10 times in 6 days since you entered the conversation. Returning the f.y.i. favor, you might find the article The pot calling the kettle black interesting.

SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never posted any WP:Walls of text, and I never acuused anybody of being a sockpuppet, let alone well-known editors of several-year-long Wiki presence. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to walls of text: Sacrificing analysis for brevity is poor editorializing, i.e., quantity at the expense of quality (but it boosts the number of edits, getting a person that much closer to getting bragging rights of a new editing star, right Krax?).

As for the insinuation that age/tenure guarantees moral purity...well, as we all know, more than one heralded Wiki editor has been caught red-handed: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2042333_2042334_2042575,00.html.

As I stated, and BB observed (and, by all means, accuse me of bludgeoning once more since, again, you're asking me to address a topic that has already been discussed...), it seemed odd that after the initial AfD listing ended in a vote of 2/2, a flock of nay-saying admins appeared on the scene after the article was relisted, hence my mention of a stacked deck, meat puppetry and the need for an investigation by way of appeal. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 14 August 2015 (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) BethNaught (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Honnedevasthana Shamrao

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

Claim of significance may be shown (via the one article referenced), but the other reference is a Wordpress - this persons notability has not been shown, this article should be deleted. Garchy (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. The article has been repeatedly slammed with tags, beginning only seconds after its creator began writing it. It's a reasonable, good-faith effort and there is no reason not to allow its creator a reasonable opportunity to work on it. When, as here, an author's work is covered in a major national newspaper, there's a strong case for inferring notability, and WP:BEFORE calls for an attempt to assess the subject's actual notability, rather than deferring to the overhasty tag-bombing of the first patroller to come across the page and drive off the article creator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This profile [15] in The Hindu is persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that India media require specialized searches, i.e. bing and google don't do a good job with Indian news coverage. I did find RS coverage of his 2004 book already being recommended in U.S yoga advice articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kandhe Nin Ruksack

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

Granted it's an Indian show so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches nothing at all to even suggest minimal improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no coverage anywhere to be found, fails WP:V Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Kraxler. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 13 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Buckeyes

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

Nothing to suggest good local or universal notability, with my searches finding nothing particularly good with the best here, here, here and here (all passing mentions). With no obvious possibility of improvement or moving elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are some mentions and concert announcements in the local news, but nothing that could possibly make them pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Kraxler. Searches showed nothing to denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 13 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Schroeder

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

Subject does not appear notable. Current sources do not show notability, and neither does a google, google news or google books search. Most mentions seem to mention him only in passing. He appears to have produced notable bands, but notability is not inherited and I cannot find mention of any album he produced winning a technical award. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Musician and producer. I believe I still have more production works to find. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing even close to good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promo advert, refs in the article are the subject's own website, and two directory listings, half the producer credits listed in the article are not in the source, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Warriors Fighting Championship

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG, WP:Notability (sports) or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to PRehse, Mr. Guye, SebastjanH. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relatively recent creation, with few events, and does not meet WP:GNG with little non-primary coverage. This is comparable to other MMA organizations that did not survive AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFC Africa (2nd nomination)).Peter Rehse (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is dependent on the primary page:Peter Rehse (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both New and minor MMA organization with no significant independent coverage. Nothing to show either of its events meet WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I admit I may have made a mistake in accepting this page. The page is promotional and there are too few independent sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator does work for the company. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as although there is coverage from my searches here and browser found the same thing. I think we can wait until better coverage is made. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I will add additional and independent links till the end of the week that will prove the relevance of the page and the it has enough coverage.SebastjanH (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage of a new MMA organization doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Migrant Education Center

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement, better notability and/or moving elsewhere; searches here, here, here and here (browser and highbeam also found nothing). Overall, there's not that much info about this group aside from being around since at least the 1970s and it seems they changed their website to this (different name). It may be rather well known locally but there's not even anything to suggest good local notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can see, it's some small operation run by the regional entity of the Presbyterian Church USA and active in a little chunk of northwestern Ohio. That's all we can really say, since there's no solid coverage whatsoever. I would be open to redirecting it to something PCUSA-related, but I don't know what a good target would be. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another run-of-the-WP:MILL local organization trying to raise funds here, only source is their own website, a few trivial mentions in news search, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:AGF notwithstanding, there is no credible assertion of notability and the creator is likely a sock. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liban Barre

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

In my opinion, this article really qualifies for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of importance or significance), but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt, as the claim of "almost 15 thousand fans" could just about be construed as a claim of significance. It seems that what that means is simply that his Facebook page claims 14583 "likes". The article is about a person with no evidence of notability at all, either in the article itself or anywhere that I have managed to find on searching. It is sourced only to Facebook. (The original version of this article was created by an editor called "Libanbarre", and was speedily deleted. Libanbarre was also given a message alerting him to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. The article was later re-created by an editor who appears to be in contact with Liban Barre's manager, if not with Liban Barre himself.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the beginning user jamesBWatson told me that i had to show prove and significance that Liban Barre had 15,000 fans or almost close to that number so i search his name up got his facebook link and showed him prove. than afterward he tells me This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy after i proved to him that he had that much fans and let me ask you something Facebook is a big company almost 250 million people have an Facebook account and how do Facebook separate the public with celebrities they give the celebrities a blue verified check next to their name and only Celebrities and public figures Global brands and businesses media can have it and Liban Barre fan page is going get verified very soon so what does that tell you it tells you that out of 250 million people on facebook liban wil be one of many verified account on facebook. on top of that google is making liban barre his knowledge graph anytime soon so if this article gets deleted than google has no information to put on his box and yes i dont know liban personally his manager contacted me and told me to make an article cause he will be appearing on tv and flim this upcoming spring and other than that i dont know who made that account i have no idea and it doesn't concern me my job is to make this article and obviously user jamesBWatson is making things harder and if so the article Sulekha_Ali has nothing significance about it and as i recall since i am fan of liban and sulekha videos since they are a big deal in my culture him and Sulekha working togather on a project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed9558 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed, I have already given you links to the relevant notability guidelines, and none of what you say here has any relation to the content of those guidelines. This deletion discussion will be reviewed by an administrator who will asses notability on the basis of Wikipedia's guidelines, and will take little or no account of anything said here which does not relate to those guidelines. As I have already explained to you, if you can provide reliable sources showing that Liban Barre satisfies the notability guidelines, then there will be no reason to delete the article, but being a "verified account" on Facebook does not do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thoroughly fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 8 August 2015 (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. No deletion reason given. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Lorenzoni

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

Completing nomination for 1.39.13.41 (talk). I am neutral unless I comment below. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 7 August 2015 (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. Too soon, I think. Perhaps he will become notable in the future. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex from Target

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

This article is about a person who is not known for anything except a random picture taken of him working at Target, many different media outlets carried the story on the viral take up of this picture. The films/music he is involved in is not notable and do nothing to help Alex meet WP:ANYBIO as this is a single event notability a reassessment is needed to gain a consensus on permanent notability. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence of significance, let alone long-term notability. Wait until solid sources, months or years detached from the event, publish articles on the guy. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: [16] (Seven months after his photo went viral) another article 5 monthes after he went viral discussing his potential movie career [17]. You were saying? GuzzyG (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, news sources: they don't give any significant coverage of the original event. We need secondary sources, not news reports about what the guy's up to at the time of the reports. These are all primary sources, things originating from the time of an event and therefore part of the event itself: we need something that looks back from a distance. I was going by the nominator's statement that he doesn't appear to have gotten any coverage aside from the original event. Nyttend (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article at best would be about the photo and it going viral. However that is not really significant enough to have its own article. Alex Lee at some point may be a notable actor/singer/entertainer of some sort, however right now he is a 17-year-old who had his picture get noted by some people. This is the ultimate in presentist bias. Unless he does other things significant, no one will care about him in 5 years. So for now we should delete the article and we can recreate it if and when he does something of more significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly due to WP:ONEEVENT. This guy is only known for a single thing. 156.145.58.224 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until it's clearer how he will use his success. Bearian (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going against the grain here, but the kid has two fully dedicated New York Times articles, [18] [19], combine this with the other sources, if this was any career other then an internet celebrity this would qualify him. Here is a article from Business Insider from two monthes back about his debut single [20] (Seven months after his photo went viral) another article 5 monthes after he went viral discussing his potential movie career [21]. Web celebrities can be notable too. GuzzyG (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2015 (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 all to List of county routes in Erie County, New York — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Erie County, New York (1–32)

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

Pretty simple, I have redone these into a formal list at List of county routes in Erie County, New York, replacing the version of 1-32 and so forth that I created when I was a naive editor. At this point, the redundancy of 12 existing lists and the numerous un-created ones can be dealt with this lone list and I can re-work it to bring it more up to standard than 12 lists. Mitch32^{(The best ideas are common property.)} 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the redundancy:

Also, this is my first AfD nomination in almost 9 years, so if I've made any mistakes, pardon my inability. Mitch32^{(The best ideas are common property.)} 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, they should be orphaned, but the easy thing to do is to redirect them to the proper sections and then move on. –Fredddie ™ 21:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fredddie. I don't think these can or should be deleted because we should maintain their edit histories (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), but redirects serve the purpose. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a thoroughly appropriate solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NOTTRAVEL & GNG, Anyone wanting bus info should visit operators website as overtime this'll become outdated. –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Jesus christ I'm slow!, I was actually confused on where the redirect target even was but have just this moment figured it out!, Bloody hell I'm losing the will to live! . –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fredddie in order to keep the attribution for the page histories (Remember, redirects are cheap!). Dough4872 03:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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, nomination withdrawn(non-admin closure). Müdigkeit (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glyptothorax kurdistanicus

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

Not notable. Sources contain little information, and seem to be broad catalogues or lists, as well as one source that seems to be a source directed on the order Siluriformes, so no significant coverage. Little is known about this species, it looks like a dictionary entry. If it would be redirected, Glyptothorax would be the target, so it isn't needed, as its name is an extension of that name. That article already contains information about this species. Müdigkeit (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. Usual outcomes - which are the scope of that Wikipedia essay - should be never the sole reason to keep an article.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Catalogue of Life and FishBase entries for this species make it a convincing Keep. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, no. These are the kind of broad databases that are not convincing. They keep every type of species that exists.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Verified and documented animal species. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is a usual outcome for a reason; virtually every scientifically described species has significant coverage in at least a handful of sources. In this case, more than I expected for what the nominator purports to be a nearly-unknown species:

The original species description: Berg, L. (1931). "Description of a new siluroid fish, Glyptosternum kurdistanicum from the basin of the Tigris River". Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. 7: 1267–1270.
An examination of whether its range extends into the lower Tigris: Jawad, Laith A.; Hussein, S. A.; Fahad, K. K. (2009). "Glyptothorax kurdistanicus (Berg, 1931) (Pisces, Siluriformes, Sisordiae) in the lower reaches of the Tigris River, Iraq?". Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 29: 779–781. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01314.x.
Discussions of parasitism and parasite load in the species: Abdullah, Shamall M. A.; Mhaisen, Furhan T. (2010). "Comparative Study on the Parasitic Infections of Some Sympatric Fish Species in Greater Zab and Lesser Zab Rivers, North of Iraq". Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 23 (special issue 2): 70–80.
And its inclusion in a systematic review of related species in the region: Coad, Brian W. (2014). "Review of the Freshwater Catfishes of Iran (Order Siluriformes)". Iranian Journal of Icthyology. 1 (4): 218–257.

