Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 July >

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 delete. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rezan Corlu

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

Not notable per WP:NFOOTY as the player has not played in any Fully professional league or represented senior national team at international level. Qed237 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Since his one Europa League –appearance was in qualifying, it does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the match was not between two teams from professional leagues as opponents play in San Marino that is not considered fully pro league. Qed237 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article could be userfied as it has some useful content and information for when the footballer is notable (could happen this winter). If the article creator shows no interest in having it in his space, I dont mind "taking it". Qed237 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As this youngster has already made his debut but does not fulfill the criteria as debuting in a professional league or against a professional team. I will store this in my sandbox like many other youngsters' deleted articles I have. NextGenSam619^t@lk 16:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:18, 8 July 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if / when he plays and passes a notability guideline. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 13 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 anti-china protest

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

Non-notable protest. Article violates WP:NOTNEWS. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no suitable article that can take this kind of information. If there is, I believe merger is appropriate. Also, as a stand-alone topic, the protests are just protests, even with flag burnings and attacks on people. --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Part of Xinjiang conflict. Also a developing story with wider implications. Don't fuss and expand the article.198.16.164.205 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, citing WP:NOTNEWS. The entirety of the article is as follows: "On July 4, 2015, 2,000 Turkish nationalists protesting against China fasting ban mistakenly attack Korean tourists in Istanbul which led to China issuing travel warning to its citizens traveling to Turkey.[1]" Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The IP above has added that same text to Xinjiang conflict, where it is better in context. There's no need for this article now, as it does violate NOTNEWS. An A10 Speedy would not be out of the question either, as a result. Crow^Caw 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 00:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A sentence which can be summed up on China–Turkey relations '''tAD''' (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAE AUDIO

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

My searches found several results but nothing that seems to accumulate to solid notability, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at "BAE Audio" and "British Audio Engineering" (their new name per the article), turns up a couple more things but they're all press releases. No independent secondary source coverage of the type that would meet WP:ORGIND. Agtx (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources in the article, only trivial mentions in web searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 13 July 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 Phats & Small. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason 'Phats' Hayward

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

Quite simply the worst written article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, ever. I can only find reference to one indication of notability, him being a member of Phats & Small, in which case it would be more appropriate to redirect. I'm bringing it here in case I've missed anything; this sort of article requires public execution. Laun chba ller 22:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phats & Small. Yeah, it's pretty bad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This article is just all over the place. –323MU (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Phats & Small No independent notability outside the recording career as the duo. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:22, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberton Fire Company

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable volunteer fire department, fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run-of-the-mill fire department, only source in the article is the subject's own website, web searches turn up many trivial mentions and press releases (mostly refering to leisure activities at their fairground and annual public festival) but notability can not be established, despite this. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 13 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa M. Skelton

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

Anglican bishop who does not appear notable. Secondary sources discuss her election, but there isn't much else out there. Agtx (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:CLERGY (essay, not a guideline) says: "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Communion bishops are generally found to be notable." We usually keep these people. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per outcome of numerous similar deletion discussions in the past. St Anselm (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops in major denominations are generally notable by being bishops. This certainly should apply to the Anglican church in Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 10 July 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. per WP:HEY and NOT per MichaelQSchmidt. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der Bunker (2015)

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

Small film, a few decent reviews but nothing approaching notability. Awards are from minor film festivals. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Nothing usable out of the few pages on GSearch, those links are limited to forums and the like. Fails WP:NFILM. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per Tokyogirl79. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has received reviews in reliable sources and it's also received quite a bit of coverage in the German media. It's not the strongest reception I've seen, but it's enough to warrant it having an article. I've also moved the title to (2015 film) in keeping with naming conventions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are no other films by this name, so I'm moving this to just Der Bunker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Enough German coverage seems to exist, two English, credible reviews and further considering it's going to be distributed and screened in the US should make it at least a scrape by. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per topic meeting WP:NF. Very poor WP:BEFORE accompanied with a nomination statement easily disproved. Heck, even when first nominated included sourcing showed a meeting inclusion criteria. "A few decent reviews" is exactly what meets criteria. Sorry nominator, but in acknowledging they existed just where was your head at? Go re-read WP:NF#General principles, please. And Tokyogirl79, thank you for your work improving an improvable topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure what the purpose was in completely biting the head off of the nominator, who knew candor was such a sin. I feel he was very valid (even if mildly borderline) in his nomination before the contributions by Tokyogirl79. Just because you might disagree with his viewpoint, doesn't entitle you to a full on assault of his intelligence. Just where was his head at? Probably stuck in WP:NF, where a mild majority of people including myself before the tokyo contributions would have thought the article didn't pass. Sheesh. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I linked it to the German-language article. Strong reviews from Der Spiegel and other RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:30, 8 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Study and Scrutiny: Research on Young Adult Literature

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

Open-access journal that only started publishing in the summer of 2015. Too soon: I don't think this could meet notability requirements yet, and article is rather promotional in tone. As far as I can tell, it fails both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find where this journal has been covered anywhere, nor does it appear to be indexed in any of the major places. I tried pulling it up in Ulrichsweb and found nothing. It looks like it exists, but hasn't really gained any sort of true attention anywhere. It's also incredibly promotional, enough to where I'd have speedied this as sheer unambiguous promotion if you'd nominated it. It's definitely an interesting theme for a journal and I hope it does well, but right now it just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the entry to make it 'just the facts'. The journal IS new, and I am just trying to give it additional exposure. I've also linked it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_access_journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupp9772 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A new journal isn't going to be notable enough, fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. Wait until when/if reliable sources start mentioning the journal, then maybe write an article about it. Also, @Rupp9772:, "I am just trying to give it additional exposure" is not a reason to keep the article, in fact it's actually a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia is not a place to advertise/promote yourself or your products/books/journals. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator, WP:TOOSOON. As of now, it fails WP:JOURNALCRIT. There's no evidence that it's influential in its subject area, and it's too new to be "frequently cited" or be historic in any sense. Deleting it now doesn't mean that an article about the journal can't be created later; if it eventually is listed in major indices and databases and/or comes to be frequently cited, it will probably meet WP:JOURNAL. TallCorgi (talk) 22:28, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandana Karimi

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

The subject does not appear to have received substantial coverage from reliable third parties. Her IMDb profile credits her with two films, one of which is only rumored to be in post-production.[1] WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy as there's not enough to suggest independent notability for an article; at best, my searches found the usual coverage here. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article states she is "ready to appear" in Bollywood films. After she actually has appeared in a few, and had an important enough role to pass WP:NACTOR, then the article can be recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 12 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English system of manufacturing

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

Not a well established specific term, poorly sourced, used only as a description in an inappropriately specific context only for contrast with the topic of another article. There is no set phrase "English system of manufacturing", or anything like one system; even as a normal combination of common words, Google returns very few links (<100), which seem to be clones of four sources in different contexts, some in Japanese and Korean, and just a couple of scholarly articles which happen to use the phrase, but nothing to a point that warrants notability. At a guess, this article was created by someone who had learnt about the "American method of manufacturing" from a textbook and wanted to create an analogous article for contrast - but given that England began the Industrial Revolution, it seems strange to try and push this negative connotation on it Harsimaja (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the American system of manufacturing is a well accepted term. The author is attempting to show that it had an English precursor, but he fails. However, the whole edifice seems to sit on a very slender basis. The mechanisation of blockmaking for the Navy at Portsmouth is an important step in the origins of machine tools. However if there was an "English system", it was in the division of labour, so that each worker concentrated on a small part of the process. This is to be found for example in the Birmingham toy and gun trades. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find the term in use in several books,[2] [3] [4] where it was used in a kind of general sense. I didn't get the feeling that this is a widely used or understood term. None of the citations I found support the thesis of this article, which seems to be that because an interchangeable-parts system was used briefly in one English shipyard, the notion of interchangeable parts "originated in England." The sources do not support such a connection or origin; rather, they seem to suggest that arms manufacturing along with a possible connection with France were responsible for the development of the (universally known as) American system of manufacturing. This article reads rather like the "invented in Russia first" claims that used to come out of the old Soviet Union. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 13 July 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 Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. I would say there is no consensus here between deleting and merging but given that closing as no consensus would mean defaulting to keep which would be perverse and that the other lists have been merged am defaulting to merge. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of number 1 ranked Bollywood actresses in the 2013 Times Celebex rankings

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly moving to List of number 1 ranked Bollywood actresses in the 2013 Times Celebex rankings: The ranking list is notable, even for individual years, however it is undue weight to refer to any ranking list's opinion without an identifier in the title. Esquivalience ^t 02:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having two separate lists for actors and actresses is unnecessary, so merge both of them together. Esquivalience ^t 02:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is from Times of India or Economic Times, the publisher of this ranking, there's nothing in any other reliable source media. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but I see no reason they can't be covered together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but NO merge: Obviously this fails the GNG and WP:NOT going away. I don't see a purpose to redirecting for the simple reason that who in the merry hell would ever use this as a search term? It'd be a horribly implausible redirect. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. (Note: The lists of actors for 2013 and 2014, and actresses for 2014, have already been merged to the same target.) Kraxler (talk) 14:26, 12 July 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. Please contact me or another admin if you wish to have the article userfied. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estudios Sociológicos

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "one of only two sociological journals in Mexico, has periodicity and quality, international recognition. read source added." The source added is a PhD thesis. There is no evidence of any international recognition. Having "periodicity and quality" or being one of only two journals are not criteria for notability. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is eastablished because:

it is considered a reliable source^[1]
2 it is frequently cited by other realiable sources see here for an example of a cited article and here to check out more articles that are cited elsewhere.
3 it has historical purpose: is the second journal of sociology established in Mexico and the first one since 1940.^[1] It is reasonable to suggest that being one of two journals in a huge country like Mexico might mean that this journal plays or played notable role in that science in that country.

^ ^a ^b Álvarez Mendiola, Germán (2004). Modelos académicos de Ciencias Sociales y legitimación científica en México (Ph.D. thesis). Instituto Politécnico Nacional. p. 160–163. (note this thesis has won the ANUIES prize for the best Mexican thesis of the year 2003). The thesis subject can be translated as ""Academical models and scientific legitimacy" makes it a rather relevant for assessing journals.