Plus quite a few others that offer less substantial coverage but that would still provide valuable supporting information for a better-developed article, which, frankly, at this point I'm tempted to write just because I just did the legwork that should have already been done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you sure that this has significant coverage in any of these sources? At least one of them does not have significant coverage(Discussions of parasitism and parasite load in the species), and Berg is a primary source in addition to that. Did you look into these sources, or did you just look around if it is mentioned anywhere?--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm quite certain what the sources contain. If you'd like some very specific, significant coverage, please see pages 243-244 of Coad. Although others include substantial information as well. The Jawad, Hussein, and Fahad article is entirely about this species. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Every species is notable. Agree with User:Squeamish Ossifrage above about WP:BEFORE. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (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 Trainwreck. Far too many canvassed/SPA !votes, poor-quality arguments, etc. to derive any sort of consensus from.

For formality, this closure is a no consensus/WP:NPASR. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative

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

Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete, as it is little more than a Twitter hashtag. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not of any importance. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A Twitter hashtag referenced by media including the Washington Post '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Other hashtags, like #YesAllWomen have been kept. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNENCYC, and WP:JNN, you can't just say "little more than a Twitter hashtag", as that doesn't refer to any real reason to delete or keep the article. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even yet an ounce of notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Not notable, saying "no notability" is not a good AfD argument. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Not remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Not notable, just saying that something isn't notable is bad practice at AfD. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, it isn't. Hectoring contributors who's posts you don't like on the other hand is definitely not good practice at an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The neologism is cited in notable and reliable sources like the Washington Post and New Republic. Simply saying 'not notable' doesn't counter the fact that the subject is has been written about in multiple clearly notable sources. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: Could you explain how me "hectoring" you is bad practice at AfD? All I appear to be doing is rebutting your arguments for deletion. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you appear to be doing is making multiple postings saying exactly the same thing. And to expand on my reasoning, I see no evidence that this particular neologism has any long-term significance. It is common enough for multiple media sources to pick up on the same new word, hashtag or whatever and run a story or two on it, only to forget about it a week or two later. That isn't an indication of notability in relation to the timescale at which an encyclopaedia should operate. Wikipedia is a long-term project, not a mirror of this week's media buzzwords. We leave that to Twitter. If there is actual subject matter at the bottom of this story, it will come from sources looking at long-term trends, and possibly at the significance of language in what appears to be a rift within the American political right. Words rarely make good subjects for encyclopaedic articles, and when they do it is because they have been discussed in depth over a considerable timescale in sources not concerned solely with filling today's webpage with something different from yesterday's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck my delete !vote, given the number of new sources now available. I am as yet unconvinced that the term will have any real long-term significance, but given the way that WP:NOTNEWS is routinely ignored, there seems little point in actively opposing the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not a dictionary definition. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VAGUEWAVE, you can't point at a policy, you need to show how the policy applies. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough. Coderzombie (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JNN, stating that something is "not notable" with no extra input is a useless tautology, you're stating that this article is not notable because you said it isn't. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't denote a real political phenomenon, concept, or movement, so you're left with the insult, which belongs in a dictionary if anywhere. Unless you think Conservatives who other conservatives dislike is a topic worthy of an article. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As an English **** who still doesn't want to impose prescriptive grammar on anyone, I'll just make a redirect from Conservatives whom other conservatives dislike to yours, Colapeninsula. :) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a whole category of articles on insults. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Illustrates a civil war between neo- and paleoconservatism that will be taught in schools in 50 years time '''tAD''' (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that dispute would be written about 50 years from now (pretty conjectural), that doesn't mean that therefore this term, whose illustrative value remains to be seen, is therefore notable. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The term is clearly notable right now and has received a rate of coverage (several new articles per day, on average) that surpass many other articles that have survived AfD. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question isn't whether it's notable right now; it's whether it's notable. That requires sustained coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - By this definition you created yourself, no recent event could be notable. Denarivs (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Few are, but those are events, not neologisms anyway. Neologisms are much more likely to (a) overlap other topics and (b) have a short lifespan in the press. The only time we keep articles about recent events is, more or less, if precedent tells us coverage will continue. There's not really the same kind of precedent for neologisms because there's no neologism equivalent of the World Series, significant natural disaster, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has received media coverage in specialised political circles, the same as Feminist Hulk, another thing on the Internet that 99.99999999999999999% of the Earth's population have never heard of, received media coverage in specialised feminist circles. And that article survives AfD like a Sacred Cow. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been getting a lot of attention recently, including many mentions in mainstream press outlets.I would think Wikipedia would like to be on top of this.--Cartamandua (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Cartamandua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, recently covered in the Washington Post, so not at all confined to minor web sources. FitzhughIII (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — FitzhughIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There is now a Washington Post source, one that Feminist Hulk never had... '''tAD''' (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Washington Post describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new: "'Cuckservative' is a frame that might be bigger than its founders intended". Smetanahue (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. It's a week old, wrapped up in a bunch of other far-right political concepts, and shows no indication of lasting significant coverage of the term. It may be worth noting that the Washington Post connects this to Gamergate, which means we might see more SPAs (already two above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, and the newness of a concept is no reason to delete it. We have a section called, "In The News", for starters. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not temporary - I do not think this means what you think it means. WP:NTEMP is more or less an explanation of why we require lasting coverage, not a justification to keep something based on coverage over a short time. Indeed, that section not only references the general notability guideline, which requires persistent coverage, but also ends with a line about Wikipedia being a "lagging indicator of notability" and explaining "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An topic's relation to conservative political views does not make it invalid as an article. Such a statement implicitly suggests that far-right concepts are unworthy of Wikipedia articles. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's twice on this page you've misrepresented someone's argument to try to insinuate that there's some anti-conservative agenda going on here. Nobody has said its relation to conservative political concepts makes it invalid. It's that it's wrapped up with other concepts and is not a clearly defined subject beyond those which we already cover elsewhere. It's a very typical problem with neologisms and this is a pretty typical example of an article that should be deleted on that basis. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was not restating an argument, and in fact it is you who have misrepresented my post. Again, difficulty defining a word or concept is a challenge to be overcome, not a cause for deletion. Denarivs (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I wouldn't be opposed to a Delete/Redirect to RINO#Cuckservative. There was already a section about it there. I copied the lead, more or less, from the current version of the article people have been working on along with a few of the sources, so merge shouldn't be necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Washington Post describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new. DemitreusFrontwest (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, DemitreusFrontwest and Smetanahue, so one single article makes for encyclopedic notability? That's easy. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It started being noticed at more specified sites like The Daily Beast, The New Republic (liberal) and Hot Air (conservative), now it is in a mainstream source '''tAD''' (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- describes it as a larger phenomenon - If by this you mean it's saying that it's used in multiple kinds of ways and ties in with multiple agendas, groups, and identities, then yes. What that means is it's a poorly defined term that references concepts for which we already have articles. For example, Identitarian movement is one the Post connects it to. What it isn't saying is that "cuckservative" is itself a larger phenomenon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Difficulty in defining a term does not make it unworthy of a Wikipedia article. In addition, notable and reliable sources such as the TNR article have in fact suggested that 'cuckservative' is emblematic of larger phenomenon in conservative politics. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now... it may be too early to tell whether or not the term will "catch", but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did. BGManofID (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for deletion, not for keeping. We don't create articles because we think that the topic might become notable later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sense of logic, there. I know you are voting for deletion, but if the term does take off, the article will have to be re-made. BGManofID (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Cloudchased (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the world's leading think tanks is now writing about the word '''tAD''' (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDIC. There simply isn't enough material out there about this neologism to justify an encyclopedia article. There's no evidence that this word has any staying power. gobonobo ^c 01:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The term enjoys articles in numerous and multiple reliable sources such as the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, and the Week. All of these are mainstream, reliable, and notable second party sources. Simply saying "there isn't enough material out there" doesn't counter the fact that there is objectively a bevy of articles on the subject. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Denarivs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I'm now less convinced that deletion of this article is the best outcome for our readers. Should any one of the Republican candidates even mention the word 'cuckold' during Thursday's debate, we'll see another round of news articles on the term. While it is undoubtedly a neologism, the sources go into a fair amount of detail on its meaning, usage, and political context. The racial connotations at play here also make it relevant to broader race relations in the US and the Republican Party's ongoing efforts to negotiate its racist fringe. gobonobo ^c 13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Cuckservative' has received significant coverage in a variety of mainstream notable sources across the political spectrum. The Washington Post, Daily Beast, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and New Republic have all written on the term. Right now, 'cuckservative' is substantially more notable and better sourced than many other Wikipedia articles, and its quality and notability are very likely to improve given that the page is barely 24 hours old. The article itself is well-written and Wikipedia should continue to serve its role as a third party review of reliable sources. Denarivs (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's nonsense. Breitbart is not a source for anything except for filth; the others, that's chatty election coverage. The Cato blog post doesn't even discuss the term. And if we are to accept a blog like Hot Air, let's really accept them--"The pejorative du jour on social media these days is “cuckservative.”" We shouldn't be doing mots du jour. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This 'objection' boils down to "I don't think conservative media sources are valid" and "these sources that you never mentioned aren't very good". TNR and the Washington Post are objectively mainstream reliable sources and provide a higher level of notability than many other Wikipedia articles enjoy. 'Cuckservative' is a clearly notable word and should be included in Wikipedia. Denarivs (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read more carefully. Breitbart is crap not because it's conservative, but because it's crap. It's not acceptable as a reliable source here. WP:RS is policy. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can't just claim that a mainstream and well regarded news site with paid journalistic staff is 'crap'. In addition, a variety of other clearly reliable sources also exist. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia has previously ruled that the horrible gossip column Gawker is a 'reputable' source, so for as long as the base of the floor is disintegrating and all journalistic integrity is being thrown out thew window, Breitbart is an acceptable source if Gawker Media (or any of its subsidiaries) are. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as BuzzFeed now considers it to "the GamerGate of the conservative internet". Also, it is on the "cusp of the mainstream political conversation." "Not notable enough" is a useless argument, see WP:JNN. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no coverage for 4 entire days, seems to be a twitter hashtag that was popular for a few days then died off. #YesAllWomen was popular for a few months, which is why it is notable. If we see cuckservative get mentioned again at the debate, it'll be notable. It's not notable though. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been pointed out already that popular hashtags have received their own entries. I'd build on that by noting that, unlike, for example, YesAllWomen, cuckservative also stands just fine on its own as a noun-usable neologism. In that respect it's much more than just a trending hashtag. Also, discussions of whether or not it'll "take off" seem a bit belated, as I initially came to this page looking for an un-slanted etymology after seeing "cuckservative" used in 3 different places over the course of about 2 hours of web browsing (admittedly this is a subjective experience, but The Daily Caller, for example, isn't exactly some obscure blog).71.174.125.144 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — 71.174.125.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: The term has already been widely covered in a broad spectrum of media outlets.

Hashtag is soaring,
conservative Washington Post dedicated an entire article to it
plus conservative Breitbart: article
plus liberal Salon: article
plus center-right The Daily Caller: article
plus libertarian Taki's Magazine: article
and so do dissident right websites like American Renaissance ([http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/what-is-a-cuckservative/ article]), The Occidental Observer [article) and VDARE (article) and many others Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hashtag is now fading according to your own link. I highly doubt the term will have any lasting impact. NotJim99 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. American media outlets are going to cover every belch and fart within a hundred feet of everyone associated with a presidential campaign from now till November 2016. We don't need individual articles for every one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The term is only tangentially related to the electoral cycle and media coverage has not exclusively focused on its relation to American presidential elections. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly season is starting again... StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 'This is silly' is hardly a justification for deletion. Denarivs (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the justification given here. I won't presume to speak for a saint, but it seems to me that they're pointing to silly season as a time period in which lots of unimportant things are being thrown around in the US media as if they are important. Today's topic: John Kasich does not seem to care for The Roots. Wanna write an article on Republican candidates and their opinions on rap? Drmies (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Besides mainstream coverage already alluded to above repeatedly, I also would like to point out that it is term of currency in the dissident Alt-right subcultural context that has a strongly defined meaning and is used to describe certain characters of certain reputations--I think it should stay, based on account that we have terms related to other subcultures and what not (such as Bear (gay culture) ). On account of that alone, I think it should stay. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bear" is written about in real books; this term is not. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...The No True Scotsman fallacy, really? Solntsa90 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That he added an adjective before books doesn't mean it's No True Scotsman. For this to be No True Scotsman, he would have to be responding to an exception to a rule he stated. In other words, if he said "cuckservative is not written about in any books that meet WP:RS", to which you responded "here are some books that talk about it and meet WP:RS", then it would be No True Scotsman to say "yeah, well, no real books that meet WP:RS talk about it." It's not No True Scotsman if you don't actually have an argument. Then it's just still "No Scotsman". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Someone says something stupid, I merely taunt. The fact of the matter is, just because the term (which is new) hasn't been in publication in hard-print yet (something increasingly rare in today's digital age) doesn't mean it is a term of no currency. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me rephrase then. "Bear" as a term of gay culture is well attested in academic articles and books and has, over the years, acquired significant meaning in terms of self-identification, for instance. It is proven to be a real, notable term; it is the subject of an edited collection, The Bear Book: Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture. "Cuckservative", on the other hand, is a recent invention written about on a couple of websites an in a newspaper article or two. So Scottish or not, the comparison is worthless. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If even mainstream publications like the Washington Post and Breitbart have covered this, it seems that Wikipedia should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3067:1890:5830:6243:57C9:4C14 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:3067:1890:5830:6243:57C9:4C14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There is no way Breitbart is a "mainstream publication". Whether it's even a "publication" remains to be seen. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is merely opinion. Breitbart has a paid journalistic staff and a substantial Alexa ranking. It clearly meets a dictionary definition of 'publication' and publishes opinions well within the mainstream as well. Moreover, numerous other media organizations have reported on the term, including New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week. Denarivs (talk)
Keep I am personally opposed to it, but if we're going to have articles like mansplaining and manspreading, then we should be consistent and allow this one. I think that instead of having a discussion about the deletion of this single article, we should track down all political neologisms on Wikipedia and decide whether they belong on the website at all. Either we delete them all or we keep them all. No half measure. Akesgeroth (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I could cite OTHERSTUFF. If you really disagree with the term having an article, you should vote deleted. The rest, we'll fix later. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the issue though. This discussion was had for those two other articles and the consensus was "Keep", based on the same reasons given to keep this specific one. We should be aiming for coherence and those two cases set a precedent. If we want to delete this one, then we should first revisit the other two cases and consider deleting them first. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other posters have said all that needs to be said.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some words and memes are harbingers of social strife (e.g., referring to Marie Antoinette as "L'autrichienne" prior to the French Revolution), and "cuckservative" appears to be one of these.Wfgiuliano (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but that one is easily verified by a real source. This one, not so much. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the Washington Post a 'fake' or 'unreal' source? Denarivs (talk)
    - One single article in the Washington Post is "not so much", esp. if that article says, in the title, that it's the "conservative insult of the month". Of the month. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see 380,000 google results for this term. It seems that it will have continuing and increasing cultural influence at least until the next election cycle. Wfgiuliano 2600:100E:B02A:8E4E:848B:967C:CEBC:4248 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — 2600:100E:B02A:8E4E:848B:967C:CEBC:4248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I rely on Wikipedia to give me first definitions for things never seen, usually inserting "wiki" into my google. Why would you make Wikipedia less useful by deleting this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfredfern (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Jfredfern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete ~~weak keep~~ !vote changed to delete ~~seems to have enough coverage for a small article, especially the wapo and NR links.~~ however note to closer definite off-wiki canvassing from including reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/new_right/comments/3fmf1t/this_article_is_being_considered_for_deletion_in/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Liberal friends, we should be supporting this. Civil war on the right is GOOD for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3067:1890:D99E:4F4A:89A1:42D5 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:3067:1890:D99E:4F4A:89A1:42D5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's not a valid reason to keep the page. Please see WP:NOT. NotJim99 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cloudchased (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps a year from now this will be a 'thing' but for now it fails WP:NEO. For something like this we should require a lot more sourcing, and what is in the article is just about what there is out there other than blogs and tweets. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nonsense word created a week ago by a blogger? Seriously. --Jlambert (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A breathless spurt of "all things Trump" by the drive-by media does not an article make. The sourcing supports a mention in Trump's campaign article, but not a standalone article for a racist buzzword. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few mentions over a few weeks does not a thing make. Per WP:NEO, it's much too early. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect - to RINO - similar meanings, is newsworthy enough to have its own section. --George100 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another political short-lived term. If it survives and is discussed in reliable sources after some time, then it might be notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's darn hard to know what these references are if they're deleted. I got here from looking it up on google. Clearly, it needed to be defined. I don't care where it is, but it needs to be kept. 99.104.125.199 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — 99.104.125.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge / Redirect - to RINO - at the moment it's simply a mainstream neologism, nothing short of slang on internet boards, but it's politically significant enough that it's recognized in media so it shouldn't be ignored entirely. Merging it to RINO - a term that has a more solid foundation and is completely synonymous to the neologism - is both the ultimate compromise and the most effective solution to the debate until the term proves to be more than just a bandwagon phrase. Akkere (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that a majority of the discussion so far was, when I looked at this, discounted as not being grounded in policy and guidelines. Try harder. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BGManofID. We only document terms that have already caught on in secondary sources, not the primary ones like publications from the time period (right now) when this term was created and trying to catch on. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is an indisputable fact that millions of people around the world consider Wikipedia to be their first choice and vanguard of human knowledge as it pertains to being the most reliable resource for learning about new words, and information about people, places, things or other important categorical subjects. The word Cuckservative has caught on fire like no other political term in 2015 and continues burning feverishly bright as a white-hot philippic in the news, political commentary and on TV. Social media is buzzing intensely, especially twitter where more than 10,000 tweets a day are using or discussing the term. Political pundits of the left and Republicans with waffling principles on the right, in open wallace, have announced their scathing hatred of the term because of its capacity to label and brow beat left-regressing republicans. Having looked at the political bias of the people above who say delete the term, you will notice most of them have on the balance left oriented biases in their edits. Every one right of center is talking about this term and it is not the same thing as "RINO", though there is some overlap. If this word is deleted from Wikipedia, it is because the left mobilized themselves and succeeded in overwhelming this discussion with votes for delete. Do the right thing and keep the term, it would be a victory against partisan politics of left-right paradigms. If the term is deleted it is a victory for the left that overwhelmingly dominates Wikipedia. AviBoteach (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — AviBoteach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is an entirely improper reason to keep or delete an article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::It's obvious the intention to remove the term from wikipedia is grounded in the left's well organized groundswell movement to undermine the pejorative's gravitas at shaming mainstream waffle-Republicans with no principals that are regressing to the left. Case in point from the leftist Cato Institute 'As Racists Return to the Mainstream, Be Sure to Deprive Them of Power', the title says it all and lets the reader know the undercurrent of what the article is really about and defines the opening shots to why we must suppress the portmanteau. And whenever you want to fringe-smear or marginalize someone or something out of the mainstream conversation, connect them with extremism, today's McCarthyism is the shaming word "racism" or any other related fringing pejoratives meant to red-herring uncomfortable topics, like Is “Cuckservative” the New, Hip Racial Slur For White Nationalists?. With the likening to Hitler, anyone who calls out Republicans who betray established party positions of the party's millions of voters and undermine their established constituents are now labelled "White Nationalist" (code word Hitler, code word Neo-Nazi, ut oh, here comes another Holocaust), and so we get a big fat juicy red flagged black Swastika emblazoned with a sexy-pot Aryan dominatrix. Yet only a minuscule number of people using the term Cuckservative are self-described "White Nationalists". We learn from the leftist Salon that Cuckservative is not only a disgusting racist term, but equally disgusting misogynist The GOP crack-up continues: The raging civil war over the disgusting “cuckservative” slur. Since I am prescient, the overwhelmingly left dominated Wikipedia will have its way and the article will be purged down the memory hole, but remember this time and day, I will be vindicated when you see that the word does not go away and becomes a major talking point from now till November 2016 when more than 100 million Americans vote for their next president. AviBoteach (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed, there are piss-poor arguments and SPAs here, but I see multiple reliable sources writing specifically about this term. That's WP:GNG, friends. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Could you please provide some reliable sources that are writing specifically about this term? AviBoteach (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

The term has been used in articles published by New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week. Denarivs (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AviBoteach, I see you're new here. I'm referring to the sources being used as references in the article. Check the bottom of it, or go direct to Cuckservative#References to see the sources. Also, while you're free to question me, of course, I see that we both want this article kept. Unless you misunderstood my position or misstated your own, I'm not sure how fruitful this discussion would be. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many reliable sources. Very notable.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::What are some of these many reliable sources, not a rehash of stuff already covered above, but new examples. AviBoteach (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