Thus the journal is cited in independent sources. Indexed in the selective databases that Randykity cites (which databases are these? Its rather un-transparent to invoke them and not linking or telling what selection of databases are they) have no primacy to establish notability. Dentren | ^Talk 18:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many selective databases and this journal is not in a single one of those. Some are mentioned in WP:NJournals, but it really is not feasible to list all of those databases. Being considered a reliable source is not necessarily something that is established by a mention in a PhD thesis and in any case is not something that is mentioned in GNG or NJournals. That some of its articles are cited is to be expected, even "fake journals" (which this one certainly is not) are cited, so let alone legit journals. Clicking the link to GScholar above, we see several cited articles. The highest-cited ones appear to be not from this journal (the title is of course very general, making searching difficult), but nothing really striking. This amount of citations would not make a single individual researcher notable, let alone a complete journal. Finally, the claim of a historical purpose is really very weak, and unsourced at that (unless that's also sourced to that PhD thesis). All together, I strongly doubt that "Notability is eastablished". Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do the secret databases used by Randkitty appropriately cover non-English language journals? (if so show it). The links I provided show that a large number of articles published the in Estudios Sociológicos are cited in other reliable journals, not just a few ones. Appreciation in a prize-winning PhD thesis about "Academical models and scientific legitimacy" is an excellent way to establish notability. An additional point is that the journal is published by El Colegio de México which is a serious and established institution in Mexico (won the Princess of Asturias Awards in social science in 2001). Dentren | ^Talk 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you don't like those "secret databases", that's no problem. No need to be in any database at all if it can be shown that this passes WP:GNG, which trumps all specialty guidelines. That would make this journal rather special, as preciously few journals pass that guideline (which is why we have NJournals), but, hey, suit yourself! Do note, however, that GNG require multiple in-depth reliable sources. Even counting that prize-winning thesis and being published by the notable Colegio, we're not there yet. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not know if I "like" (Randkitys words not mine) or not something you have refused to share. I make no secret of the databases I search so will share what I found: Redalyc lists it. And remember Randkity.. listing and indexing, even if you wish, is not the sole way to establish notability for a journal. Dentren | ^Talk 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I am saying just above???? All you have to do is find multiple reliable sources covering the journal in depth and GNG is met, which trumps all. Redalyc is indeed the online platform that the journal uses to give readers access to its articles. It's a publication platform, not a bibliographic database (such as the Social Sciences Citation Index, for example). Anyway, we seem to agree that this journal's notability is not established through coverage in databases, so let's concentrate on those multiple reliable sources covering it in depth. --Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. *No, there is no agreement. I have to ask Randkitty to stop putting words in my mouth. This is the second he does this to me in this discussion. Regarding what matters I have presented a respectable and highly (for this purpose) relevant work where the journal quality and historical importance is assessed, I have presented information about the publisher which is an entity internationally recognised for its social science studies, now I further present its inclusion in the database Latindex [5] in addition to Redalyc which do select material to be included. Social Sciences Citation Index Randkity mention is focused on English language journals and is not adequate to evaluate Spanish language journals. Dentren | ^Talk 08:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really seem to be doing your best to misunderstand what I am saying... I just mentioned the SSCI as an example of a bibliographic database, to show that such a database is different from a publishing platform like Redalyc. Sociology journals certainly can be notable without being included in the SSCI (but it is a misconception that the SSCI focusses on English language journals, it includes many journals in other languages, including Spanish; the fact that it includes more journals in English than other languages is just a reflection of the fact that the majority of journals are published in English). Redalyc is selective in the same sense that publishers like Elsevier and Springer are selective about shich journals they are going to publish. Anyway, I maintain that the evidence put forward does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals and rest my case, leaving the floor to Dentren. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have heard enough of Randkitys flawed argumentation (focus on few notability criteria, ignoring or dismissing evidence of notability, and attributing me opinions I never held). I would like to hear the opinion of a third party. Dentren | ^Talk 09:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a messy situation. The debate just above conflates prestige and notability. As an academic, I know that I want a list of the best journals, and that means best editorial boards for peer-review, quickest and most reliable retraction policies, etc., but when we're talking about an entry in an encyclopedia, we're asking for a different set of criteria. User:Dentren can argue that this is a prestigious or useful journal, but that, in a sense, doesn't help. Ideally, we're only going to have articles on things that other people have written about. So, is this a discussed journal? Are there editorials about the journal in other places (the Sociology professional association's newsletter/publication)? The article isn't very informative at present. (It doesn't tell us when the journal was founded, its editorial board practice, its hosting.) Hithladaeus (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Arguments put forth here seem to me to suggest that it's a reliable journal, but people write about Science, Nature, Journal of Cellular Biology, and even PLOS-1. They moan and bewail the failings of JAMA and NEJM. In the absence of other clear markers of notability, we could find commentary on the journal, but it's lacking, too, so the journal fails NJOURNAL. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Amendment: Userfy would also be a good idea, in my opinion. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hithladaeus it is a discussed journal: Estudios Sociológicos discussed in the journal Sociológica and a discussion here on its role in sociology in Mexico. Dentren | ^Talk 13:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what the first link is. The second is an in-passing mention, not an in-depth description. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is a discussion of the journal. I'm not sure one, and brief, is sufficient. I know that it's ridiculous to hold it up to the standards of something like Technology Review, even, because truly academic journals just don't get that much discussion, but I don't think one comment on the role of the journal is quite enough. It is close, though. I would suggest userfying and an ability to return to article space when references are more in line with requirements. How does everyone else feel about that? Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hithladaeus, by your statement I get the sense you have been confused by Randykitty's comment above. are There is a whole article on Estudios Sociologicos [6], and a reputable thesis discussing the journal in detail, and establishing its historical notoriety. Dentren | ^Talk 17:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest accepting inclusion in two out of the ~~three~~ four Latindex, Redalyc, LILACS, SciELO as sufficient notability for journals in Latin America. Otherwise we're setting the bar too high for historically under-represented regions (Africa, too). These three have their own inclusion criteria for internal quality control. It'd be useful to distinguish between being published as part of their journal fleet and only being indexed. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:12, 2 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, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. And I'm all for increasing our coverage of under-represented regions. But that should be done by writing articles on subjects concerning those regions where we have reliable sources verifying notability, not by having different standards depending on where something comes from. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJournals needs to be globalized: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)#Globalize. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I can see, NJournals is not regionally restricted. Sources may come from anywhere and can be in any language. We may want to battle regional bias as much as we want, but without sources that establish notability such as is the case here, I don't think there's a lot we can do. --Randykitty (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. A single article and a passing mention are not enough to meet the notability criteria (either GNG or NJOURNAL, the latter only being an essay, rather than a guideline, but the article is still below the requirements of GNG). Inks.LWC (talk) 19:00, 15 July 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 Supercouple#Celebrity. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brangelina

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

Redundant article with considerable overlap between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's individual biographies. Nearly every essential detail from this article is already covered in the other two. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:NOTABLE.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the issue here. This is a content fork that is not large enough in scope – and does not provide enough information not covered in the individuals' articles – to warrant a standalone article. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments My first thought was that this should redirect to one or the other of the couple but that I could not say which one. The article does indeed seem like a fork from their individual articles rather than a focused article specifically about the media concoction which is "Brangelina". What might be changing my mind about the need to redirect is the Posh and Becks article. This shows a better way to approach the same sort of situation. Firstly, it is short and does not try to excessively duplicate the articles about the individual members of the couple. Secondly, it is clearly about the name as a media concoction:

"Posh and Becks is the media-inspired nickname for the English celebrity supercouple Victoria Beckham (née Adams, "Posh Spice" of the Spice Girls) and David Beckham (a footballer and former England team captain). Posh & Becks is also the name of a book by Andrew Morton." (emphasis mine).

If this gets kept I'd like to see it trimmed down along similar lines. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bloated content fork. Nothing that can't be covered in Pitt's article or Jolie's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, or just redirect: I recently discussed this article on my talk page with Tavix and NeilN. And like I stated there, it should redirect to Supercouple#Celebrity, like it used to. Bennifer also redirects there. TomKat used to redirect there, but currently redirects to the Tom Cruise article. And, yes, Bennifer and TomKat were Wikipedia articles at one point as well; see User:Flyer22/Bennifer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer and Talk:Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I was a very different Wikipedia editor back in 2007 (a WP:Newbie), which is the only reason I requested to have the Bennifer article WP:Userfied. So, yeah, DanielRigal, the Supercouple article is a valid redirect option in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supercouple#Celebrity per Flyer22. As I addressed at Flyer22's talk page, I would have liked to see this article undergo a scope change. I wanted a section devoted to each child, so that the redirects could link to that individual family member and be able to discuss at length each child as they develop, similar to the Obama family article. However, I was talked off the ledge and agree that Angelina Jolie#Children is the best place to hold that information and there really isn't anything that isn't already at Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, or Supercouple#Celebrity. (As an aside, I'm impressed with Flyer22's prediction that this would end up at AfD. Not even two months later, here we are.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Supercouple#Celebrity per Flyer22, as this is a reasonable solution which may be implemented elsewhere. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supercouple#Celebrity per Flyer22's sensible suggestion above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as although article has information and is neat and sourced, there's nothing outstandingly significant here. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 12 July 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:NOTDIC. Consensus is that the content falls within the context of being a dictionary definition. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frutti di bosco

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

No references cited to prove that this term is used in English; at any rate, it would be more suitable to Wiktionary if Wiktionary didn't already have an entry for it. Liam987 talk 18:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the claim in the article, the English equivalent is actually a direct translation: fruits of the forest. However, it's no more than a dicdef and never likely to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a definition. The term is used in English for some food products, and the English equivalent is given as "mixed berry",[7] so I wondered about a redirect, but Wikipedia has no article equivalent to "mixed berry". --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a definition. I did find an English language book reference for the use of the term in the sense of "mixed berries", but it's still a dicdef. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 00:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements in the Greek bailout referendum, 2015

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

I think this will be a non-ending story of a list with no indiscrimination. Some part could be merged to the main article. For instance, the list of parties that officially stated that support Yes or No after an official request by the government before the referendum. A list of people, inside or outside Greek, that support Yes or No can't be complete. Magioladitis (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Unambiguously meets WP:GNG. Reasons given for deletion are spurious and non-existent. Highly notable to include economists, politicians, organisations, etc that took a view on a matter of international importance. Cannot see the difference between List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 (one exists for Romney as well) or Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2012. Can these ever be complete? This nomination is another example of WP:GEOBIAS AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Speedy Keep? It's not for articles that are 'unambiguously notable', it's for nominations that are clearly disruptive or procedurally flawed. None of the grounds for 'Speedy Keep' listed there apply here. Robofish (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep:so far I have only spotted a problem with a porn actress included (added twice). No reason to throw the baby away with the bathwater.Dorpater (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not say that the entire list is not needed. There was an official procedure of endorsements where parties and mass organizations participated. All other names in the list are expressed opinions but not official endorsements. The official part can be included in the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Concur with AusLondoner. I'd say that a notable person/organisation's "expressed opinion" is the same as an "endorsement" as long as it suggests that one option is preferable to the other. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a notable and important list. I would personally like to see it limited to individuals and organisations based in Greece, though, rather than mentioning the opinions of those from other countries; it doesn't seem very relevant to me what various British people said about the referendum. Then again, I've just looked up List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and that list includes people from across the world (and is also far, far longer than this one) so I guess precedent is against me there. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as WP has no space restriction and readers can get a quick glance at who is on each side. But also keep what people from other countries said, as there is no harm in giving readers more information, and any one who does not want to read something can always skip that part. Agree there is GEOBIAS in WP, but what has that got to do here? 117.221.179.163 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Endorsements really mattered in what Joe Biden would have called a "big deal". Bearian (talk) 21:05, 10 July 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) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Maldonado (Miss Kentucky)

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one reference does more than barely mention her, and that one is just a report of a talk she gave. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources of Miss Kentucky victory Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Flat Out (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as I have just overhauled the article, significantly expanding prose and sourcing, and the subject is the focus of coverage by reliable third-party sources over a significant period. I would invite the nominator and any interested editor to review the article in its current state. - Dravecky (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky's sources and improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wide area sourcing and the fact the state pageant is a feeder to Miss America. Generally state winners of major beauty pageants are kept because of all the publicity -- I would have been amazed if plenty of sources couldn't have been found. Wikipedia's category hierarchy for such winners goes down to state level. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:28, 8 July 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. As per the discussion, no prejudice to an article being created once the list actually exists and can be verified. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Dissolution Honours

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

Speculation and crystal ball stuff no need for it to be created until it actually exists as it is being used as a tabloid rumour page which probably has BLP issues, contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if a list is announced. It is a little surprising that the list still has not appeared: probably there will be a list in due course. But so far, there's no material for the article. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a conditional !vote and say weak keep if we are sure that there will be a list and delete if this is not yet certain. Maybe this was created a bit too soon but the content seems innocuous in its current state. We just need to keep it free of speculation and cruft until the details are announced. Avoiding cruft does not in itself suggest deletion but any genuine question over whether the subject is certain to exist does. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if and when an official list is announced. The current article is nothing but rumor mongering, which is a BLP violation even if the rumors are positive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete We don't do rumours. End of story. ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to "We don't do rumours". That content was indefensible and I have removed it. It could even be argued that copying a big list pulled out of somebody else's backside is plagiarism. The question is whether there is any legitimacy to the topic at all? If so, maybe we want to keep this as a short stub until there is genuine information to add. I can certainly understand the exasperation with the way this bad content is being reinserted but deletion is not the answer to that issue if the topic is valid. In the meantime, I have retained the links to the speculation as references for the existence of mainstream media speculation, which does weakly point towards the notability of the topic. If anybody wants to read that stuff we are making it easy for them to find without endorsing it ourselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsence. The list is expected in the next weeks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11716735/Ukip-could-have-to-wait-until-2020-for-new-peers-David-Cameron-suggests.html Nothing should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politik (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The telegraph quotes (from five days ago) "If and when a Dissolution Honours List marking the end of the previous Parliament is published" and gives no timescale and also puts an element of doubt that it may not happen. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 10 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axmed Mahamud Ibrahim

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

I've removed some spam and stuff, basically unsourced obit written by a friend (I removed authorship from article) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally lacks sources. Seems to be a violation of "Wikipedia is not a memorial".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and JP Lambert. De728631 (talk) 21:47, 12 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asanga Lankathilaka

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

Mid-ranking officer killed in action. Appears to have been awarded his country's fourth highest award for gallantry. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete loss is tragic, but being killed in action does not confer notability. The level of decoration for this individual would not confer notability either. Fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mid ranking officer, fails to achieve notability defined by WP:MILPEOPLE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability in the article that I can see. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per EricSerge, lacks "significant coverage" in WP:RS to be notable per WP:GNG. Given the number of notable officers killed in the event the circumstances appear to be covered elsewhere at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 09:34, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rose Menken

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

BLP for daughter of Alan Menken. Coverage of her and her albums is limited to blog posts and a BMI interview with her and her father together. No significant coverage in reliable sources to confer notability independently of her father.

Also nominating the articles on her albums as similarly non-notable, if not more so:

Article creator may be involved in sockpuppetry--see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emma 1984‎. --Finngall ^talk 01:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~Confirmed sockpuppetry~~ Article creator blocked for suspected sockpuppetry, no sources, external links to YouTube, has considerable coverage other than the above mentioned link, but mostly unreliable sources which are not recommended to be used as references. Albums may not be notable, while the subject of this article has notability only in unreliable sources of information. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all 3 listed articles): no significant independent coverage. Reporting focusses on her father, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Neither music nor movie activities establish notability for her bio. Albums fail WP:NALBUMS. GermanJoe (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. Nothing even slightly approaching reliable sources, and the sources are all without dispute connected to the subjects of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 9 July 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. The sources added to the article are too shallow and/or not independent secondary reliable sources. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World

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

Unreferenced article - no evidence of notability Fails WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - the pageant is an offshoot of Miss Venezuela and there are few sources for this offshoot reportedly held 6 times.
Note also that the History section remains entirely unsourced until an event held in June 2015. Also noted is that the Titleholder section does not match the sources or the History. Also Fails WP:NEVENT Flat Out (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -it is a noted beauty pageant in a country were beauty pageants are extremely popular. Does not fail WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where are the sources then? LibStar (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be added. But AfD is not and will never be a clean-up service. If that was an issue then it should be handled at the artidcles talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. nice try but the onus on keep voters is to demonstrate coverage if lacking in current article. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It probably needs improvement and references, but the general article fits Wiki criteria--Lucas559 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lucas559 which criteria does it meet? Flat Out (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note none of the keep voters actually supplied sources which is a tell tale sign of lack of coverage. fails WP:GNG, could not find significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the delete voters ignore the fact that it is a major beauty pageant in a beauty pageant crazed country. In fact the article does not fail WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied coverage. And Libstar is well aware of the fact that a simple Google search comes up with plenty of sources. So the significant indepth coverage is there.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - three of these sources did not mention the subject at all, and the remaining sources only support a single event held in 2015.Flat Out (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do not read the sources apparently. And, do not remove an AfD tag from the article in question until the AfD is over. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read the sources, and I removed those that didn't mention the subject. Further, it was Jallej, a likely sock, that removed the AFD template. Flat Out (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why did you not supply sources 6 days ago when I asked you? LibStar (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why do you enjoy arguing..? just wonder.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

answer the question please. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with the 'added sourcing' this is a WP:FAILN. Falls into other stuff. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, let's examine some of the current 4 sources. this and this are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Universe Model 2015

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

Fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable organization fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:03, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Universe Model

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

Fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable organization fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:03, 6 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not have the significant coverage required in order to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shamlan Cup

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

Non notable friendly tournament. Has been played once. Could become notable in the future but no indication of GNG at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that the tournament has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All resources will be added in time also full coverage will be received

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 will userfy the article to User:Amy.rugh/sandbox. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab Consulting

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

Does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. Most (if not all) sources come from Bill Heitman, who is affiliated with the company, which also makes me question whether the article meets WP:V or WP:NPOV. (Now supporting a userfy, see below). ~ Rob^Talk 08:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. I'm happy to take it down until there are sufficient sources that meet WP:V and WP:ORGDEPTH. I've created and edited before, but not taken down a page. How would I go about doing that? Amy.rugh^Talk 21:16, 29 June 2015

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The above comment suggests it could be deleted as a G7. @Amy.rugh: You can add {{db-author}} to the article, and this shows that the article creator wants it deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, the article could be moved to your userspace. This keeps it around for you to work on but removes it from the mainspace to a user page until you're ready to resubmit it. You could then submit it through Articles for Creation when you're ready to get feedback on whether it meets the main content policies and potentially add it back to the mainspace. ~ Rob^Talk 01:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it into my sandbox to keep it around until the page is ready to join Wikipedia. Do I also need to add {{db-author}} to the source code in order for the current page to be removed? Amy.rugh^Talk 1:29, 30 June 2015

If you want it in your sandbox, I'd much rather we actually move this page there, since that preserves the edit history. So let's userfy it. No need to add the speedy delete template. ~ Rob^Talk 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support a userfy. Having looked for sources, it's clear none exist, therefore it's not being to be notable. Putting this back in their sandbox is just giving them false hope that it might be notable enough, when it isn't going to be anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deletion criteria that I'm aware of that would prevent Amy.rugh from creating a userspace draft for this and maintaining it, which they've already done at this point. I see this more as a decision on whether or not to keep an edit history if they plan to make this a userspace draft no matter what. If I'm missing a policy that prevents them from working on a userspace draft of something not currently notable, let me know and I'll reconsider. ~ Rob^Talk 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history is all their edits anyway, so they're only losing their own attribution. Also, if this gets deleted, then WP:CSD#G4 becomes relevant for future creations, whereas if you userfy it then it doesn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't consider reposting it until there are numerous outside, neutral sources, which I know may take quite a long time. If we could userfy the page, that seems to be the easiest option. I'm catching on to the Wiki terminology and coding, but still learning. Let me know what I can do. @BU Rob13: Amy.rugh^Talk 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to the author's sandbox. The author has requested it (after earlier agreeing to deletion), and I see no reason to deny that request. Userfying preserves the history, including the fact that this AfD discussion happened. For us to pre-emptively declare that the subject is not notable and never will be is pure Crystal Ball stuff. The author seems to understand what is needed, and the new article will presumably be evaluated before it is moved to articlespace. In fact, the author SHOULD check with the deleting/userfying administrator before returning it to articlespace, otherwise it is likely to get speedy-deleted under WP:G4, which IMO would apply regardless of whether the article is deleted or userfied. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 13 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chanrakant Solanki Lyricist

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ARTIST as a lyricist. Couldn't find any WP:RS. Also the two RS used in the article don't even refer to the subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Soham321 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not give enough coverage of Solanki to be the basis for the article. If we do keep the article it should drop the "Lyricists" which is not part of the subjects name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promo advert, the two sources in the article don't say anything about the subject, name is probably misspelled too (should be "Chandrakant" [with a "d" in the middle] which yields social media links in web searches), article is mostly WP:OR written supposedly by a family member Kraxler (talk) 15:58, 13 July 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Relationship (Prince song)

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

Non notable single. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Hakobyan (Ruben Sasuntsi)

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

Article created bypassing AfC. No coverage about him whatsoever; clearly non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert, no coverage Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 13 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Crucible

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

Non-notable video game, given references don't prove notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:21, 29 June 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) 18:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl V Puri

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ACTOR Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Also possible autobiography. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead role in Phir Bhi Na Maane...Badtameez Dil.--Sfic (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR will be passed if he as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Lead role in a single film like this is insufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with Joseph. This is at best a case of TOOSOON. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage amounts to little more than celebrity gossip and has little to do with the article's content. Huon (talk) 12:36, 11 July 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Izumi Ogami

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

Voice actress only notable for one supporting role in Inuyasha. ANN shows only one other guest role. The JA wikipedia article mentions more about her relationship with baseball player Daisuke Motoki so perhaps it can be merged there. Otherwise, I'm not seeing much notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She does have 2 IMDB entries, for different spellings of her family name, Izumi Ôgami at IMDb and Izumi Ohgami at IMDb, which list one non-Inuyasha role each, one as a minor role in a 1990 movie and one as herself on a game show in 2015. Granted that IMDB heavily favors English credits, but she appears not notable for English Wikipedia. --Unready (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Kagura is the only role of any significance maybe redirecting to Kagura's section of the Inuyasha Character page could work since I doubt that anyone would be searching for her for her role in the 90's film of her game show appearance.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim of notability in the article, web searches turn up social media and cast lists. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 13 July 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSBR

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

Appears to be a largely self-published musician. I've been unable to find anything that would satisfy GNG. There are a few fan tribute sites and a couple of articles on some obscure record labels like Steinkalang Industries [8] and 4IB Records [9] but I don't think that passes GNG.

The biggest claim to notability is "collaboration" (however you want to interpret that) with some marginally notable acts. Working with others does not transfer notability. The Dissident Aggressor 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I remember in the late 90s MSBR was written about a lot in music magazines such as The Wire (magazine) and Bananafish magazine and was regarded as one of the main players in the Japanoise scene. I realise this is a rather weak argument as most of these references are not online and I don't have access to any databases that would help. I also can't read a word of Japanese. I don't think its fair to say he was largely self-released as his more important recordings came out on other labels such as RRRecords, Alien8 Recordings and Ecstatic Peace!. -- haminoon (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obscure musician, "Koji Tano" (now a redirect to this page) turns up some results, but nothing in-depth, mostly dedications and tributes, still fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kraxler (talk) 16:25, 13 July 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 James Madison University. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells Planetarium

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of irrelevant information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to James Madison University, retaining the useful factual information and losing the promotional information. @Wikicology: your nomination is somewhat deficient in that it does not clearly state why you feel this article consists of "irrelevant information". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDan61, WP:WWIN say it all and I don't have to write a million words to buttress a point. You probably should not mention me unnecessary at WP:AfD in the future. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of articles about it in the local newspaper [10], but I find nothing beyond that. If we accept secondary schools because we assume they would have local coverage, I think a planetarium is at least as notable, and it definitely has local coverage. It is also in many lists of planetaria in the US, so it is known. If not kept, then I agree with Dan61 that this should be merged to the University site. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The linked articles all appear to be little more than events announcements. Planetariums that are attached to larger institutions tend not to have their own articles (see Hayden Planetarium or Vanderbilt planetarium). So too with this subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could go with a merge as a second choice as long as it gets its own section that can be linked to the list of planetaria. The newspaper articles are more than event announcements, so they do need to be added since this article is essentially unreferenced. LaMona (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to James Madison University, per the common outcomes on planetariums. On it's own, fails WP:GNG, but the content could improve that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in its current state, the article reads like a corporate web site. Note the use of 'our", as in "our telescopes", "our full-day Space Explorers camp", and a plug for booking private events. I don't want to remove a large part the article during a pending deletion review, but the events section at least should go, along with Current shows and part of Usage. The article violates WP:NPOV, and might also run up against WP:COI based on the user name of the main editor. Generic1139 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems salvageable to me. See NBC News, Daily News Record, WMRA Public Radio, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to James Madison University. Anything significant can be said there without overly burdening that article, but the current article fails WP:GNG on its own. The NBC News story and WMRA source that Anythingyouwant linked to are WP:ROUTINE. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:07, 15 July 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. Consensus among established editors is clear that the topic of the article does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources required in order to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Auyang

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Been a member of a board of directors does not confer notabilty. All the sources in the article are trivial and does not discuss the subject in detail. The sources focuses on the organization (which passes WP:GNG) and notability is not inherited. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable from the perspective of transportation. While many sources cited are local, it does not necessarily fail WP:GNG. Further sources search indicates the person has been sought after in multiple transportation field speaking engagements and interviews, in various languages. The presence of multiple video-based interviews in mass media, and also a Chinese name search of the person yields significant mass and social media coverage, in particular in the field of transportation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.77.43.225 (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — 202.77.43.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable in the field of transportation in Hong Kong and this person has attracted substantial media interest and coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsie au528 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Elsie au528 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created by a single purpose editor probably for self promotion purposes. no inherent notablity in his job of deputy director either. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep person is well documented in Chinese searches and so not sure why there are questions of notability in that sense. Entry should arguably be under Chinese language but notability in bus field and in Hong Kong is well established. Single purpose editor questionable but notability should be judged on its own merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.203.246.28 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — 123.203.246.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment the swarming of this AfD by single purpose editors is a tell tale sign of conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments put forth for deletion seem to center on single purpose editor rather than having fully assessed the merit of notability itself, in particular the newly added Chinese sources. As the author I cannot make further judgments on notability as I am very new to this – I just signed up and this is my first article. But the fact is under Chinese (and some English) media this person is extensively covered on the bus/transportation and environment topics, therefore I don’t agree with no inherent notability. I thought that under Wikipedia rules on sources, the language of sources does not matter as long as they are secondary and independent. Please review those links and judge whether there is merit. I welcome further debates on this but will leave the ultimate decision to experienced editors. asc 06:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsie au528 (talk • contribs)
Delete - no claim of notability in the article, only trivial mentions in the sources. Subject seems to be striving hard to get some attention, but fails WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 16:35, 13 July 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 and redirect to Argonne National Laboratory. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Nuclear Safety Center

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

probably never existed, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_happened_to_the_INSC.3F Ysangkok (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance to cited “references” and instances of it being mentioned at Special:WhatLinksHere/International Nuclear Safety Center makes it probable that it was just made up one day.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, there is this page here.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note how there are at least two other real organizations named INSC, I recently added links for them at the disambiguation page. The Instrument is established by EU regulation, it might be notable. I do not think the Council is, it looks to be just a random bunch of people. An organization named INSAG exists (and is mentioned on IAEA pages), and I believe that it does what the page for the subject of this AfD would like to have us believe. --Ysangkok (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Argonne National Laboratory. From the limited material available on-line, it appears to have existed (briefly) in the 1990's as a name for a department of the laboratory, but apparently didn't make much of an impact on the world of nuclear safety in general, and probably doesn't deserve its own article. Tevildo (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:38, 6 July 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 Tata Group. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCE Consulting Engineers Limited

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

Not notable as independent company per WP:CORP; has remained unreferenced since 2010. Should be folded in with Tata Sons or one of the related Tata consulting articles. Brianhe (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tata Group. On its own non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Plausible redirect for the parent company though. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 20:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. To TATA Group since it fails general notability guidelines for WP:CORP. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:45, 7 July 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xodo