The term has been used in articles published by New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week. Denarivs (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::Can you post titles and links to those articles, so that we have definitive proof of it?AviBoteach (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Its a little early to definitively assess the value of this article, but I think its worth keeping at this time. I suspect this term will go on to play a significant role in 2016 electoral discourse, and already, it is being discussed (and denounced) in notable sources, such as The Washington Post (and several others). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about as important as Binders full of women. Now, I firmly believe that Binders full of women should have been deleted for WP:BELONG and WP:NEO, but it wasn't. And I'd rather see uniformity of logic being applied at this point. I do highly question the use of Breitbart since I'd hardly consider that publication reliable! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article uses clearly biased language I would expect at Metapedia, like "betrayal of the ethnic interests of White European Americans" It also has soapboxing sentences like "The rationales given for these public policy positions, may be dismissed as an attempt to appeal to ethnic minority voters, whilst ignoring their white counterparts, or as a cowardly or otherwise expedient attempt to avoid moral condemnation and slander by leftists." See WP:NPOV. WP:NEO also applies, the term is very new and clearly pushed by biased editors here. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having language that indicates what the term means to the people who employ it, is not indicative of an ideological bias. Its perfectly valid to note that people referred to as "cuckservatives," are perceived to have engaged in the "betrayal of the ethnic interests of White European Americans," because that it what people who use that term, are on record as saying. That's what the term means to the people who use it. Its not a reflective of a bias, to have articles which represent a perspective that is outside orthodox political discourse. Quite the contrary, in fact. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that most of the sources clearly mocks the term and dismisses it as "the conservative insult of the month". TussilagoFanfara (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TussilagoFanfara I created the article, but I can't be held responsible for hit-and-run bias editing on it '''tAD''' (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable to some extent, but I think it would fit better as a small section in Republican In Name Only (currently a copy-paste from a old version of the article sits on that page) until it's more established. Again, WP:NEO. Thoughts? (ping The Almightey Drill) TussilagoFanfara (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a valid suggestion, but this is a rare case when a subject becomes more covered by more facets as time goes on. I'd go for that option of putting it on RINO if there was overwhelming support to delete right now '''tAD''' (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::The problem is that cuckservative and RINO are not the same thing, nor subsets of each other. They have completely different definitions, despite the fact there is some overlap. A RINO is basically not a republican at all, but a democrat running under the GOP. A cuckservative is a republican, who runs on party platforms, but is willing to betray his or her constituents on racial grounds. AviBoteach (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word is now subject to a report by the SPLC [22] '''tAD''' (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source alone is clear evidence of notability. Combined with the other sources already cited in the article, this makes it an easy keep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cuckservative is the subject of an article in the United State's newspaper of record, the New York Times: [23]Denarivs (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDD plus per the two additional sources above (NYT and SPLC). Cavarrone 17:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cuckservative is the subject of an article released today in the The Guardian: [24] In addition, the articles in the New York Times and the Week were published in their respective print editions. Denarivs (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nearly a 'dozen blue chip' sources, so the article meets all the demands of WP:GNG : significant coverage from reliable and notable independent mainstream secondary sources. I think the page should be kept. Meishern (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreatBigStuff

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

This and some local news are all the sources I can find about this company. Sam Walton (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft/userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promo advert, just another little company, one piece in the Washington Post can't establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Search resulted in no in-depth coverage from independent RS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 13 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intec, Inc.

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

This tiny article is the only thing I could find resembling coverage of this company. Sam Walton (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well-known accessory company, but thin sourcing and it reads as an WP:ATTACK piece from the lower portion of the article which is just 'boy they make really terrible and cheap consoles that are clones of the Wii' (yeah, I saw the ProJared review, but the article itself admits that they didn't put their name on this so it could be one of the PopStation cloners grabbing a name at random and trading off it). Nate • (chatter) 08:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maker of many individual non-notable products. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I could check my usual databases if someone wants, but I'd rather not bother. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 19:44, 12 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InforMax Inc

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

While I can find a number of mentions of this company and their software, I can't find anything that shows they are notable. Sam Walton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invitrogen#Mergers_and_acquisitions, maybe. Informax is briefly mentioned there. Of course Invitrogen itself got bought, but it's still the likely search target. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "InforMax Inc" at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary nothing even close to good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 9 August 2015 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert of Cremona

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

Can't locate any sources about Lambert of Cremona. If one looks up his name there is a result in the book The New Global Law (2010) but looking up the quoted Latin text in the "71" note reveals that the work perhaps belongs to Liutprand of Cremona, so it could be a book error. Probably the earliest mentions of a bishop named Lambert of Cremona in Wikipedia is from this November 2005 edit in the English Wikipedia, and this October 2004 edit in the Italian Wikipedia, The former edit might be a translation of the Italian article. There is no article of this person in the Italian Wikipedia. I'm not suspecting this article as a hoax, as there could be at least one source out there. TheGGoose (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ The article's creator, User:Johnpacklambert, is a frequent contributor at AfD and may be able to clear this up. I would imagine there's sources somewhere that establish the subject's notability, but I couldn't find anything with my cursory search. North of Eden (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be an error from the article's original source. As noted, the reference in The New Global Law almost certainly was intended to mean Liutprand of Cremona. A reference to "Ubaldo," the other bishop mentioned in the November 2005 edit to Cremona mentioned above, appears on page 60 of Power, Politics and Episcopal Authority: The Bishops of Cremona and Lincoln by Angelo Silvestri, in which Ubaldo is described as receiving a grant of land from Henry III. This reference cites Leoni's Il codice diplomatico della cattedrale di Cremona, which may be useful in untangling this case. Lambert, however, does not appear in the Silvestri book. Other sources, including Christopher Kleinhenz's Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia [25] and even Arthur Kingsley Porter's 1917 Lombard Architecture [26], mention Ubaldo but never Lambert. Unless better sourcing appears, recommendation would probably be to Redirect to Liutprand of Cremona since Liutprand has been rendered as/confused with Lambert in at least one scholarly source. Calamondin12 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liutprand of Cremona per Calamondin12's research and findings. I am fairly confident that this "Lambert" isn't a historical figure in and of himself, and the mistaken-identity suggestion posed by Calamondin12 makes a lot of sense. North of Eden (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few more sources, in Italian, might provide a little more background on the subject. The 19th-century book Repertorio diplomatico cremonense [27] makes reference to one Lamberto, an "abbot," and discusses public dissatisfaction with the bishop Ubaldo around this time. A document dated 1052 from the University of Pavia refers to Lamberto, "archpriest of Genivolta" (who may or may not be the same person), in connection with Ubaldo as a potential recipient of property in a legal matter. An 1832 book, Annali d'Italia compiled by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, mentions an abbot of San Lorenzo near Cremona named Lamberto who appears to have been involved in a dispute with another bishop over property during Henry III's time. But it is unclear whether these refer to one or multiple individuals. In addition, several quite exhaustive sources, which mention numerous Lambertos in the index, do not include an index entry for any Lamberto as bishop (vescovo) of Cremona or for anyone with the specific name Lambert of Cremona (Lamberto di Cremona). Calamondin12 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In that event, we may have a notability problem. I'm generally pretty inclusionistic about historical figures, especially of the Dark Ages variety, but given the difficulty in tracking down definite mentions, it's hard to say this guy has significant coverage in reliable sources. North of Eden (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear evidence of notability is lacking. I think what we need at this point is the creation of a list of all the bishops of Cremona, in the article on the diocese to begin with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is a poor stub without sources. If he was bishop, it can be re-created, but as JPL says, what we need is a list of bishops: we have such for all English dioceses and articles on most of the bishops. This needs to be repeated for the rest of Europe. I note there is no linked article in the Italian WP, which might be a source for an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V, there is a list of bishops of Cremona in the German Wikipedia, and there's no Lamberto. Kraxler (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This looks like fairly good evidence that the bishop "Lambert of Cremona" is basically a mistake that's made it into one or more scholarly sources, with elements from Liutprand of Cremona, the 11th-century bishop Ubaldo, and several Lambertos who held church offices during Ubaldo's time but don't appear to meet WP:N. Calamondin12 (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2015 (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. WP:SNOW per discussion and WP:NOTDUP. Additionally, given that the lists are all annotated, the nominator's claim that they have no information beyond the categories' bare alphabetical listing of album (article) titles is so clearly erroneous as to arguably make this eligible for a WP:SK#3 close. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 albums

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. All 2007 with articles are already listed in Category:2007 albums, so this information is redundant. I also don't think this list of much value since we will never be able to list all albums released in a year and I don't see how simply listing albums released within year benefits readers. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Littlecarmen (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to the respective categories for the article topics. These articles provide more information than categories can ever provide, and as per WP:NOTDUP, categories and lists covering the same topics are considered to be "complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as mentioned above, per WP:NOTDUP.

I went to List of 2014 albums and clicked on the first five albums, and scrolled down to the respective categories. It linked me to either Category:2014 albums or Category:2014 EPs, so first off, one list bifuricates into at least two categories. Second, Category:2014 albums listed 10 subcategories, and then started listing pages in category "2014 albums". It only listed the first 200 pages out of a total of 1872, so it looks like one may have to page through 10 pages to see all the albums released in 2014 that are listed in Wikipedia. The pages were sorted alphabetically by the name of the album Wikipedia title, which may or may not list the band in the title. It does not list the date the album was released in 2014. However, a visit to List of 2014 albums shows that the page is sorted by date of release, and lists the band titles, the album titles, the genre, the label, the producer, and a citation. This shows that the lists are complementary and not duplicative. For example, looking to a library catalog, one can search for material by title, by author, by subject matter. A library does not say that it listed the title, and that is sufficient to find any item in the library. Multiple search systems allow better research into a subject. Mburrell (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AOAL.

I would argue that this information is not redundant since the Category of albums only lists albums with a Wikipedia page. Some albums on the list of albums do not have pages because they have only recently been announced or are from lesser known artists whose albums do not always have pages dedicated to them. However, fans of these artists and music fans in general may be interested to know that they have a new album upcoming (this is mainly relevant to the list of albums of the current year). For instance in the List of 2015 albums, I counted over 30 albums with confirmed release dates from August until the end of the year that did not have Wikipedia pages. The List of 2015 albums is the only article Wikipedia provides that lists albums that do not have pages dedicated to them. It has already been mentioned above how listing albums within a year benefits readers. The main one I would say is that it has the advantage of listing the artist, album title and release date all in a very convenient location. If only the categories page existed, it would simply list album titles alphabetically. The list of albums page is far more beneficial than the categories page if, for instance, you were looking for albums coming out in the next month or so. The category for upcoming albums would not be sufficient as you could not restrict the albums to a particular month. 9:30, 7 August 2015 (GMT 10). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.188.32 (talk)

@Mburrell and 123.243.188.32: Who goes to Wikipedia to find out about upcoming releases though? You go to music news sites for that information, not an encyclopedia. All right, the information isn't completely redundant but I still don't see the use of the list. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen:, I go to Wikipedia to find out about upcoming releases. In early 2014, I had not heard of List of 2014 albums, so I was going to the individual Wikipedia pages of artists and bands for about 100 artists I follow (not everyday) to check for new releases (fans know faster than most other sources). Then I discovered the list of albums and thought I could track upcoming releases easier in one article. Turns out that people post about a bunch of artist I don't care about, so I still have to do occasional sweeps through the list. But, for example, someone posted that Keith Richards was releasing a new album. I had not been looking for an album by him, so the posting in List of 2015 albums told me about an album I was not expecting. The article also introduced me to Little Boots and Butcher Babies. The article may not work for everybody, but I have found as an engineer that talking to non-engineers (artists in particular) that there are many different ways to look at the world. I find that there is not one prescriptive way to do things, and I wish to keep this particular channel of information open because it works better for me than many of the other alternatives. Mburrell (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: easy and convienient way to find out new albums being released, bought so many albums, that i wouldnt have known about, with these pages .... Great addition to Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.39.229 (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Why on god's green earth would you remove this? Based on your logic, 2015 in film and other lists like that would also violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would ask, however, if these article will only list studio albums or also EPs and compilations. If the former, these articles should be called "List of studio albums". Just a suggestion. 和DITOR E tails 08:43, 8 August 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing No. 3 High School

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

No indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Seems like it should be notable. Many secondary schools are, certainly one that’s been around since 1902 and that has achieved international recognition. it has a page at zh.wp at zh:南京市第三高级中学. I've updated Wikidata and added a find sources on its Chinese name help track down some evidence of this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep [28] [29] [30] --Antigng (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary schools are notable per consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep as a duplicate nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Chauhan. (non-admin closure) Fuebaey (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Chauhan

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be mostly written by the subject of the article themself. That is not a valid reason for speedy deletion.