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

Subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Google News produces no articles on this app; a Google search produces nothing that could be considered a citation. KDS4444^Talk 21:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources, only download or marketing sites, blogs, forums, passing mentions and directory listings.—J. M. (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to delete, unfortunately, because I haven't found any considerably good coverage aside from here with some apparently non-related results here. I suppose it can be drafted/userfy if the user wants. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The first link is just a press release written by Xodo, posted on a website that simply publishes press releases by anyone who sends them and pays for the service. Anyone can write a press release about themselves, so it has zero relevance (this technique is sometimes used by similar companies for promoting their business on Wikipedia, that is, posting phoney press releases on "post-my-PR" marketing sites that they can use as references to "prove" their notability). There are a couple of minireviews that mention the software, the best one I found is this. But I would not call it significant coverage, and this particular source is a personal blog.—J. M. (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I knew, I was simply noting that was the best thing I found. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS references. As above, a search turned up incidental mentions but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 18:41, 15 July 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. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaires Row (Champagne)

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

Article fails to meet WP:CORP; other than a single, very brief article from The Drink Business, all of the available sources are either unreliable (e.g., press releases, blog posts) or merely mention the business in passing. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Billionare's Row apparently lends it name and markets a champagne produced by Charles Mignon. How is that notable? Despite the statement that " The company designs and sells high end fashion, sports wear, and Champagne," I can find no mention of "high end fashion", or "sports wear". Among the recent "notable references" added are a reference to Mignon (a different company}, two non-notable blogs from last summer, two references that the company at sometime applied for a trademark, an ad for a party, and four press releases (to add to the one already there). This leaves a barely passing mention in a Times article. This appears to be merely another instance of the company's marketing activities. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article, a self-declared paid editor who normally produces decent content, should have known better before accepting this commission. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By The Sea Recovery

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, as it lacks coverage from any reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo advert based on self-published sources, web seraches turn up directories, no RS independent of the subject, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 13 July 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor sandwich

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

Non-notable sandwich lacking non-trivial support. It looks good, however; a brief mention here and there and listing of the popular sandwich on a menu hardly supports notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ample Non-trivial reliably sourced support for notability already provided on original edit and talk page. What is the standard for establishing notability of a regional cuisine? Multiple major regional publications (Style weekly and Richmond Times Dispatch) state that in RVA the sailor sandwich is "ubiquitous" ... and multiple mentions by notable author Patricia Cornwell and Notable chef Guy Fieri establish that it is a "known" dish in many Richmond restaurants. Peace, MPS (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local variant on the sandwich, can be included there. A lot of sources fail on WP:RS The Banner talk 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which sources fail? And how many RS do you need? If there are three RS is that enough? Also, I just want to be clear -- are you arguing that all "Local variants" of a sandwich (e.g. St. Louis's Gerber sandwich, Springfield's Horseshoe sandwich, Louisville's Hot Brown, Chicago's Italian beef, Minneapolis' Jucy Lucy, and St. Louis's St. Paul sandwich) should all be deleted and content merged to the sandwich article? Peace, MPS (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what is left: all of them. Please read WP:RS and see that what we need are independent (so not source 1), relevant (exit the passing mentions in the other four), reliable sources The Banner talk 21:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source by source:
Times Dispatch: reliable, journalistic source; significant coverage

Style Weekly: questionable source; passing mention that does not create a presumption of notability (GNG), but does help illustrate the sandwich's ubiquity and significance in the culture that produced it

Cornwell novels: not reliable for the purpose of documenting the dish itself, but reliable as primary sources for documenting that these books do in fact contain the phrase "sailor sandwich". Ultimately not really even worth including in the article (see WP:IPCEXAMPLES) except.

Fieri guide: questionable source; passing mention that does not satisfy GNG, but does identify the sandwich as a significant part of local cuisine

Only the Times Dispatch article meets RS and GNG, with the SW and Fieri sources adding mild support of notability, but that in itself is enough to warrant keeping the article. Ibadibam (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the run-down on sources. re: Cornwell novels, it is of note that some of Cornwell's Scarpetta series are set in Richmond and the RTD source mentions that some people who read Richmond-based Cornwell novels are confused as to what a sailor sandwich is. re: Style Weekly, it has won many Virginia Press Association awards [11] [12] [13] [14]. [15] Peace, Love, and Tasty Sandwiches, MPS (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, and distinct enough that it can't smoothly be merged into reuben or sausage sandwich, though in some ways it is a variation on both. Ibadibam (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sandwiches. Plenty of passing mentions, but only the Times Dispatch is significant. I'm somewhat torn. Another decent source and I would have voted keep, and I wouldn't be surprised if a good source does pop up in the future. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of sandwiches only includes notable sandwiches, so if this doesn't have its own article, it can't go on the list. Any other possible merges or redirects? Ibadibam (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Richmond,_Virginia#Food, I guess.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That actually is not a bad option. Ibadibam (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

y'all, here is another "decent source" for you --> Richmond Magazine... This is the glossy regional magazine with 200,000 readers / paid subscribers [16] "Iconic Eats -- The Sailor Sandwich at Chiocca’s -- People may argue over which establishment serves the best sailor sandwich in Richmond, but Chiocca’s and its dive-y atmosphere has to win. The Sailor, a pile of pastrami topped with grilled knockwurst, melted Swiss and deli mustard on rye, is a carnivore’s dream. Chiocca’s is a laconic old-school establishment that likes to take its time, but the wait is definitely worth it" .. Peace, MPS (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just found this 2005 Associated Press/Boston.com article --> http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/08/03/cooking_up_a_status_symbol/ Cooking up a status symbol 'Foodies' boost sales of high-end kitchens "In years past, when Jay Garner of Richmond, Va., prepared one of his family's signature meals -- the sailor sandwich, a grilled combination of pastrami, knockwurst and Swiss cheese on mustard-laden rye bread -- he could, at best, cook two in a frying pan." Peace and Knockwurst, MPS (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here is the The News Virginian article documenting Fieri's 2007 visit to Dot's [17] "Indeed, the pair spent about an hour creating a sailor sandwich and the Chicken MacArthur, often making unairable jokes and laughing like old college buddies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 July 2015‎
Independent sourcing? I don't think so... The Banner talk 00:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you've described both the Times Dispatch and the News Virginian as not being independent. How would you define independent in this context? Ibadibam (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that The Banner probably means that they're local sources and as such, are depreciated since they're more likely to cover local things. I don't entirely agree with that, to be honest, but I know that this is a common issue at AfD. On a side note, one of VCU's student-run news programs has covered it as well. (Note: this news outlet does undergo some form of editorial oversight since it's run by a VCU professor.) I'll see if I can find some non-local coverage, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, far more because the given citation reads more or less like: I was there, the owners knew who I was and what I do for a living, they made a great effort, I had fun and then wrote this article. The Banner talk 07:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the restaurant owner is the primary source and the newspaper reporter is the secondary source, why is independence an issue? It's not as if the reporter has anything to gain from lying about or promoting the existence of a sandwich. Also, did you not see the Associated Press story about the foodie who upgraded his kitchen so he could cook more sailor sandwiches [18] The reporter there is also quite independent of the man cooking sandwiches. Peace and Melted Swiss, MPS (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A journalist, working under a deadline on a to-be-forgotten fluff piece, will take any shortcut available to produce the copy. Many local business reviews and blurbs are written by the business owners themselves and reprinted in newspapers and magazines with minimal revision. So we should always keep that in mind when looking at food and lifestyle journalism as possible sources. The Banner is right that the pieces we're talking about aren't particularly hard-hitting journalism, but they appear to have at least consulted multiple parties. I wonder whether we can reasonably expect to find academic-level sources for every food topic, and whether we'd actually be able to keep many of our articles about various dishes, were we to apply the same rigor that we use for, say, history or engineering topics. Perhaps that's an argument to let this article stand; perhaps it's an argument to embark on a broader clean-up campaign of food articles. Ibadibam (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. I think Ibadibam raises a great point when he asks what level of rigor we can expect when it comes to sourcing food articles. If I have a newspaper article saying "Sandwich X is ubiquitous in the region" and then I post sandwich X stories from every major newspaper in that region, menus from well-known restaurants in the region that list ingredients, recipes from published cookbooks that also list ingredients, and then quote a nationally recognized television food personality, a nationally recognized novelist, a professional menu planner, and a non-regional associated press newspaper article about foodies mentioning sandwich X, is that enough? or are we holding out for someone's doctoral thesis on sandwiches? What reliable sources establish the French dip? Peace and Pastrami, MPS (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes both the spirit and the letter of WP:GNG, with the Times-Dispatch and VCU Insight articles doing the bulk of the heavy lifting, and the other refs providing additional verifiability and details. The argument that an article is not 'independent' due to it being published in the same city as its subject is not supported by the actual definition of independence found at GNG - and neither of the two articles I've linked here are in any way the "buddy-buddy" type of article The Banner is alluding to above. Full disclosure, I'd never heard of this sandwich before seeing it added to the List of sandwiches, but it is now my life's mission to try one after having now read about it. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient evidence to verify this as a notable aspect of local Richmond culture, and there's no basis to exclude something like that solely on the ground that it's local. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the sourcing. It's a bit heavy though, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we call it weak keep pedia. (I'll pardon your pun if you'll pardon mine.) Ibadibam (talk) 22:52, 10 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Chambers

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:ARTIST. The only notable work of art that the artist made was only covered by two reliable sources (Huffington Post and Christian Post), but this is far from being classified as having "won significant critical attention". Claims that the piece was one of the most offensive painting ever created have only been made by unreliable sources. None of the other criteria under WP:ARTIST have been met, and the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, although we accept lowbrow work if popular, this doesn't represent significant coverage. ///08:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le petit fromage (talk • contribs)
Delete -- A young artist who has succeeded in getting pictures into a lot of exhibitions, but still a young man and I doubt he in notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the creator of the page. I just found this additional citation published in The Mirror using HighBeam. If anyone having subscription could check it out? Mr RD (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content relevant to Chambers is 3 sentences and reads as follows:

" 4 DARTH JESUS The Prophet by Cedric Chambers managed to offend Roman Catholics, Star Wars fans and New Yorkers. It depicts Christ being carried by Darth Vader, with the Twin Towers in the background.

He wrote: "Both are prophets with similar aspects; virgin births, self-sacrifice, magical powers."

-Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artist made a supposedly "most offensive" work that the article does not even use a consistent name for, disagreeing if the title of the work is plural or singular. It is telling that The Mirror claims it offends certain groups without actually having showed it interviewed members of any of those groups to see if they were offended. Which probably relates to the odd claim that this offendeds "Roman Catholics". Somehow I expect the vast majority of Christians of any denomination would find the work at least in poor taste, no reason to specify Catholics, but no produced evidence of people actually caring enough to be offended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 9 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living Green Barrie

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

Fails WP:ORG. Little depth of coverage in any reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable local charity which is backed up by news sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, organization is notable only in its own backyard. PK T(alk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft/userfy - As much I love the environment and sustainability, this is only locally notable and there's not much to move beyond that with my searches finding mostly passing mentions at browser and Books. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of sources. 7 alone in the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but no significant and in-depth coverage such as news. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources mention the organization only in passing and do not provide any in-depth coverage. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:58, 8 July 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Dabare

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

PROD removed by author "this guy is a war hero". Just another dead soldier. TheLongTone (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed. No notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mid ranking officer, fails to achieve notability defined by WP:MILPEOPLE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability in the article that would warrant an article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of passing mentions that I could see in reliable sources but nothing approaching "significant coverage" req'd by WP:GNG to be notable. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unfortunately I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:04, 10 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamini Fernando

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

PROD removed by article creator, "this guy is a war hero". Sees unremarkable to me, just another dead soldier. TheLongTone (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed. Not quite high enough ranking for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mid ranking officer, fails to achieve notability defined by WP:MILPEOPLE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources per the General notability guideline. That said the loss of a battalion commanding officer would (I assume) be a fairly uncommon thing in the history of many Sri Lankan Army units so if there are sources available for this I imagine his death could be detailed somewhere (for instance he is briefly mentioned but without any significant detail or a citation at Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment). Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 9 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Welgama

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

PRODed in notability grounds, tag removed by authr on the grounds that the man is a war hero. Nothing in article to establish notability for a military figure. TheLongTone (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed. No notability whatsoever. A couple of minor gallantry awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete loss is tragic, but being killed in action does not confer notability. The level of decorations for this individual would not confer notability either. Fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mid ranking officer, fails to achieve notability defined by WP:MILPEOPLE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant see anything in the article that is particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per EricSerge, fails WP:GNG. Incident resulting is his death is covered elsewhere at any rate (see 1995 Sri Lanka Air Force Avro 748 (CR834) shootdown). Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 9 July 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 delete on request of author ... discospinster _talk 20:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of teenage princes and princesses

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

I believe that this is a very arbitrary and trivial criterion on which to base a list. Moreover it is one that has a built-in inaccuracy risk, unless anybody is interested in constantly updating it TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know some magazines carry lists of most eligible bachelors and maybe even most eligible princelings, but this is trivia. Being teenage has no effect on the ability of an heir to ascend to a throne or do anything else. There are other problems: there's not a clear definition of who counts as a prince/princess.