The substantial reason for deletion is that the named person Yogesh Chauhan and any or all of his business enterprises do not pass the test for WP:CORP Shirt58 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (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 by Jimfbleak with reason "promotional autobiography without sources that indicates no importance. Subject falls significantly short of WP:BIO" (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Chauhan

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

Autobiograpihcal article. Probably a copy of Resume of the User himself. No coverage in the news. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography, doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Drm310 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted User:Yogesh Chauhan as WP:NOTWEBHOST (U5); it had identical contents to the mainspace article. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: promotional autobiography without sources that indicates no importance. Subject falls significantly short of WP:BIO. The Dissident Aggressor 19:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Tending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vysyaraju Kasi Viswanatham Raju

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

My various searches found nothing to suggest improvement aside from several browser links none of which looked good. Although the position would sound notable, this is an orphan and there's no apparent target for moving elsewhere. I'm sure any sources may be non-English and offline but I'm not seeing anything to my abilities. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, since he passes WP:POLITICIAN if genuine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite keep now sources have been found to show he did serve in a legislature as claimed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Berhampur (Odisha Vidhan Sabha constituency) is a constituency in Legislative Assembly of Orissa, India. The name does not appear in this list.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Lack of sources. Sofiamar (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiamar - You can't vote "Keep Delete" as that's just nonsensical - You should probably amend that . –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Done Davey2010 :) Sofiamar (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Although it seems to have been for voting keep at AfDs, Sofiamar is no longer able to edit (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sofiamar/Archive). SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep~~. Subject meets the notability criteria as per WP:POLITICIAN but since there are no evidences against the notability it is a hoax and nothing else. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Without sources, there is nothing to suggest that this person was a politician - let alone notable as one. Looking up the early Legislative Assembly election results in Odisha, they are neither listed as MLA for Berhampur in 1951, 1957 or 1961 (page 9, #104, page 6, #13 and page 6, #17). Fuebaey (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuebaey. WP:POLITICIAN applies to real people, not intentional hoaxes or good-faith errors who never existed. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL, well, this is a real person: Read the article, it says that he "was the first member of the Legislative Assembly of Berhampur", and reading Odisha Legislative Assembly#History we learn that the first Assembly met in 1937. Yes, there was an Orissa Legislative Assembly diring colonial times, and the first sometimes really means the first. This source (Indian Annual Register, 1943) lists Vysyaraju Kasi Viswanadhan [note the different spelling d instead of t] Raju among the members of "The Orissa Legislative Assembly" (page 247); this source (The Indian Year Book, 1940) lists the name with the same spelling as a member of the "Orissa Legislative Assembly" from "Berhampur"; this source (The Journal of Orissan History, 1982) talks about a fact from 1939, mentioning Vysyaraju Kasi Viswanadam [note the different spelling with d but without h] Raju as a member of the opposition. Also this source (The "Yearly Digest" of Indian & Select English Cases, 1962) mentions Vysyaraju Kasiviswanadham Raju as a party to a court case. I suggest !voters be more diligent and careful before they pronounce a straightforward statement of fact as a hoax. Kraxler (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to access the references through the links above, but searching via GBooks for "Vysyaraju Kasi" does throw up snippet views of those sources. I came across the last reference on a different website in my original search, but being a party in a court case does not confer notability. Looking on the Orissa Legislative Assembly website, the first pre-independence assembly (sorted by constituency) lists Shri Vysyraju Kasi Viswanadham Raju as #43, which gives me enough to keep this for satisfying WP:NPOL. Fuebaey (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomless Soup Bowl Study

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

inappropriate summary of a single academic article. Possibly a class project, but not an appropriate one. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't seem like an appropriate article. It seems like someone is trying to promote their own work. I vote for deletion.Hippychick (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brian Wansink as I'm neutral with thinking it's for simple promotional use and someone may have started this for educational or encyclopedia purposes. My searches found enough results to support a move to Brian's article, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria for notability - referenced in several international publications. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Does not in fact meet criteria for notability when searching via the links above. Delete --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article is interesting, but I'm torn about whether it should be deleted of kept. While it may serve to promote the subject at hand, it doesn't use a promotional tone.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is correct that the article is inappropriately summarized but this project can have a Wikipedia article because it meets WP:GNG. This research won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2007, and as such, was covered in multiple publications. [31] [32] [33] The research even got attention outside of this prize. Because of the media coverage, and because the experiment has been discussed on its own merits away from the scientist, the article should not be deleted or merged. It should be cut. All sentences should be followed with a citation, and citations cannot go to the primary research publication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge I'm not really convinced that this study is worth an article of its own, but it certainly should be included in an article on the subject. I would be inclined to merge it into portion control except that at the moment the name is occupied by a disambiguation on the dubious notion that a not-all-that-well-known-band is of equal rank to the concept after which it is named. Seyasirt (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Others have not written about this. Refer authors to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gale Garrigues

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

I don't see evidence of notability. The awards are minor, and there seem no substantial third party references. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nom has a point. Article on this journalist who works for small political advocacy magazines is sourced to author bios in the small publications, and really small online publications she writes for. A simple search for her name produced 3 results, [34] - for a working journalist, that's nothing. The page, written back in 2009, may have been inspired by an article she wrote promoting Longest Walk 2. It is now large and well-written, with a long list of writing credits - but nothing I can find in the article or elsewhere indicates notability of any kind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This author/journalist has been "widely cited by peers and successors" and she has received "a well-known and significant award or honor." She has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What major awards? I see receiving one of the 10 awards issued that year by Project Censored; inclusion on such a list is not a major award. I see two awards from small magazines for the best article published in them that yesr. snd an award for associate producer. "Widely cited"does not mean having a totsl of 8 references in various books, included among the books' hundreds of other references. The books citing here are moistly from very unimportant presses. I see no recognized contribution likely to become part of the historical record. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per DGG. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps of US news, California news media, international news, and an unfiltered search did not reveal much, other than her pieces which she wrote, plus she's a fiction/poetry writer. What is needed are multiple in-depth sources talking about the subject here, why she is notable, etc, although she is interesting artistically with this work here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Remember that this person is a "creative professional." The discussion here should be confined to two things (1) has she received a "well-known and significant award or honor" and (2) has she been "widely cited by peers and successors." If either of these applies, then she should be deemed WP:Notable. Otherwise, we seem to be talking about criteria that do not apply. Is a Project Censored award well-known? Yes. Is she widely cited by peers? Here, there might be some dispute. It depends what you mean by "widely cited." In the case of a narrow specialty like that of Lisa Gale Garrigues, a wide range of citations can be fewer than those that might be demanded of a person with a large specialty. It is my feeling that the subject of the article is Notable on both accounts, but on at least one of them. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BeenAroundAWhile, I just can see what you're seeing. It is true that she has published a small number of articles, but they have not been "widely cited" that I can find. Her books seem to have passed unnoticed. the many "sources" on the page are to social media, blogs and the like, or are simply articles she published. Finding actual sources might be sueful, but for creative writers as for journalists, we need multiple, reliable,secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 02:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 02:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her publications and awards don't correspond with any publications about her.Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Any Bio notability guideline of Wikipedia states that a person is notable if they have received a well known or significant award, which the Project Censored Award is. A search of Lisa Gale Garrigues and Lisa Garrigues at the Yes Magazine and Indian Country Today websites reveals a substantial number of her articles about South America and indigenous peoples, some of which have been cited, indicating a lasting historical contribution in this field. The work she did on the first Spanish translation of Woody Guthrie's autobiography also seems to have merit to the historical record, since the book is still being discussed in Spain today. (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) ABF99 (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:ABF99, but you must understand that the source you brought is a blog. Articles need to be sourced to multiple reliable publications, and several of us have attempted and failed to find such sources for Garrigues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability relies on independent sources, and they simply aren't here for this individual. I wouldn't call the Project Censored Award notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 13 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Deshapriya

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

The references supplied do not support the notability of the subject - needs to comply with WP:NACTOR or WP:NCRICKET. Dan arndt (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, word by word citations/refernces not needed. acted in many teledramas and films means acted in more than one (no need of citations for each). Mentioning subject's profession with citations isn't Puffery or promotional.DilJco (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC) User:DilJco is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT[reply]

Comment - Ref [6] states " he graced the Muhurath ceremony of a teledrama", Ref [7] indicates he appeared in a (non-notable) teledrama but not whether he had a featured role or a bit part, the same with ref [7] and ref [8]. The criteria for WP:NACTOR include "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - no reliable references have been provided to verify this. Also comments saying he is 'famous' without any citations/references justifying the claim is puffery. Dan arndt (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. -- Chamith (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tharindu Wijesekara

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

Clearly doesn't comply with WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Subject is very popular in social media. article will be further improved in future.DilJco (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) User:DilJco is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Comment - You need to support those claims with independent verifable sources - not gossip sites & blogs and particularly not sites created by the individual himself. Dan arndt (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - Many independent verifable sources are already there to support claims & article to be further enhanced in the future.DilJco (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this stage, all the sources appear to demonstrate is that Wijesekara exists, a fact that is not disputed however there are no references properly cited that establish his notability, i.e.

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

In order to be notable the individual needs to have accomplished some notable task, event .... Dan arndt (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking independent coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - due to subjects talents & popularity in social media independent coverage is growing and article awaiting to be further enhanced.DilJco (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might I suggest DilJco that if that is the case then the article maybe premature and should be re-created when there is sufficient references to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Youtube links to his videos cannot be considered as reliable sources as they are self published. -- Chamith (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - seems some one is not seeing the reliable sources that are already there DilJco (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - last time I looked blogs, tweets, personal websites, social networking sites were not reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh! really. Always there is a next time.DilJco (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough and his content is not RS. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless appropriate sources showing evidence of notability are provided. None so far. Single editor who is opposing this: please be aware references need to be extensive (i.e. exclusively cover the subject), be independent and reliable. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:23, 6 August 2015 (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 08:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the road to Hollywood (concert tour)

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

Non tour programme, no indication of importance. Ireneshih (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, non-sourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. Aspects (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, sourced to the "fan club" states it all. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete obvious lack of notable documentation. Seyasirt (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (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 08:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajeev Sarathie

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

Fake reference (No-1) and non-notable individual. Ireneshih (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReFill

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

No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other two interwiki things brought up by GZWDer, this is a weaker Keep/move to WP namespace. However, procedurally this should have been brought up at RFD. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP namespace. I'm sorry I put it in mainspace. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia Quality Survey

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

No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least move to WP namespace. Note that in theory this at the very least also should be procedurally kept because this is in actuality an interwiki redirect and probably needs to be at WP:RFD. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program

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

No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least move to WP namespace. Note that in theory this at the very least also should be procedurally kept because this is in actuality an interwiki redirect and probably needs to be at WP:RFD. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:43, 6 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reina de Mi Tierra

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

Local pageant, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pagent, fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local pageant Kraxler (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 8yo local pageant with routine coverage only. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:57, 14 August 2015 (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 Near East University#Museum of Classical and Sports Cars of Near East University. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Classical and Sports Cars of Near East University

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

I can't find any reliable independent source that significantly cover the subject. The article only cites the museum's web site (not an independent source) and other Wikipedia page (not reliable). I ran a Google search and found nothing reliable [35][36]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Near East University#Museum of Classical and Sports Cars of Near East University. I've edited the destination article to receive this redirect. Once sufficient source material is available about the Museum, it can split to its own article. Near East University Museum of Classical and Sports Cars was recently the subject of a speedy deletion. So obviously someone has an interest in presenting this material. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:43, 6 August 2015 (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. I'll happily move the deleted material the author's userspace if he or she wishes to work on it further. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Escaping Event

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

This is an article about the act of escaping China for Hong Kong. Personally I feel this is covered elsewhere and doesnt merit a stand alone article. Plus this one is badly written. Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZHWP has two separate articles zh:逃港 (lit. Escaping to Hong Kong) and zh:逃港潮 (lit. Escaping to Hong Kong Craze), already proposed to merge. Decently keepable considering there is a good selection of rather reliable books (eg. zh:大逃港), newspaper and television sources listed among those two plus [37][38][39][40][41][42]. However there is also a newer use of the term "逃港" coined to mean "escaping from Hong Kong" to Taiwan or South Korea (in the wake of political reform, says sources [43][44][45][46]), so do watch when you search. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete -- possibly userify. This is at present a bad article, but on a notable subject. It needs renaming and very substnatila editing, but unless there is another similar article, we shoudl not get rid of it. I would suggest the title Escape to Hong Kong or Escape to Hong Kong from China. Too much of the article is on the political background to China's borders being closed, and not enough on the escapes themselves. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an author, I wouldn't suggest to delete the article, I know my writing is not good, but I think it's an important and good subject too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil-lightening (talk • contribs) 04:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Not really an event, more an ongoing demographic movement, a significant contribution to the history of Hong Kong, in particular the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s which all have articles already. This is a poorly written narrow summary of these times, which does not add anything to the encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Notable topic but requires a change of name and rewriting. Note the "event" in the current title is misleading. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:13, 11 August 2015 (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. Wizardman 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Gal

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

Non notable baseball player.. has not played in the majors or in any major international tournaments (qualifiers are not tournaments themselves) Spanneraol (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable baseball player....William 11:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2015 (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. Wizardman 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orr Gottleib

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

non notable baseball player, does not meet baseball notability guidelines Spanneraol (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IOCOM

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

Standard searches did not reveal any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many press releases,run of the mill notices, and some minor mentions of the product use in articles on other topics. But not enough to meet company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, a search just turns up more of the same. Vrac (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy if needed as my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage seems to be non-RS, press releases, advertorial, and the like. If better sourcing can be found, now or in future, then would reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk)

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. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenement at Gdanska Street 9, Bydgoszcz

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

No reason is given for considering this building at all notable (other than a photographer who had his studio there & a shop which was there: WP:NOTINHERITED). Sources do not give reason for notability either. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another not very notable building in Bydgoszcz. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Some decent research into the history of a minor building, but that's not what we do here. The primary sources used proclaim the lack of notability. Seyasirt (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz. I'd be curious to learn what is said about the building in Ulica Gdańska. Przewodnik historyczny; if it is covered there it may be notable. Currently, however, this printed source is cited only as "further reading". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A concisely-presented, five-paragraph write-up with six photographs illustrating, among other aspects, the building's historic architecture which harkens back 147 years to its use as commercial space in 1868 and the completion of its construction 140 years ago, in 1875. There are thousands of 18th, 19th and 20th century European edifices listed at Category:European building and structure stubs, as well as related categories, and these should be considered in perspective on a wider scale as to the standards of documentation which would satisfy Wikipedian consensus, rather than singling out this particular entry for elimination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The average large city has thousands of buildings dating from the 19th century. Why would we need articles on all of them? Note that the Polish government does not list this building as a protected heritage building ([47]), despite Poland being more than generous in its heritage listings (twenty other residential buildings on the same street are listed). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Officially designated heritage entries are, of course, already expected to be properly sorted under Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register and/or Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register and type and numerous subcategories thereof. Those seeking additional historic buildings as well as recent constructions would be researching under Category:Buildings and structures, Category:Buildings and structures by country, etc and further subcategories. Various structures found within some of these categories have not received official landmark status but, judging by the work of contributors who took the time and effort to prepare these entries, retain sufficient historical significance to claim notability and, thus, possibly/presumably a Wikipedia entry. Users from other Wikipedias appear to consider English Wikipedia to be so predominant that they may overlook or disregard entering their own language's article in favor of posting an entry on the subject here. New articles delineating various subjects may seem to be, or are, posted haphazardly but, having been posted, each such entry deserves an in-depth appraisal as to the merit of its historical claim. The appended photographs suggest that this building's age, history, sculptural adornments and capacity for surviving World Wars and other conflicts indicate unique values which go beyond the "one out of many", on-the-surface, comparison to other structures on this street and in the city of Bydgoszcz taken as a whole. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the salient factor is that the country's own national heritage register did not consider it significant enough to list! Some buildings are significant enough on their own merits whether heritage-listed or not, but this is simply a bog standard 19th century apartment/commercial building. Nothing whatsoever distinguishes it from the hundreds of thousands of other such buildings in the world. I have visited Poland a number of times, mainly to look at its architecture; every single large city has hundreds of buildings like this. Many of them are heritage-listed, although even that doesn't give them a presumption of notability, only of possible notability. This one is not deemed significant enough even to be listed. That has to tell you something. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although, in a wider sense, this discussion may be classified under the rubric of familiar inclusionist/ deletionist arguments, by narrowing the focus, we may arrive at a more-detailed examination of criteria applicable to structures.

Considering a few random examples — fairly recently only "notable"/"prominent" films/TV series/Olympians/politicians were accepted into English Wikipedia. Now, every film or TV series ever made, anywhere in the world, anyone who ever represented his country in the Olympics and every legislator who represents, or ever represented, any of the world's constituencies are, for the most part, finding unchallenged entry as English Wikipedia stubs/articles.

Taking into account that WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS and that nonsensical, promotional and otherwise-unacceptable entries and hoaxes are being submitted on a daily or nearly-daily basis, we can start with criteria acceptable to Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites and proceed to consider continued existence of buildings which are at least a century old. While in the United States, especially in the cities, such structures are relatively rare, European locations present a much richer selection. Despite the wartime leveling of such historic cities as Warsaw, Berlin and Dresden and the destruction of smaller ones, such as Saint-Malo, with the Asian front producing equally great human and cultural loss, particularly in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many treasures managed to survive, and we can all appreciate that the descriptions of those that did not, the lost and recreated ones, both architectural (Monte Cassino) and other (Amber Room), are available for easy reference in Wikipedia.

Finally, to the topic at hand. While the standards required for films/Olympians/politicians appear to be very low, with simply a link to a site such as IMDb, Sports Reference or Biographical Directory of the United States Congress generally accepted as sufficient, requirements for buildings, in the absence of such widely-accepted reference links, must be higher, but not so high that only structures such as the Listed building (South London's Stockwell Garage) depicted in "Today's featured picture" on the Main page would qualify.

Without, as yet, making a WikiProject argument that every structure, upon reaching its 100th anniversary, is eligible to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, each such already-submitted entry deserves to be considered on its own merits. If a local historian, tour guide or architecture aficionado devotes the time and effort to a well-documented (with photographs) entry which delineates a structure, with unique architectural features, that has stood for 140 years, then the least that can be done is to appreciate such effort and provide it with a fair opportunity for Wikipedia existence. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (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 via WP:BLPPROD by Rjd0060. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhusana Premanode

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. No indication that his research has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No depth of coverage in the listed sources. Passing mention isn't sufficient to establish notability. And obvious WP:AUTOBIO by the article creator. --Drm310 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Two PhDs is unusual. The normal course after a doctorate would be a post-doc fellowship, rather than a visiting professorship. Having one patent and writing a couple of theses is not enough for notability. However, the article also has a tag as an unsourced biography. My reaction is to let that process take its course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, no assertion of notability. I wrote/own 2 patents, so what. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete visiting professors are rarely notable as academics. It appears this article was prodded for deletion with the prod expired, so it probably can be safely deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Fruitier

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

Article about a gift basket shop from New York City. Claim for notability is that they not only deliver in Manhattan but also nationwide via an online store. One given source is a NYT article, but that mentions the shop only with half a sentence - the rest of the article is about the founders former job. Not enough to establish WP:N. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy as my searches found a handful of coverage here, here, here and here and a NYMAG at browser but nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on draft/userfy: The author is a WP:SPA who left wikipedia one minute after his creation of the article. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 06:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the closing admin: The article has been deleted before as G5, see the log. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's blatant advertising of a non-notable company Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Does not meet notability guidelines per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's an index. That's different from a list, which would be in the right place here. Lists may have text appended to the entries, indexes have only entries without any text. This is the wrong place, start a discussion about index pages at the pertaining project or the Village Pump, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Andhra Pradesh-related articles