I can't see a more general list of princes or princesses on Wikipedia, probably for similar reasons (there are articles on individual royal families, and List of current sovereign monarchs would lead you in the right directions). So it may be possible to have a list of princes/princesses regardless of age, but it would require some thought about the appropriate criteria. And segmenting by age seems totally inappropriate. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really see what the problem is. There are lists about literally everything on Wikipedia. How is this any more trivial than something like a list of Google Doodles in 2011 or a list of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1? That's what Wikipedia is all about. Furthermore, removing 2 or 3 people from the list each year doesn't seem like that big of a task. It's also practical for certain countries to see how long until their heir apparent comes of age to rule. Alvaro B. (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they going to look for an article on teenage princes and princesses for that information? How about the one on their own country's royal family? Borock (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are completely irrelevant comparisons that provide no support for keeping this one. Your argument amounts to "Wikipedia has other lists, therefore it should have this one." Really classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your last sentence is a non sequitur as this list doesn't target heir apparents, but rather all descendants of any monarchs, and what qualifies someone as "of age to rule" will vary from country to country and so being a teenager doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that threshold. It's especially nonsensical to focus on that when merely achieving a certain age doesn't give anyone a throne if the previous monarch is still living (and just ask Prince Charles how long that can take). Perhaps most important, every monarchy already has an article about the succession to their particular throne (e.g., Succession to the British throne) that lists those in line and sets the terms for assumption. So it makes even less sense that anyone would look to an unlimited list of every country's princes and princesses rather than to the specific line of succession of the country they're interested in. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an arbitrary set of criteria, "descendant of monarch between 13 and 19 years old." I generally vote to delete lists of fictional characters, but even a list of "recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1" probably adds some new information to WP, while this one just presents existing information in a new format.Borock (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If I had a 13 year old child I wouldn't want his or her name on this kind of list. Borock (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly a silly observation to make here given that this is a list of royalty, not of private citizens. I mean, the UK just put a baby's name on a coin.[19] postdlf (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary and indiscriminate. No reason for indiscriminately listing all princes and princesses around the world together, no reason for arbitrarily taking a subsection of that group based on current age. No informational value to justify keeping, let alone the need to constantly update as people constantly age in or out of the group. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like something suited for a monarchy fansite (if such a thing exists), not an encyclopedia. The age-based criteria for inclusion makes no sense and is obviously prone to significant change over time. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's probably a good reason why this is, literally, the only "List of teenage..." article in the project. It is beyond trivial minutiae to take a large group (royalty) and pull an age-based sub-grouping out of it (teen royalty) and think you have something of any interest to a Wikipedia reader. Why not List of octogenarian princes and princesses? List of blonde princes and princesses? Note another arbitrary list created by the same user at List of living princes and princesses, which should go up for deletion as well. All of this can be found at Royal family anyways. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 6 July 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) 00:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fivefold ministry

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

No evidence of notability. Still no suitable sources, after being tagged for two and three quarter years. (Only one of the references even mentions "Fivefold ministry", and that one is not an independent source.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 4000 GBooks results suggest that WP:BEFORE has not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can I ask what is an "independent source" here? Obviously this is a religious topic and the link is to a religious site which discusses it. I agree that the article could be better sourced but that is no reason in my book to propose deletion. Does any deletion request follow a cursory checking of Google or other search engines? And if you want to merge somewhere please say so. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The term is well-known in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. The article may not be a good one, but that implies improving it not deleting it. The primary scource for the concept is indeed one verse in Ephesians. I have no doubt that appropriate commentaries by theologians on the subject could easily be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 10 July 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) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Premier League

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

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. There is no new information making it notable, it is based on current seasons and has no current notability. Qed237 (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's definitely too soon. As the article notes repeatedly, no teams have been confirmed for 2016-17, so it's way too soon to make any comment about the season. – Pee Jay 11:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL - all the sourced prose is about matters tangential to the league itself. Nothing has been confirmed regarding participants, fixtures, dates, etc. Announcements regarding sponsorship and tv rights are by definition routine. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this season hasn't even kicked-off yet! Giant Snowman 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too soon for its existence and no teams have been safe to create this article as the season before this has not even started. NextGenSam619^t@lk 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unquestionable blatant violation of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 23:24, 13 July 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. Consensus herein, relative to Wikipedia policies, is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digital anomie

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

Fails WP:NEO with only a single Spanish source of unclear authority describing a questionnaire that asked students about "anomia digital" (autotranslating as "Digital anomie is a concept created by the research group FISHERNET Educational Technology").

Beyond that it's all WP:SYNTHESIS; one academic wrote about "being digital" in 1995, another about "anomie" in 1897. McGeddon (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR --НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digital anomie is a concept created by the research group FISHERNET Educational Technology. Their main objective is to describe a new situation about how minors who are using internet services without follow the rules. This new situation requires a new concept "digital anomie". That not means that any other authors such as Negroponte had used this term beforehand.Jaltuna (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above (WP:NEO/WP:NOR). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 11 July 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 longstanding consensus and precedent Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jinmyeong Girls' High School

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

Orphan, self-cite only, doesn't seem to satisfy WP:ORG. Bit promotional too. — regards, Revi 08:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in deoth coverage in independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is secondary school? How can you prove its notability? Which of the school's characteristics can prove its own merit as a article in Wikipedia? It's just another school in the street without having enough noticable coverage from the press. — regards, Revi 15:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> It has long been consensus at AfD that all verified secondary schools are notable. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it is completely fine to create articles about all high schools near my city, without actually need to be notable. Good.

I withdraw my nomination . — regards, Revi 15:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! Simple fact is, they all are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Withdrawing isn't an option as there's a standing delete !vote, Anyway Necrothesp's bang on - Consensus at AFDs are to keep high schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per long standing precedent as documented at OUTCOMES and evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. However, the article could do with a massive CE and workover per WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent source (not the school's website) confirms school's existence in which case Keep. This is a requirement for non-deletion per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Katzenlibrary (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Katzenlibrary, please read OUTCOMES again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there can not be any doubt about the existence of the school, see Seoul government site saying that there's a bus station at the school and this person (which doesn't look like a hoax) claims to have been an English teacher there. Kraxler (talk) 16:59, 13 July 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire

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

There are two problems with this:

Notability: The sources only show that individual organizations from this fictional world have been discussed or (much more often) merely mentioned in third-party sources. But none of these sources discusses the topic of this series's organizations as a whole, which makes that topic fail WP:N. The sources are mostly media sources that mention the one or the other group in passing in the context of some plot point. A case could perhaps be made for the notability of some specific organizations, if they have substantial real-world-related coverage, but that's not apparent from the article.
In-universe style: Per WP:NOTPLOT, a policy, an article must not consist of "summary-only descriptions of works". But that's the case here. The article is almost exclusively a portrayal of these groups as they exist in-universe, i.e., a summary of the respective parts of these fictional works. We don't see any real-world connection, e.g., sourced commentary about how the Iron Bank of Braavos reflects real-world capitalism. Also, the draft is written in an in-universe style, treating the fiction as though it were real, in violation of the style guideline MOS:FICT ("Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."). As such, this content is suited for a fan wiki, but not for Wikipedia. - While AfD is not cleanup, this is a long worked-on draft that was recently restored to mainspace. If even focused editing can't fix this fundamental problem, it is likely unfixable because there are not enough secondary sources that allow out-of-universe coverage of this topic, and we can therefore delete the article. Sandstein 12:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those two sources are a start for what is a notable work of fiction with real world basis. More sources to come article was just restored a day ago give the article some time to be expanded. Given the complexity of the subject this could take awhile. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which two sources? You just had this restored from your userspace via DRV, so you had all the time you wanted to improve it - but it's still just a heap of fancruft, not an encyclopedia article. (And I'm saying this as the person who probably wrote most of the main Game of Thrones article). I'm not seeing any indication it can ever overcome the problems mentioned above. Sandstein 18:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to World of A Song of Ice and Fire. I'm sympathetic to the work Valoem has put in here, but I just don't see any likelihood of this approach producing a quality article. A few of the "organizations" included in the current version may eventually generate enough out-of-universe coverage to warrant brief encyclopedic treatment, but those can be discussed in World of A Song of Ice and Fire (which is itself badly in need of cleanup, but probably deserves to exist; the recent debates around sexual violence and realism in the setting might be enough by themselves to anchor that article). The question isn't just whether one can find discussion of topics from the books and the TV show in independent websites; a popular franchise is inevitably going to generate a high quantity of ephemeral and rather trivial coverage. But "the five best new characters from Game of Thrones" isn't meaningful content for a character article, and stuff like a two-minute interview with George R. R. Martin about the inspiration for the Faith Militant doesn't justify this one. Brendan Moody (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up comment: the material Valoem has just added to the article underlines the issues here. Neither new source in the lead supports the sentence they're both citing, "Martin based many organizations on the nature of medieval cruelty and behavior." The Radio Times article contains the phrase "extreme medieval cruelty," and the LiveScience piece contains the sentence "George R. R. Martin, the author of "A Song of Ice and Fire" book series on which the HBO series is based, has said he draws inspiration from certain historical events, including the English Wars of the Roses." But there's nothing there directly about organizations in the series, which is the topic of the article. Nor does either Den of Geek article specifically claim that Martin based the Faith Militant on the Catholic Church. The first makes a glancing allusion to the influence of history on the series' portrait of religion, while the second speculates about "likely" influences on Martin. The "History Behind Game of Thrones" article is likewise speculative, and since none of the website's contributors appear to be notable scholars or commentators it's a dubious source to boot. The only one of the five that comes close enough to addressing any aspect of the article's topic to be useful is the second Den of Geek article, and that's limited to information on a single organization that is already adequately sourced. The way to demonstrate the notability of this topic is not to locate every article with even a passing mention of Martin's debts to real medieval history; there may well be many more than 150 of them, but that's not relevant. Adding a single sentence each about possible inspirations at the end of several paragraphs of plot summary is not enough. What we need is significant secondary coverage of enough different organizations to allow a meaningful out-of-universe article. I don't think that coverage exists, which is why I maintain that deletion is the best approach. Brendan Moody (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep per our approach to lists of fictional content and in particular (quoted from there): For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements (see Wikipedia:Lists). I think that takes care of the WP:N concern. Regards the overall WP:FICT concern, yes, text written from an in-universe perspective needs to be corrected (I haven't reviewed the article in this case), but 1) that's not a rationale alone to delete an article (and in fact "Summary style approach" covers this in its second paragraph also); and 2) the nom seems not to understand that per the quoted text out-of-universe writing does not necessarily dictate the presence of reliable sourced coverage. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From that guideline: "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles. The spinout article should concisely provide details of the topic or topics covered in the work – just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries (...) are appropriate." That's a good explanation why this article is inappropriate. Sandstein 20:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text you are presumably concerned with is should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles--this is I presume a badly written statement that any spinout article should not be concerned with singular entities i.e. a singular character, or a singular item, etc. Otherwise this would point to the guideline being internally inconsistent, which I find unlikely given how WP:FICT was hammered out. The other text quoted, spinout article should concisely provide details of the topic or topics covered in the work – just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries (...) are appropriate. is part of the normal cleanup process and does not suffice to delete an article. As I commented, I agree that in-universe is a problem but it is not so insurmountable that the article must be deleted. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, because if one were to delete all the in-universe stuff from this article, how much would be left? A few sentences? Not enough for an article, at any rate. The entire article is an an excessive plot summary; aggregating this amount of random details from this series goes far, far beyond what we need and already have, in the articles about the books and the characters, to appropriately summarize the plot of the books. We only provide value if we focus on covering this (and any) fiction as a cultural artefact that impacts our real world, and this article does not help one iota to do that. Sandstein 20:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue--content which is in-universe can be written from an out-of-universe perspective. Do you understand this? As for your assertion that it is only a worthy article if it places the fictional content in the context of the real world, this is plainly false per the cited guideline. We do find these sorts of articles to be somewhat valuable even without context. (This is not to say that we should not add such context as applicable, naturally.) --Izno (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as much as I like GOT, I don't see the notability here for the organizations themselves. This is not the GOT Wiki. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reworked out of its in-universe style. I had some hope duuring the DRV that it might be possible to work this into a decent article due to the high cultural notability of the series itself but as it is it's a pile of in-universe trivia. One possibility might be a very selective merge into the characters list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many sources regarding this topic it is hard to find sources based solely on real world implications. I'll see what I can find. It is odd with the massive influence on popular culture we cannot find a place for this here. I've found over 150 secondary sources which means the in universe subject has vastly more coverage than other counter parts. These sources suggest this subject should have a place here on wikipedia and is not limited to ASOFAI wiki. Once again Wikipedia has no timeline so if sources are found and there is some coverage in real world basis we should favor retention. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added even more sources which can be expanded on I also found this source [20] showing the influence of women in GofT compare to medieval history. Perhaps DGG could give some advice as to how to improve this article, as I am currently working on this alone and given how popular this subject I cannot help but notice the possibility deleting this could be a mistake. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic reason for keeping articles like these is that on balance they are a better place to cover the individual organizations than to do it in separate articles on the one hand, and to overload the main article with the details. The general first time reader/viewer will want an overview; most people, who are now no longer totally unacquainted with it will want a reasonable amount of details. This is not fan coverage--true fan coverage includes every possible detail, potentially to an extent greater than the original works. As the amount of literature of the series develops in future years, there may be need for such individual organization articles, but I don't think we're there yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above solid arguments KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in deoth coverage in independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are tons of independent coverage in secondary reliable sources. That argument does not hold under scrutiny. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sandstein and Starblind above. The Izno-Sandstein conversation gets to the heart of the matter for me, and I have to agree with Sandstein's points there (although I understand what Izno is trying to say). -- Shudde ^talk 10:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As Wikimandia says, this is not the GOT wiki. This article is inherently unsuitable here. Reyk _YO! 11:20, 14 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James Madden

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

The article is about a non-notable unsuccessful political candidate, the references given are either not reliable or irrelevant, and it pushes a POV in parts. I can't see much reason why this should be kept. – Hshook (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite; the lead is weak. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What a terrible article? How did this stay for so long with so many BLP violations? St Anselm (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; what a monstrosity. On actual notability he fails WP:POLITICIAN, of course; there is perhaps a GNG argument here but this article sure isn't making it. Frickeg (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, I was thinking TNT myself. St Anselm (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially formatted like a résumé, contains inappropriate offsite links in the body text instead of internal wikilinks, lists an awful lot of YouTube videos in its contextless pile of unfootnoted "references", and doesn't make any especially strong claim of basic notability beyond being an unsuccessful political candidate. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a version which makes a better notability claim can be written and sourced properly, but this as written ain't cutting the mayonnaise. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He is certainly NN as an unelected politician. The only question may be whether he is notable as a minister of religion. My hunch is that he is not, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that he is generally notable, even if he doesn't meet the politician qualification. Unfortunately, notability doesn't matter in this case, as the quality of the article is such that WP:TNT applies. The closer should note that WP:TNT includes no prejudice against recreation. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even without the awful political pamphlet content of the article, the guy is a political also-ran standing for a fringe party who got his five minutes of fame through some cringeworthy stunts that nobody paid all that much attention to. Doesn't meet POLITICIAN, as outlined above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 14 July 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired, or perhaps simply boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative DVH

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differential DVH, this article seems to be within the series of articles. Per the nomination in that AfD, "No indication of importance".96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 07:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dose-volume histogram per the consensus in the other AfD. ansh 666 07:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:38, 6 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hammoud (Lebanese)

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

Previously speedily deleted as a copy vio. Relies on unreliable sources, fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When even the person's win at the pageant has to be sourced to a blogspot page instead of actual news services, he has clearly not met any notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No reliable sources among references. valereee (talk) 12:47, 15 July 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 delete by Beeblebrox as a blatant hoax (G3).(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Golden Grand USA

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

non-notable pageant. fails WP:NEVENTS Flat Out (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if all of these had been under one AfD but I don't know how to do that after the fact. Please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Golden Grand 2016

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Golden Grand 2015

None have any references, none describe any context.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 6 July 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 speedily deleted by Beeblebrox per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Golden Grand 2015

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

Non-notable pageant, fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if all of these had been under one AfD but I don't know how to do that after the fact. Please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Golden Grand USA

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Golden Grand 2016

None have any references, none describe any context.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 6 July 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 speedily deleted by Beeblebrox per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Golden Grand 2016

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

Non-notable event, fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS Flat Out (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if all of these had been under one AfD but I don't know how to do that after the fact. Please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Golden Grand USA

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Golden Grand 2015

None have any references, none describe any context.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 July 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 speedily deleted by Beeblebrox (mass deletion of pages added by Romaedah Hasibuan). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Golden Grand USA 2016

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

Article for a pageant not yet held, unsourced. Depth of coverage indicates that the subject fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 July 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 speedily deleted by Beeblebrox per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Elegance USA 2015

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

Non-notable pageant, held once and no depth of coverage - fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 July 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. No prejudice against recreation if multiple reliable sources have been produced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Angel (BLACK ANGELS)

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

Removed content which was a copy-vio (see talk). Subject fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the criteria for musicians and ensembles subjects must have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". In this case, several of the references and external links are self-published or otherwise not notable (Vevo and MTV music allow any artists to host content on the respective sites). The article claims the artist "won the metal charts" of certain cities by Reverbnation; however, a citation is needed. The article does not meet any of the other criteria for musicians and ensembles, nor the general notability guideline, so I think it is a safe delete at this time. MJ94 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJ94, Yes, of cause, every artist (band) has 81 and more music videos on Vevo as Alex Angel (BLACK ANGELS)...it's usual thing maybe...but in your imagination only! By the way...On 11 July 2015: One Direction - 157 music videos on VEVO, Beyonce - 121 music videos on VEVO, Pitbull - 120 music videos on VEVO, Lady Gaga - 118 music videos on VEVO, Justin Bieber - 97 music videos on VEVO, Alex Angel (BLACK ANGELS) - 81 music videos on VEVO, Taylor Swift - 69 music videos on VEVO, Nicki Minaj - 50 music videos on VEVO, Justin Timberlake - 40 music videos on VEVO, Miley Cyrus - 33 music videos on VEVO.

Vevo is the prime music network and Vevo's content system doesn't accept all artists and all music videos! Go to Vevo site then go to Billboard site and learn more about Vevo.Nelep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleksii Nelep (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasoning above, they fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Also, winning metal charts in lots of cities doesn't necessarily pass WP:NMUSIC IMO, even if sourced properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Avi (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey, Rovi is the company which learn and verify full discography of artist (band) in physical forms. So releses and copyrights. After learn they make the artist page for the Alex Angel (BLACK ANGELS) at AllMusic (links are availabe in the article). The project released 5 full-lenght albums and 15 music videos. Photos to metal charts with rank #1 are available too. There are a lot of ukrainian bands without any results on En.Wikipedia. This band has result. That's why this article must be alive. Nelep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleksii Nelep (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The English Wikipedia project criteria for ascertaining the notability of musical groups are pretty clear. The ensemble in question has not been shown to meet any of those criteria. Just releasing albums, playing concerts, or having brief mentions in the press is insufficient. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, And where is the justice? You do not consider that the group from Ukraine. And in Ukraine there is no rock industry. There are no charts. There is not a single TV channel for rock. Therefore, the results of this rock band, given her a hit on MTV, VEVO, AllMusic/Rovi, Encyclopaedia Metallum and other international music platform, says that it is the first and only to date a rock band of international importance of Ukraine. But on the English Wikipedia, I see a lot of Ukrainian rock bands of local significance. They are not on international music platforms and they are less well known than this rock band. So, go first to him and then come back here. So it will be fair. Thanks.Oleksii Nelep — Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is one article which may need to be deleted is not a reason to keep another. By all means, if you know of other articles which do not belong, please nominate them for deletion. As for justice, I recommend reading this essay. In a nutshell, this project is not meant to be a social network or a general repository—it is meant to be an encyclopedia, and it has standards. As we are all volunteers, we can only fix one article at a time. Not being notable doesn't mean the band are bad people, or even bad musicians. All it means is that at this point, it has not achieved sufficient notability for its own article. -- Avi (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of this group in Ukraine is just enough to be a star quality for Ukraine, also it is of the international level, this is said by the main music channel of Ukraine - M1 TV (link and сitation is in the article: http://m1.tv/stars/298). And level premiums Grammy from Ukraine so far, nobody participated yet. On the other hand, there are some scans (photos) with 1st place in the metal charts (New York, Miami and Los Angeles) by Reverbnation and invitations artist on two of The X Factor in English and Ukrainian. But I don't know how to attach them to the article. Thanks. Oleksii Nelep — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 10 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed Gospel Ministries

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

Previously speedied - Non-notable act that fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still not notable, promotional language, 5 refs are self-published, the other just an upload to an online music service. Bazj (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jesus Experience

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

Withdrawn by nominator' Flat Out (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One non-notable release, lacks depth of coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND Flat Out (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's bits and pieces out there. My first thought was a clear keep but then a quick short came up short. Best coverage out there appears to be in relation to being Mulatu Astatke's backing band so at the least there should be a redirect/smerge to his article. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect - duffbeerforme I'm happy to support a redirect, I can't find much to support notability in own right. Flat Out (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ensemble have issued four albums, they have won music awards, they have been described in several independent reliable sources, they have been featured on nationally broadcast TV and radio segments. I have now added some refs, and beefed up a little of the content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still don't appear to meet WP:NBAND. One of the sources is about Mulatu Astatke, the award is not a recognised national music award (The Age newspaper), one of the sources is a passing mention only. Outside of their work with Mulatu Astatke there's nothing of note. I woudl support a redirect to Mulatu Astatke. Flat Out (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe existing sources show subject meets NBAND#1, NBAND#11, NBAND#12. International performances and recognition: 1, 2, 3 and a national tour (see The Age award for same) meets NBAND#4. Prominent representatives of ethio-jazz in Australia: 1 which meets NBAND#7. Could be kept, even if one criterion is met.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as outlined by shaidar cuebiyar the article now satisfies WP:NBAND, with sufficient references that support it's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 9 July 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) 18:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity height

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

Withdrawn by nominatory Flat Out (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a term used in a single source and has not yet been used elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q="vanity height" skyscraper plenty of sources. I'll add the CTBUH are the definitive organization when it comes to arbitrating skyscraper heights and rankings. The Guinness World Records get their yearly World's tallest lists from this organization. 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk • contribs)

Keep I found it discussed in more than one source such as [21] KiwikiKiWi (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fairly widely used term as can be seen from here.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Frangou

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

Non notable music, fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been deleted five times as Chris Frangou. See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Frangou. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recreation under a new title trying to move around past consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chawallianity

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

Non-notable website. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: As it stands, I can't make head or tail of this article, and it could qualify as a borderline A1. From other websites like this personal Google site and this Wikia (authored by the same person as the WP article), "Chawallianity" appears to be some kind of alternate historical scenario. But there are no reliable sources covering this subject, so it must be deleted. Altamel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:A11. I think there's enough context to ascertain that this is fictional story but, as with the above, it's only sourced to a personal website. No claim to significance given. Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teejay (singer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Potentially non-notable singer. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist, fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Flat Out (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist - recreating already deleted content (Previously Teejay) with no more references than before KylieTastic (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment almost certainly a creation from a Sock of a blocked account User:Felixandrew1326 (Also 106.208.35.249, 106.208.250.109 ‎and 106.208.117.52) KylieTastic (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Fails WP:BAND & WP:GNG. Page should be merged with Teejay and salted –323MU (talk) 22:20, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Career exploration and awareness for students with disabilities

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for scientific journal entries. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hope creator got a good grade --CutOffTies (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes seems like an assignment KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mackle

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him (instead of by him) in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent coverage testifying to his notability.TheBlueCanoe 02:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV, insufficient coverage in indpendant sources. Yet another in the plethora of articles about non-notable St Peter's College old boys. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the individual has made meaningful contributions to New Zealand art history they are at a research level rather than shaping the discourse and presentation of New Zealand art. There are many other curators with more influential careers who I would prioritise Auchmill (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He makes an important contribution to New Zealand art discourse especially in relation to E Mervyn Taylor and other artists. See the references.Rick570 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Otto (journalist)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him (instead of by him) in independent reliable sources. Inhouse graduate award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV, insufficient coverage in indpendant sources. Yet another in the plethora of articles about non-notable St Peter's College old boys. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant third-party sources. School publications and his own publications do not establish notability. LaMona (talk) 23:56, 6 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cernovich

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

Subject matter isn't notable for anything other than their involvement in the Gamergate controversy. This pretty much puts them into the "single event" category; anything of value here can be pushed into the actual Gamergate controversy article. Jorm (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of Reddit, 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 Per Jorm, and the fact that being cited for something does not make you inherently notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Known for one event, and even then barely. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, known for just one event. He can be mentioned at Gamergate controversy if relevant. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination. There are precedents for keeping, but each of these has existed in circumstances where there has been a preponderance anticipating "eventual" relevance/notability. It's unlikely based on events thus far that Cernovich will ever be notable for any other efforts. --rm 'w a vu 04:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything relevant can be copied to the main article. Artw (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, but not opposed to moving anything notable to GGC if it isn't already contained there. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Revert and Request Consensus Edit Today the page was the target of off-site canvassing immediately after petitioner Jorm edited the page - https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/3c95hu/mike_cernovich_had_a_wikipedia_page/ - https://archive.is/NSdOW - As seen directed from the 'GamerGhazi' subreddit. Instead rebuild page and then reconsider request. Its clear the request is inappropriate at this time after it has experienced vandalism. This is edit warring, not a good faith request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.24.152 (talk • contribs)