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

A big unmaintainable mess, and redundant to Category:Andhra Pradesh Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, impossible to maintain. This function should be taken by a category.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the alphabetical nature of lists like these make even rather large indices easier to maintain than structured item lists. (See example to the right). This is because various utilities readily work on them. The list maker from AWB and AWB's database scanner can be used to gather topics on the subject – AWB can make, dedupe (remove duplicates), alphabetize, and add list formatting (alphabetical headings, bullets, and link brackets) to lists of 10,000 entries easily. Then the list can be combined with the existing index, and after loading the expanded index into the database scanner, it can be deduped again – that way, you retain links from previous builds. The mathematics department, for example, maintains a vast index (with over 50,000 entries), showing that article indices are readily maintainable. Bots can also be used for index maintenance, but AWB is easily accessible by any user with over 500 edits. The Transhumanist 22:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alphabetised list like this is totally inappropriate and impossible to navigate (although paradoxically it's probably easy to maintain, e.g. by robot). A properly categorised index would be really useful and definitely merit a keep (and could co-exist with a category per WP:CLN). Even if it was trimmed down to a list of lists that would be useful: to pluck a few out at random List of birds of Andhra Pradesh, List of cabinet ministers of Andhra Pradesh, List of Chief Ministers of Andhra Pradesh, List of cities in Andhra Pradesh by population, List of dams and reservoirs in Andhra Pradesh. Rather than unilateral action, I'd like to see some consensus on what should be done, and AfD really isn't the best place for that. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Indexes are highly appropriate reference aids -- they comprise one of the navigation systems of Wikipedia (see Portal:Contents/Indices), and Wikipedia has a WikiProject devoted to them. AfD is not the proper venue to seek the elimination of the index system - that would take a wider discussion of the Wikipedia community. Please don't damage the index system by deleting one of its pages. Lists like this are relatively easy to maintain, because they are relatively easy to build. But much more importantly, having all the topics on a subject gathered to one place is incredibly useful, especially when that subject's topics are buried in a collection of almost 5 million articles! First of all, it takes a great deal of time to navigate to multiple lists or category pages when what you want to do is browse, skim, or read EVERYTHING on the subject. Tab loading tools work best from a single location, and AutoWikiBrowser (the auto page loader and semi-automated editor) is most powerful when used with lists like this, because this index allows it to access the entire subject in a single batch. Wikipedia's Related changes tool is also most powerful when used on a consolidated list like this because you only have to click it once for the entire subject: through it this page serves as a convenient watch list for this whole subject. And don't forget the most useful feature of an index: it lets you browse the entire subject in a single document, and when you spot something you are interested in, enables you to go right to it. This page works hand-in-hand with the Outline of Andhra Pradesh, which serves as a table-of-contents for this subject — the other key navigation feature of a book. Please keep this index. Thank you. The Transhumanist 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Andhra Pradesh and the subcategories therein. It's a useful index article that can be further improved. In terms of improvement, for starters, I have changed the formatting by adding bullet points between entries in place of commas that were previously being used. The article also has some useful red links for promising new articles that categories cannot accomplish. This article is also within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes, which I am a member of. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Comment Do you want to delete all the articles from Wikipedia which are similar to this article. The Wiki Articles available in following Categories are similar to this article.

Category:Indexes of topics by U.S. state
Category:Indexes of topics by Canadian province
Category:Indexes of topics by country

When the state got bifurcated, it is advised to change the article title to "Index of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana-related articles" or delete the content related to Telangana state. When there is no maintenance problem for this type of articles in USA and Canada, how is it applicable to an Indian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdt2 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:37, 6 August 2015 (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 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Irvin

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

No notability CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to be found on an internet search. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:41, 10 August 2015 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Crumbs Off The Wife's Table

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

I'm not finding the references, reviews, or coverage that convince me this title is notable. Mikeblas (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the book touches on the public view of inter-racial dating in England at the time? But I can't seem to find any information that would prove it, It appears as if I would have to read the book to find out. So yes, this leads me to believe its not very notable. ~Euphoria42 05:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author Ogbe might be notable - she's been featured in British and German broadcast media[48][49][50] and Google gave a link to the Nigerian Observer which didn't work. I found evidence that this book has been discussed at an academic conference[51]. But there's not much online about it. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, believe the review of Ruptures and Linkages: Biography and History in the South. London: German Historical Institute London[52] mentioned above by Colapeninsula lends notability, here is what it says - "FOLASADE HUNSU’s (Ile-Ife, Nigeria) analysis of Hilda Ogbe’s autobiography, The Crumbs off the Wife’s Table (2001), was another case in point, showing that the knowledge that gives coherence to an individual’s life can be developed only in retrospect. Hilda Ogbe wrote her autobiography when she was in her 80s, after the breakdown of her marriage and the death of her husband. She noted that she could not have written it when she was younger, or, at least, this would have resulted in a very different understanding." Have also found this [53] "You must all be Interned": Identity Among Internees in Great Britain during World War II from The Gettysburg Historical Journal Vol 4, Article 5, pp 59-92 by Elizabet A. Atkins of Gettysburg College - discussion of German refugees in British internment camps during WWII, The Crumbs Off The Wife's Table is cited throughout this article. so it is close to WP:NBOOKS but may be appropriate for an article on the author to be created with a redirect?Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This may be a very good book but I see no evidence of significant notability. It's down in the bilges of Amazon sales, there is next to nothing in GScholar, not much in GBooks.... Seyasirt (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (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 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Musadiq Bidar

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

Does not meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The two sources are reputable (CBS and SF Chronicle) but they're versions of the same human interest story, and I don't see what makes the subject notable. ubiquity (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I would have speedied this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only significant coverage is from local news sources, and it's TOOSOON for any sort of non-profit press. No indication of notability on a WP:GNG scale. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2015 (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. With no objections after three weeks, I'm treating this as an expired PROD. Will undelete on request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tímea Antal

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

Coverage is spotty - to put it plainly, it's basically confined to tabloid trash - and while the subject has been the runner-up in a couple of prominent competitions, she hasn't actually won any. Fails WP:MUSBIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were two discussions on Hungarian wikipedia about her notability; the first was closed with no consensus, but later she had her album debut at #4 on the Hungarian album chart, so the second discussion was closed with the article being kept. Archive of Mahasz charts (results can't be linked directly, enter her name as "Antal Timi"). – Alensha ^talk 23:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize I'm probably in the minority here, but I take seriously WP:BASIC ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"), in the sense that I don't regard someone as notable simply for having reached a position on a chart, but without having achieved anything in the way of significant coverage. (A position, by the way, consistent with WP:MUSBIO: "Musicians may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria".)
- So unless some meaningful coverage can be shown, I still say we should delete; otherwise we are left with a perfectly useless permanent stub ("Tímea Antal is a singer who once reached position X on chart Y. The end.") - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most singers are only mentioned in tabloid press, you won't find scholarly articles about them in JSTOR... Anyway, I won't cry if the article gets deleted, as I'm no fan of hers, but strictly speaking she has some notability. – Alensha ^talk 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:33, 6 August 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) - NQ (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glyptothorax conirostris

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

Does not meet stub criteria. Belongs in https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

Huh? All correctly described species are considered notable. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Suggest speedily closing this (and the similarly ill-considered rest of this catfish-o-cide, if they keep cropping up) --Elmidae (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: All properly sourced articles about correctly described species are inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. This Afd-nomination, and the PRODding of more than a dozen other articles about rare and endangered fish species that I have created, has been made in bad faith by the nominator , as an attempt to get back at me for voicing an opinion about WP:AVDUCK (an essay created by the nominator) that the nominator didn't like. Thomas.W ^talk 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preeya singh

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

Not independently notable yet and my searches found nothing convincing and whether intentional or not, the article a bit more like a personal page than an encyclopedia. I considered redirecting to the one film but I wonder if deletion is the better option for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious hint that this vanity page should be Deleted is that the person failed to capitalize their own last name when making it. TiC ^(talk) 05:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON at best. A single film role in an upcoming film is not enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Nothing substantive found in my searches. Cavarrone 09:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be WP:TOOSOON, but that might not be true. The current page misrepresents her role in the single film she appears in, she's a supporting cast member, and it is unclear how large the role is. The single source does not even mention her. The other 3 references on the film's webpage also do not mention this actress. And if you look at the history of the film page, this might not even be the correct Singh. News Searches, JStor and Highbeam all return zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter joke. This "encyclopedia" article has roughly one publicity shot per word. No substantial RS coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Clear case of WP:TOOSOON and fails significance coverage in independent sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:49, 14 August 2015 (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) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SLI Systems

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

No reliable evidence for notability: refs are press releases or local promotion. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google search found a number of independent reliable sources. A few examples: [54], [55], [56], [57] sovereign°sentinel 04:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence I did some cleanup of the weaker sources and more promotional aspects, so if the article is kept, it'll be fine. The sources provided by Sovereign Sentinel are "ok", but many are small blurbs from less significant publications. It has 170 employees, which is usually just about where companies start getting notable. CorporateM (Talk) 07:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply delete for now since the article could be a little more blossoming and my searches found nothing particularly convincing here, here, here and here. There are mostly press releases and news about the company growing so there's not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 16:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've worked to improve the article over the last week, and believe that the current references clearly indicate that it is notable in New Zealand at least. Snori (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to have enough coverage to reach GNG. Mattlore (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No easily discernible sense; AfD could do with a new look at allegedly newly added references. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article at present establishes notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This piece was particularly compelling in establishing the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; enough independent sources to satisfy GNG appear to exist. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (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 08:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasun Mark

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

WP:BLP of an adult film director, resting almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources (IMDb, YouTube videos, etc.) Out of all the references here, #6 (the Charlottetown Guardian) is the only one that could even begin to get a person over WP:GNG — and even that article isn't about him, but merely namechecks his existence at the very end of an article about his father. The level of coverage needed to get him into Wikipedia simply hasn't been shown here. (This is also a WP:COI, as the creator's username matches the Twitter handle of a person directly employed in the public relations department of the same company that the article subject works for.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I failed to find any reliable sources which provided significant coverage. I fail to see how a gay porn blog even starts to get someone over GNG. I'm not convinced that this article could be recreated in a suitable state at the present time due to failing GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 07:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPs require much better than this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A promotional article created by an SPA, and something of a sleeper at that. More likely than not this was created by one of the notorious sockmasters/paid editors active in this area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's an index. That's different from a list, which would be in the right place here. Lists may have text appended to the entries, indexes have only entries without any text. This is the wrong place, start a discussion about index pages at the pertaining project or the Village Pump, if necessary. I have moved the page to Index of Telangana-related articles, following the pattern of similar pages. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telangana-related articles

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

A big unmaintainable mess, and redundant to Category:Telangana Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! It's just a wall of text. Currently this is horrible, but I really hope someone can turn this into a properly categorised outline or index which would be far more useful than a category. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Telangana and the subcategories therein. This can be easily copy edited for organization, and functions as a valid index article. For starters, I have improved the article by adding bullet points between entries, in place of commas that were previously in place as such. Also, the list has some useful red links for promising new articles that categories cannot accomplish. This article is also within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes, which I am a member of. I recommend changing the article's title to Index of Telangana-related articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Crocodile Farm

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

fails WP:ORG and GNG. nothing in gnews for English name, just 2 hits for Malay name. Gbooks reveals one small reference in a travel guide. LibStar (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another 14 references have been added (english & malay language). Many more info of the farm has been added (farm area, official website, opening month and year, geography/land area, show, street address, record (as the largest crocodile farm in malaysia), facebook page, architecture info, park construction cost, etc). Chongkian (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be a significant tourist destination in Malaysia and the claim of being the largest crocodile farm in Malaysia help as well. Sources such as this, this, and this, among others, establish notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 07:08, 6 August 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AXA UK