So, 77.97.24.152, you seem to have a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. What was the name of your registered account? Why are you not using it here? Binksternet (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the IP is User:J0eg0d evading his block. J0eg0d had it out for Jorm, and both J0eg0d and the IP participated in the same discussions, for instance User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_189#.27Sinister.27_-_Harassment_on_Wikipedia_News_Piece and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#UPDATE:_Breitbart_Global_News_Syndicate_-_Reliability_Dispute. Both the IP and J0eg0d had it out for MarkBernstein, the IP on Mark's talk page, and Gamaliel's talk page, and J0eg0d by way of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive175#MarkBernstein. I think we can ignore this IP's contributions per WP:DENY. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from one IP account whose edit was reverted and Thorrand, a fairly new account that reverted the IP's edit, the only other recent editors are Salvidrim! and Jorm, neither one of whom was sent from GamerGhazi to edit this article. The article might have been discussed in that forum on reddit but there is no evidence of an influx of new editors vandalizing this biography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got here from WP:AE, actually. I saw Thorrand's posting there and examined their contributions, which brought me to the article.--Jorm (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)While I definitely wouldn't say I "came from GamerGhazi to edit the article", the Reddit thread is indeed what prompted the article's SPP, as I've made clear in my edit summary -- without it being mentioned on Reddit and pointed out to me, I would've probably never stumbled upon this article. I protected it less than an hour after the thread first started and before it started to pick up any traction, so the protection is probably a big part of the reason there weren't more IP/SPA edits to the article after the first one reverted by Thorrand. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the pre-edits version is hilariously awful, and I'd probably think it a deliberate parody if I'd not encountered GamerGate SPAs before. Chainsawing that mess down to size was entirely appropriate. Artw (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a gram of notability outside of Gamergate. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete Not only is this your typical case of BLP1E pretty much all reliable sources written about him are extremely negative. Absolutely no good can come from keeping this as an article. Bosstopher (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see BLP1E here, I see a no strong argument for notability at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Cernovich's major accomplishment is claims to own several websites and has a podcast available on iTunes, I don't believe this satisfies basic notability requirements. According to WP:BLP1E, this article should not be kept as Cernovich is likely to remain, a low-profile individual and the individual's role [in the event] was either not substantial or not well documented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP1E and the lack of any evidence of notability apart from Gamergate commentary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly falls under WP:BLP1E. --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability beyond Gamergate controversy. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even I have to agree that this doesn't meet notability and shouldn't exist at this point in time. Weedwacker (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. PigArcher (talk) 05:28, 7 July 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 speedily deleted by Randykitty per CSD A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria, ILLINOIS

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

Editor created this undoubtedly as a way to fix an Infobox, but he or she went about it the wrong way. I am not proposing a WP:Speedy deletion so to give time for editor to see this reasoning. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bingham

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

I first of all used PROD for this article, as principal editor I am now nominating the article for deletion.

When I first found it, the article had an odd history. It was originally written solely by Doctorpleiades, whose sole contribution on wikipedia was writing the original article [22] and uploading pictures of Mr Bingham to commons see [23] and [24]. It seems fairly clear there was a WP:COI in the drafting of the original by someone with a close personal relationship to the subject and sharing their views.

Having reviewed the article as originally written it was apparent that it would fall foul of policies such as WP:BLP by allowing unsubstantiated allegations, such as those reported on Mr Bingham's websites, against living persons to be written as fact.

Having looked for sources to improve the article, the ones I found were WP:SPS produced by the subject of the article. These were his two websites and a book he wrote and self-published. The only none WP:SPS source was:

“

IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS SUPREME COURT Case No: SC/CIV/08/03 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT BETWEEN THE QUEEN

”

I was unaware of WP:BLPPRIMARY and since the subject of the article is now complaining that the article is libellous and I was responsible for most of the rewrite I am suggesting it should be deleted. I have tagged everthing sourced to the court documents and there would be very little left without it. I have continued to work on it but now the subject is threatening to sue me with the support of the Argentine Government. [25],[26] I'd like to request Wikipedia:TNT W C M_email 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it - WP:TNT. Not sure this person is notable for more than just one event, namely a court case. Further, an IP claiming to be the subject of the article wants it removed (after making legal threats and personal attacks, of course). Give them their wish and nuke this thing. Relevant noticeboard postings: ANI and BLPN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the named subject appears to be upset by the article, and it is a borderline notable BLP. Depending on how seriously we view the upset subject making legal threats, it should be deleted or redirected to Wildlife of the Falkland Islands.

However, I think much of the content, representing most of the references, should be merged to Wildlife of the Falkland Islands. It should cover the Falkland islands penguins, their decline in numbers, commercial fishing, and probably mention M. Bingham, seabirds.org and Falklands.net. I believe that we may preserve the references without needing to preserve that article attribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is marginal at best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salt and block all the IPs claiming to be the person. They aren't notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, so it would be great to be rid of it and the block-evading IPs claiming to be this user. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Joseph2302. No article, no legal threats, no problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low notable person, article was turned into close to an attack page. Anti Diploma mill activism. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assassinate it by throwing it out of a plane - I understand this was standard operating practice in Argentina. But suddenly calling your enemies out for their declining numbers of penguins while at the time the penguin numbers started declining one's own country had a history of creating deliberate declines in one's own number of humans does remind me somewhat of glass houses and aggregate-based projectiles. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – only one secondary source (The Guardian) seems too tenuous to assert notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is solely for discussions concerning whether the Bingham biography should be kept or deleted. It is not a forum for discussion about penguins, or about Wikipedia articles on penguins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Andy, it is also about a merge target, some of the content being worthy, and discussions of merge are entirely appropriate at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please do not delete the information about penguins - As the subject of this article I have no problem with how the article now reads. I apologise for loosing my temper when I saw what had been written about me. I have retracted my hasty threat of legal action and have apologised personally to the editors involved. They in turn have given me a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I realise that I went about things the wrong way and I apologise to all concerned. The massive decline in penguin numbers in the Falklands is backed up by peer-reviewed scientific papers cited in the article, as is the increase in these same penguins in nearby Chile and Argentina. The British Antarctic Survey census of Falklands penguins published under the paper "The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands" (Croxall JP, McInnes SJ & Prince PA (1984), ICBP Technical Publication No.2, 271-291, ICBP, Cambridge) quotes the Falkland Islands Rockhopper penguin population as 2.5 million breeding pairs. The integrity of the British Antarctic Survey is beyond reproach and must surely be a sound citacion. The peer-reviewed sceintific papers cited in the current article show that this 2.5 million dropped by 88% in 11 years to just 300,000 breeding pairs by 1995. The fishing industry was officially established in 1988. The reason for this massive decline in the Falklands, and increases just 500 km away in Chile and Argentina, is due to over-fishing in the Falklands which leads to the starvation of chicks, and lack of reproduction to replace old penguins, leading to gradual decline. The overwhelming evidence is explained in great detail in the peer-reviewed citation given in the current article "The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry". This important information supporting the need for controls over commercial fishing near to penguin colonies is now helping to protect penguins around the world, and I hope it does not get deleted because of my mistakes in handling this matter. Please note that my book 'The Falklands Regime' which I fully accept was originally a self-published book, is now published in Spanish by a genuine publishing house (http://www.lsf.com.ar/libros/00/REGIMEN-DE-LAS-MALVINAS-EL/). I do not know if this makes it an acceptable citation for my penguin work. The penguin declines and my activities in the Falklands were also featured in a documentary by the BBC (BBC2, "Explore - Patagonia to the Pampas" 25th January 2009). I apologise again for not being more familair with how things are done on Wikipedia and for not going about things the right way the first time. Mike Bingham 190.178.197.152 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bingham, if we are to include your material on Penguins we are also required per WP:NPOV to note your work and your conclusions was criticised by Prof John Croxall, your co-author. We'd also have to point out the major crash in Penguin population in the Falkland Islands occurred in 1986 (attributed to the starvation of adult birds during moult)) and predates the fishing industry in the Falklands. We'd also have to point a major cause of Penguin mortality was down to an outbreak of Avian Pox and finally that the Penguin population in the islands has since recovered see [27]. The work reported there contradicts one of your assertions, noting a regional crash in Penguin numbers. I am sure you are very passionate in your beliefs but wikipedia doesn't exist to publish your research. W C M_email 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WCM. John Croxall was not my co-author in any of these publications. During my time in the Falklands from 1993 to 2004 John Croxall lived and worked in Cambridge and never conducted any research whatsoever in the Falklands or in any country where these penguins live. As such I cannot see what scientific basis exists for his comments on this topic. I welcome all properly cited views about the causes of the Falklands penguin decline. But please remember that Falklands Conservation, of which John Croxall was Chairman, only existed courtesy of annual grants from the Falkland Islands Government. I know this because I ran Falklands Conservation from 1993 to 1997, preparing these annual grant requests, and I know the pressure employed to keep the decline of penguins hushed up. That was the basis for my dispute with John Croxall, Falkands Conservation and the Falkland Islands Government. Many people feel that protecting the fishing industry that sustains the Falklands economy from conservation measures that would reduce this income is more important than penguins. I respect their opinion, but felt that the truth needed to be published so that everyone had a right to decide, not just those with vested interests. I therefore took the decision to risk loosing my job by publishing the results of the decline in penguins in the peer-reviewed scientific journal 'Oryx', against the wishes of my employer. I was not re-employed and 'Oryx' were threatened by the Falkland Islands Government not to publish, on the basis that the penguin census data of 1995 showing the collapse in penguin populations was confidential information owned by my employer. After analysing the terms of my contract, which had no clause about ownership of the data collected during my employment, and the fact that the penguin census had been a joint project, funded by the Wellcome Foundation, and using over 100 volunteers, including the RAF Ornithological Society, the lawyers ruled that my employers were not the sole owners of the data and that I had a legal right to publish the information. The data was finally published in 'Oryx' in 1998. I do not expect you to take my word for any of this or even to use it. I merely mention this history so as to point out the need for scrutinising the scientific credibility of information being presented. The most reliable citations are peer-reviewed scientific publications because they have been scrutinised by other independent specialists in the same scientific field.

The Falklands fishing industry officially began in 1988, in so far as that is when the government began selling permits to fish in Falklands waters, but in reality the fishing began long before 1988. So the mass penguin starvations of 1986 and 2002 both fit the time-frame perfectly (I give peer-reviewed citations below). The Mercopress article you cited appears to be an opinion rather than a scientific publication. Mercopress even states "Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users". Even so this article confirms that rockhopper penguins have declined: 1984 = 2,500,000 pairs (cited in the British Antarctic Survey in their peer-reviewed scientific publication that I cited previously) 1995 = 300,000 pairs (cited in the various peer-reviwed scientific journals that are already stated in this Wikipedia article) 2015 = 189,000 pairs in the article you cited. By all means add this citation if you think it is sufficiently reliable, since it only confirms the decline in rockhopper penguins. Below are other reliable scientific publications that support my conclusions with full reference to their sources: 1. "Inshore fishing around the Falklands has a negative impact on Gentoo, Rockhopper and Magellanic penguins" (Boersma PD (1991) Asynchronous hatching and food allocation in the Magellanic penguin. Acta XX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici: 961-973.) 2. "Prior to 1988 fishing around the Falkland Islands was intensive and totally unregulated, threatening fish and squid stocks" (Patterson KR (1987) Fishy events in the Falkland Islands. New Scientist 1562: 44-48) 3. "Recommend that there be no inshore fisheries (within 30 miles of the coast) in the Falklands. Restrict industrial fishing from areas of known concentrated penguin use at sea (including wintering and foraging areas for fledglings). Argentina and the Falklands should establish an integrated series of marine reserves and zones." Luna et al. (2002) Spheniscus Penguin Conservation Workshop Report, IUCN) 4. "Diet sample analysis shows that there is competition between penguins and commercial fisheries". "For the Falklands the main factor influencing breeding success and recruitment is assumed to be local food supply" (Putz K, Ingham RJ, Smith JG & Croxhall JP (2001) Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of gentoo, magellanic and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807.) 5. "Not only does the removal of preferred prey force penguins to feed their chicks less favourable species, but it can also lead to greater foraging duration, with chicks receiving less food" (Radl A & Culik BM (1998) Foraging behaviour and reproductive success in Magellanic penguins: a comparative study of two colonies in southern Chile. Marine Biology 133: 381-393.) Thank you for your time. Mike Bingham. 190.178.197.152 (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't an appropriate place to be discussing the Falklands penguin population. The only issue to be decided here is whether we keep or delete the Bingham biography - which comes down to whether there is sufficient coverage of the individual in reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. Can I ask that people please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. This article, could be moved & redirected to the Falklands penguin population. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, or redirected? I can't see how one can usefully do both - and can't see much merit in doing either. If we want an article on Falklands penguins, it should be written from scratch, based around all relevant sources, rather than focussing on one individual's research. If Bingham's research is significant, it should of course be included - but under the normal WP:WEIGHT constraints. And again, we are discussing the Bingham biography here, not content on penguins - whether an article on penguins is justified is of no relevance to this AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think it should be written from scratch, probably using nothing more from this biography than the reference list. It would be great if Mike could assist. I see him here trying to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that asking someone with a vested interest in promoting their own research is a bad idea per WP:COI. I am rather concerned at the way he dismissed the views of Professor John Croxall CBE, FRS as part of a wider conspiracy theory. Prof Croxall's statement was "By any scientific standard, Bingham’s presentation represented a substantial deliberate misrepresentation of data (and a position substantially at variance with that taken in “his” paper in Oryx (1998), based on exactly the same data). His presentation has removed any vestiges of scientific credibility among the penguin research community" and thats a pretty damning indictment. If we're going to apply normal wikipedia standards of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT then I don't see how we can avoid mentioning it. Particularly when two papers by the same individual apparently conflict. And for information Mr Bingham, I have copies of the papers, which I'm happy to share, and Prof Croxall is indeed a co-author on several. W C M_email 08:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that my views should hold any greater weight than any other scientifically supported arguments. Science is a process. The greatest scientists in history ALL published theories that were later modified as new evidence came to light. This is how science evolves, and I do not deny that my opinions also evolved between 1996 and 2003, as more data became available. In 1996 John Croxall helped me with the wording of a manuscript, because as Chairman of Falklands Conservation he was effectively my boss, and I had a contractual obligation to let him control what I wrote. I was limited to saying "There is no direct evidence that food availability to penguins has been affected by commercial fishing, but this possibility cannot be ruled out". Croxall lived in Britain and never actually participated in any penguin research in the Falklands during the entire time that I studied penguins in the Falklands (1993 - 2004). May I ask what is the citation for the comments made by John Croxall, and whether they were personal comments or a peer-reviewed publication? I agree that I did make one big mistake in my 1998 Oryx article, in failing to be aware of the existence of the British Antarctic Survey penguin census performed in 1984, which quoted the Falklands rockhopper penguin population as 2,500,000 pairs. This was vital information, since with just my 1995 population census data available showing a population of 300,000 pairs, I was unable to know that an 88% decline had taken place since 1984; an 88% decline in 11 years, during which the commercial fishing industry was established. Obviously my conclusions changed when I eventually discovered the existence of this peer-reviewed population census data. Is it really fair for Croxall to say that I lost all "scientific credibilty" for being "at variance with that taken in “his” paper in Oryx (1998) based on exactly the same data"? It was this quotation about my 'scientific credibility' that began this whole issue. I think the discovery of a published British Antarctic Survey penguin census conducted just a few years before my arrival in the Falklands, quoting 8 times the population that was recorded in 1995, gave me just cause to be at 'variance' with my previous conclusions published in 'Oryx', which lacked all knowledge of this vital data. It is interesting that John Croxall as co-author of that 1984 publication never made me aware of its existence, so that a better conclusion about the decline of Falklands penguins could have been published in Oryx. I ask nothing more than that my publications are given the same weight as other peer-reviewed scientific articles, and that opposing views are held to the same standard. I welcome discussion on this topic and I applied for a Wikipedia account a week ago, but all I have received so far is "your request will be reviewed, and you will shortly receive a separate email with more information". Does it normally take so long to get an account, or is it that my input is not welcome? Mike Bingham 190.178.196.83 (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)190.178.196.83 (talk) 06:25, 11 July 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 List of cartoons featuring Sylvester#1957. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines but a reasonable redirect has been suggested. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse-Taken Identity

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

Unreferenced for 12 months - apart from sources that support the existence of the cartoon, nothing significant has been written about the episode. Fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where do I find the notability requirements for cartoon shorts? BMK (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At a minimum, WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but surely there must be a specific notability requirement. BMK (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation it fits under Films in the hierarchy, so WP:NFILMS? - see also [the Project Animation Style Guide] Flat Out (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any coverage whatsoever beyond a mention of its existence, which is somewhat surprising. Fails WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 06:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sufferin' succotash. Redirect to List of cartoons featuring Sylvester#1957. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect oer Clarityfiend BMK (talk) 22:26, 6 July 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the notability guidelines are met or not. Davewild (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone Police Department

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

Run of the mill local police department. Police departments have no inherent notability such as settlements do. There are sources, including some reliable secondary sources, but the coverage does not extend beyond WP:ROUTINE, what one would expect for any police department. Further, all of the coverage is from Metro Portland, so it fails WP:ORG John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have no objection to this being redirected to the community the PD serves. Indeed, I had boldly done so and was reverted with the suggestion we come here. I would however, oppose a merge. Most of the content is wholly inappropriate for a settlement article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - John, what I would like to know is how this article (and the other agencies you removed) is significantly different then, say, Hillsboro Police Department (Oregon), an agency you evidently thought was suitable to keep. Does it simply come down to the size of agency or its constituency? Does the latter have a particular type of source(s) that I've yet to identify? Unless we're only going to maintain articles on the dozen or so largest agencies in the nation, I guess I just can't see the line between what you think is an acceptable LE agency to keep and those which should be removed. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I may have been the original creator of the nominated article, but I did so in response to finding that at least a dozen other "run of the mill" law enforcement agencies in Oregon had long-standing articles of their own. The nominator of this AfD has evidently taken it upon himself to effectively delete all of them by redirecting them to their constituent city/county without moving any of their content. This article is no less notable than any other police department in Oregon, as was evident prior to the one-editor purge of the 'Municipal police departments of Oregon' category. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is that the other "run of the mill" law enforcement agency articles shouldn't have been created either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to either you or the nominator of the AfD, but I was attempting to say 'run of the mill' with the least bit of sarcasm. While we should probably try to keep articles as entertaining as possible, I don't take it upon myself to gauge this. I just strive to meet or exceed the core policies and guidelines as best I can, which I in good faith believe this article does. I would have never moved it to articlespace and wasted your time and mine if I had for a moment thought otherwise. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just some context here, first there is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument--the other articles may or may not have merit but that has no bearing on this article. If the other articles need to be deleted they should be sent to AfD. Also for context for the phrase "run of the mill" as used on Wikipedia: WP:MILL. I'm neutral on the deletion question right now. Valfontis (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for several reasons. First, the editor who unilaterally and arbitrarily merged just about every police force in Oregon (and some other places) sort of condemns the process by opposing a merge, as the redirect is a bit inappropriate if there is no relevant content on the target page. Secondly, the editor apparently sought no input from anyone else, despite there being several relevant WikiProjects to raise this issue. If it was just one article, that's one thing, but doing it wholesale is another when the editor fails to actually review each article for notability versus doing it on all. Third, the nominator made no mention of their search for sources, which is required before nominating an article for deletion on notability grounds. Next, notability is not global, as in sources such as the regional The Oregonian (or OregonLive) are not a local source. The Gladstone paper would, but not The O. Lastly, many municipal police departments of larger cities (say 20,000 residents) that have been around awhile (say 100 years or more) are often notable once people take the time to fully search out sources. It is usually a matter of taking the time to look. I'm not saying this topic is notable, but odds are it is, and the nominator did not due the search required. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the encyclopaedic value of articles about small police departments with no famous history KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The value relates to our readers interest in local history, how public money is being spent, whether public services are performed adequately and so forth. Our guidelines tell us that notability does not require fame. James500 (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "fame" I meant news stories or the like. I don't feel the purpose of Wikipedia is to record things such as whether public services are performed adequately. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm prepared to accept this satisfies GNG. There are about eighty results in GNews. Coverage like this seems relevant. And that accreditation is something that the vast majority of police departments don't get. So not routine. A number of snippet results in GBooks relate to an employment case called Cross v Cleaver. Upon inspection of reports, the department don't seem to have been defendants. I say this only to prevent confusion. James500 (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Kill with fire. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete coverage is limited to run of the mill. Fails WP:ORG. And coverage is limited as per WP:GEOSCOPE. I expect a long winded convoluted response to my !vote. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you search for coverage? And WP:GEOSCOPE is for events, and I'm pretty sure this is not an event. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I’m not an expert on deletion, it looks like the article has sufficient reliable/independent sources to establish notability (e.g. The Oregonian is cited multiple times…it’s the largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest and among the 25 largest in the U.S. with ~375K readers). Also, I believe articles need to be seen as works-in-progress. Once sources demonstrate basic notability, the article should be left for editor to develop over time; otherwise we're demanding quality content to qualify as notable. Finally, while its off the subject, I noticed that there were a number of Oregon police department articles re-directed to various city articles, but none of the PD content was merged. That’s the equivalent of deletion, but without any due-process.--Orygun (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have waited to address any of the points raised til now.

Not that it is relevant to this discussion, but the reason nothing was merged when I redirected the articles is because there was nothing to merge. A community article really doesn't need content saying it has a police department, does it? If it didn't, that fact should be discussed.
The day I did this, I also did it in 4 other states. This is the only resistance I got. The fact that a large part of the arguments here have been from the state Wikiproject and have been along the line of, the Oregonian has articles on it so it must be important, should be enough explanation for why I didn't consult the Wikiproject; never mind that I'm under no obligation or even tradition to do so. The many hits in the Oregonian are 99% on crime that the department has interdicted in, not on the department. There is no reason or need to have a different threshold for an article in Oregon than any other state.
The reason I did not oppose the reinstatement of Hillsboro is that it has an independently published book on its history. Hence it is notable. Same reason I didn't redirect Portland, Multnomah or Lake County Indiana. Percieved importance, or possible future importance is not what we base decisions on what we cover on; notability is.

John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is notability to you? This article has multiple, independent sources from a large, regional newspaper. Plus, you still have not addressed looking for sources prior to this nomination per WP:BEFORE. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this another way. Pick any high school football team in metro Portland. For any one of them, you will be able to find literally hundreds of stories in the O. Are any of them notable? No. Why? Two reasons: one, the stories are almost exclusively game stories, quite comparable to a story on a crime for the police department. Second, even tho it is a large paper serving a wide area, it us still the Portland paper. A high school football team is not going to be thought not able by anyone if it's only coverage is in the local paper, because EVERY high school football team is covered in its local paper. The exact same thing is true for a PD. As far as BEFORE goes, perhaps you should AGF. What I found was just as chillingly compelling as the bit about shooting the bear. So sorry I didn't see any reason to waste people's time over it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, please don't take this personally, but I think it's a shame that this requested AfD is the only resistance you confronted in your one-man quest to purge the encyclopedia of law enforcement agencies that don't meet your rather subjective-appearing opinion of what should exist and what should not. The notion that Hillsboro PD should exist because it has a "published book on its history" seems a strange standard when you seem to argue that much of local police department coverage is "routine" and shouldn't count. If that's not the case, then do not the several citations in the Gladstone article from independent newpapers covering its history in the early 20th century lend a very similar notability? Aside from this, can you stand by your assertion that all sources and content regarding Gladstone PD is routine when some of them regard the rocky tenure of the last police chief or a sergeant fired for an alleged murder? Honestly, at the risk of taking this down a non-germane tangent, even if some of these law enforcement agency articles are not as entertaining as we might hope them to be, does their inclusion in the encyclopedia really do our readers a disservice? If they only help a very small number of our readership, isn't that still worth their existence? I have to ask - even if your arguement is spot-on, what harm does their inclusion here really do? Buddy23Lee (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added something like a half-dozen source that are about the PD (or its employees) and not crimes they were investigating. And you know what, I think we could probably have articles about high school football teams if people got over their hangups and predisposition about what they think is notable and instead critically think about notability. Notability was implemented not to be some sort of cool kids club to keep out things people didn't like but to tackle the issue of hoaxes and poorly sourced articles, which is why it ties into WP:V. Early on articles on high schools themselves were often nominated for deletion as non-notable, but we finally moved beyond that. The only reason we have notability guidelines is to ensure we can have sources independent of the topic, nothing more; and we have sources that are independent of the subject here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:02, 13 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woohwangchungsim-won

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

No sources and medically inaccurate Antrocent (♫♬) 00:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately! This article says "Woohwangchungsimwon has long been a miracle remedy, a miraculous embodiment of our ancestor's wisdom and will." Dangerous. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've stubbed the article because the text was taken from the product website. Added Korean source search. Fuebaey (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only "source" for this article doesn't refer to it at all. Instead, it's taken from an article about Gongjin-dan (GJD). If Woohwangchungsim-won is derivative of or different name for GJD, it could be merged, but otherwise it doesn't appear to be valid material. Katzenlibrary (talk) 18:16, 10 July 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.

[Alvarez-1] Álvarez Mendiola, Germán (2004). Modelos académicos de Ciencias Sociales y legitimación científica en México (Ph.D. thesis). Instituto Politécnico Nacional. p. 160–163. (note this thesis has won the ANUIES prize for the best Mexican thesis of the year 2003). The thesis subject can be translated as ""Academical models and scientific legitimacy" makes it a rather relevant for assessing journals.

[1]