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems obviously notable. A merge to the parent company would be preferable to deletion if it can't be expanded. --Michig (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a subsidiary of one of the largest insurance companies in the world, this is one of the largest insurance conglomerates in the UK. Clearly notable. Just Chilling (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google News search confirms notability. Unfortunately the current article is made up entirely of primary sources, which would normally cause me to vote delete, but in this case they are for pretty non-controversial facts that would seem warranted in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What a stupid nomination! This is a large insurance company in UK. The appropriate way of handling a bad article is to tag it for improvement, not to delete it. Internal sources on what services a company offers are likely to be reliable, even if they do not fit WP:RS. Indeed they are more likely to be accurate than a newspaper's commentary on them, which may well be a poor summary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, please WP:AGF. I understand that the nominator will need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not regarding this as a bad faith nomination, merely as an inappropriate one. Poor articles should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep clearly notable firm. I think the nominator need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years Later (TV series)

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

There's not much to confirm this show exists aside this search with the Georgian name which found a Facebook and YouTube videos. If there are good sources, I hope someone familiar with this can add them. SwisterTwister talk 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But, it does exist. Here, it is on the web site if the TV station: [58]. We need reliable sources, I now, but a TV series on a national public TV station is certainly notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and please get rid of the "suspected hoax article" stuff. The "YouTube videos" you refer to appear to be full episodes of the show, and anyway, there are many more results than the nom cited – I think they literally just confused "only sites I can read" with "only sites?" Anyway it is a series on a national station, there obviously is Georgian-language coverage of it out there conferring notability, even if it's not cited in the article right now. TiC ^(talk) 05:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PotatoNinja Care to comment? I noticed I never pinged you and I'm not sure if you've noticed this AfD. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Canadian Paul 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Knecht

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source shown is a database entry, which does not indicate the subject's notability. No other reliable sources could be found on an internet search. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NSPORTS, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games..." the idea that a medal winner in the summer olympic games might not be notable is absurd. The fact that he participated in and won a silver medal at the London 1948 Olympics is also verified by his page on the olympics website. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quasihuman I didn't know that that was a qualification for notability. Withdraw. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirel Bolboașă

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Soccerway indicates he has only ever played in the Romanian second division. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also next to no coverage in Romanian press. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (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) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henk Schulte Nordholt (art historian)

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

~~Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Speedy Keep as withdrawn, a wise action from the nominator IMHO. For the record, a cursory search demonstrates verifiability; this source is pretty authoritative, though it's tertiary. For my part I feel an article three days old deserves an opportunity for sourcing from the relatively new page creator. I might have prodded, but I think we can trust User:OrganicEarth to fix this. BusterD (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdChoices

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

Public relations piece. No WP: Reliable sources. Refs link mostly to self-serving sites. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that clicking the news link above (which gets you here) shows pretty clearly that AdChoices is a widely covered topic. Perhaps more sources should be added to the article, but as it stands now it includes a number of independent sources (leading search engine website, leading advertising information website) plus the large number of companies using the program. The page is also widely viewed; for instance, it got 3450 views in July.Vipul (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another one where WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed. Plenty of coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Massive amounts of information exists on the topic. It has even been extensively studied and reported on. Saying that no reliable sources exist for one of the largest advertising programs ever is ridiculous. Winner 42 Talk to me! 07:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep obviously notable. I think the nominator need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. Nominator, had you look before this ridiculous nomination, you would have found plenty of sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources available to establish notability. This nominator has been AfDing a number of clearly notable pages recently. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sologamy

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

Appears to be an essay written by someone trying to promote this novel but non-notable neologism. None of the sources even mention the term. The Dissident Aggressor 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. This term doesn't have widespread use. About 3 articles from minor sources use this term in passing, all dated in Nov-Dec last year. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's definitely not widespread yet or even an equivalent of notability and my searches found of some of those mentioned news articles but nothing else specifically for this. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 11 August 2015 (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 and potentially merge. As noted by Mz7, who had initially closed this discussion, AfD is not optimized for discussing editorial decisions like merging—especially not when multiple articles are involved. Consensus seems to be in favor of merging at least the original article, but as the others were added late and "merge" outcomes at AfD are not really binding, I'd rather not slap a bunch of merging tags on them. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Super System

(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)

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd be fine with a redirect, but @Hahnchen thought the redirect to Super Nintendo Entertainment System accessories was "half-assed". Have fun finding sources. Please {{ping}} me if you offline and non-English refs. – czar 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge VS. System PlayChoice-10 Nintendo Super System into Nintendo arcade systems (or some analoguous title), or maybe Nintendo coin-operated systems (to include Super Famicom Box in the merge) - It's correct to say that these don't have a lot of individual content but they are definitely notable and the topic might be better presented to readers and fleshed out as part of a group article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the subject is lacking in both sources and content. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Salvidrim. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had initially non-admin closed this as a procedural closure, but since it has been contested by the nominator, I am reversing the closure. The closing rationale was this:

Extended content

This is a deletion discussion; it's purpose is to form a consensus over whether the selected article should be deleted or not, and if not, it's to decide what alternatives to deletion are applicable. While the nomination began on valid deletion grounds, the arising discussion has since brought about a budding merge consensus concerning articles not currently nominated for deletion and a destination title that is currently nonexistent. While "merge" is indeed available as an alternative to deletion, it is only actionable as an AfD outcome if all of the source pages are included in the deletion nomination. Of course, it is possible to relist and nominate those articles for deletion as a part of this discussion right now, but the proposed solution is a merge, not deletion. With all of this in mind, it is my view that AfD is no longer the appropriate venue for this discussion, and I encourage all participants to continue the merge discussion at the appropriate talk page per WP:MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully submitted, Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That contest was Talk:Nintendo_Super_System#Merge_proposal, for the record. And I did nominate the article for deletion, not merge. – czar 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer if the merge went to a "console variants" area of SNES, at least for now, but an alternative is to send it to Nintendo arcade machines (just mainspaced), which could potentially carry the others. (Or I re-scope that article back to arcade games and we do my preference, the SNES merge. @Salvidrim!, Sergecross73, and Bahb the Illuminated: – czar 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is being procedurally relisted to allow appropriate notices on other articles included in this discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I procedurally nominate ~~Vs. System~~ Nintendo VS. System and PlayChoice-10 for deletion. Without proper notices on those pages, it is not appropriate to apply a consensus developed here among a relatively small number of editors to those articles as well. ~ Rob^Talk 00:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, I don't think we need the procedure—we have consensus to merge this one article and if it even comes to it, the other articles will be bold merges. If anyone objects to a bold merge, we can discuss it at that time. – czar 04:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vs. System is substantial enough that I doubt a bold merge would be appropriate. This avoids splitting the discussion in two (half here, half at a later merge discussion). As always, an administrator is free to close if they disagree with the relist, but I'd think it makes a lot more sense to wait a week and have a definitive answer on what the Nintendo arcade systems article will become than to close with half a consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 04:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, Vs. System is substantial enough I think you meant to nominate Nintendo VS. System, not Vs. System. It isn't substantial—it's almost entirely unsourced. – czar 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're correct that I nominated the wrong article. I had gone off of the links in the first merge rationale. It's corrected now. ~ Rob^Talk 17:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1980s arcade systems fall into the hole of "things you can't Google". For arcade systems, reliable sources will be found in trade magazines such as Play Meter and Replay. This is the cover of Replay's August 1985 issue. This GameSetWatch article suggests that the VS System was also covered in Replay's August 1986 issue. - hahnch e n 10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WorldCat, the magazine (ISSN 1534-2328) is only held by the LoC and the Strong Museum. I asked the museum to pull the August 1985 "cover story" issue and they reported back that there does not appear to be an article but two multi-page ads, as you may imagine for reporting in a trade publication. I don't think it's fair to make "keep" arguments based on hunches instead of physical articles, or to make a practice of requiring that others find sources that you Google. (And a project that requires archives research like this really borders on original historical work anyway.) For the 1986 article, there's no indication that it is about the VS. machine and not just Rare/Nintendo's relationship, so I'd rather not waste the museum's and my time. – czar 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ebay auction for a (grossly overpriced) copy of Play Meter July 1989 features a PlayChoice cover, and also a snapshot of the article within. Same for the August 1988 issue. The PlayChoice also features on the cover of the July 1990 issue. I think pointing to reliable sources that I don't have access to is perfectly valid behaviour at AFD, I did the same when opposing the Menacer "merge" last year. - hahnch e n 22:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for those willing to track them down (and confirm which of your hunches were right and wrong). You just linked to "very rare" magazines listed at $100/issue on eBay. The only citation actually confirmed is some mention of PlayChoice in the first link. The other two are hunches. If you're not going to actually check the citations or show that there is actual material there, then the claim that something might be there means nothing. I don't see why you're opposed to a merge. This could aways build back out in the off chance that the Strong funds me to dig through their magazine collection, because if you actually think we'd be better off with an unsourced article while we wait for someone to do the archival work of building a story from these old (who knows how reliable) trade magazines... – czar 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a merge discussion, that's an editorial decision that can be had anywhere. You took it to AFD after blanking multiple articles without discussion. I believe the leads provided show notability, and yes, I think unsourced articles on notable, verifiable non-controversial subjects are better than blanks. I opposed the Menacer "merge" before your expansion. You state that the leads above mean nothing, yet I contend, and no disrespect to the editors above, that they're much more useful than the other !votes in this discussion. - hahnch e n 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a merge discussion. I only nominated NSS. Rob nominated PlayChoice and VS. (despite my opposition) alongside it a few days ago but only to make sure that editors watching the page (such as yourself) would be fine with a merge—one that wasn't even on my radar. Unsourced articles are against WP's core principles so I don't find that position tenable. In fact, from my experience, the more we leave unsourced articles up, the more lazy writers from our so-called RS appropriate unsourced details and then we're back to citogenesis. I don't think your search for sources means nothing and I appreciate your doing it, but I wish that your stance was a little closer to a reasonable next step for the article and for verifiable information rather than a moonshot for an article that will not be written because it would depend, at the very least, on very obscure sources. – czar 00:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire Steel

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

No real evidence of notability . Previous A7 declined, but perhaps it shouldn't have been. The findable refs seem to be more mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability or reliable, independent sources found. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- From what I see on its website, I have not reason to believe that this is other than a NN steel stockholder. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there is not good coverage with my searches finding nothing aside from listings. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 11 August 2015 (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.

[UCDavis-1] Kwoka, Margaret (2015), Leaking and Legitimacy (PDF), UC Davis Law Review, 48.4, p. 1398, retrieved 8 June 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Routledge-2] Martin, Brian (2015), Secrecy, Law and Society, London: Routledge, p. 233, retrieved 8 June 2015

[Ebert-3] Ebert, Roger (19 July 2007), Unwild About Scary Harry, RogerEbert.com, retrieved 8 June 2015

[4] Ishmael.org (2015), Daniel Quinn's Annotated List of Suggested Readings, retrieved 8 June 2015

[Stroud-5] Stroud, Les (15 May 2015), Les Stroud Official Twitter Page, retrieved 8 June 2015

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]