Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 May	1 June >

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Kirkland

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

Child actress that only gets the most passing mentions in the usual places (e.g. Variety, THR, EW, Deadline, LA Times) – she receives no in-depth coverage that I can see. Certainly fails WP:GNG, and likely fails WP:NACTOR. At best, a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous AfD discussion in 2012 came to the conclusion of delete, and the sourcing in the current article is basically non-existent, so this may even qualify for "speedy delete"(?). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page qualifies for BLP PROD because it is completely unsourced. Regardless, subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source: The previous AfD was FOUR years ago... she's still acting, so I think, if sourcing can be improved, she meets NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- [sigh...] Did you read the nominating statement?! – I checked the usual places for RS before bringing this here, and all there were were "passing mentions", at best. She simply hasn't gotten a significant enough role at this point to have generated "notable" press coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: aside from the fact that the sole reference is IMDb, she is a very young child actress whose career consists of recurring roles on two consecutive relatively little-known TV series beginning 2014 (per IMDb) and one credit a year earlier. Way TOO SOON. This article has stage mother written all over it. Quis separabit? 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A TV show on the Disney channel is a pretty big deal for a child actor. While I agree that the username of the article's primary editor does raise a COI concern, we need to assess the article itself on its merits. Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the "merits" are a lack of significant, independent coverage. IOW, WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need a lot more than IMDB to keep an article on a child of 12.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect only if needed instead as the only longest work is 22 episodes and there's nothing convincing at all from there. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's pretty good consensus here that the topic is worthy of inclusion, but the particular article we have here now, needs a lot of work, possibly to the extent of WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film in Kansas City

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

Seems to have a big COI, written in a promotional tone... TJH2018 talk 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given what comes up from a Google News search alone, the sources exist for an article with this title. But this isn't the article--the unsourced and promotional content can be deleted, and a fresh start needs to be made. There's no good original version to return to [1]. As such, this almost appears to qualify for speedy deletion as promotional from the beginning, more than a decade ago. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator may well be right about the COI, but we see content from a range of editors over many years -- some of it just driven by hometown boosterism. A lot of work has gone into this. And while there's a lot of unreferenced and possibly content, as noted, I'm sympathetic to the notion that Kansas City is or was an important culture center. I've added it to Category:Cinema by city. My inclination would be to WP:PRESERVE and tag for improvement -- or just improve, now. There's too much encyclopedic content to go in the Film Community section of the city's article. Despite whatever faults, editors have worked on this since 2005 to get it to where it is a well-written, if not well-referenced, article. I believe its deletion would be a net loss. Finally, let me point out to the nominator that COI and tone issues are not in themselves reasons to delete, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep and preferably rename to Cinema of Kansas City. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename if needed especially if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Kansas City metropolitan area. The content is promotional and mostly unsourced, but I could probably source some of it, then move it to the main article, where it belongs. What makes Kansas City so special that its film industry should get an independent article full of unsourced promotion? If we were talking about New York or Vancouver, then I could at least understand the argument that it should have its own independent article. But if a dozen films get shot in some random city, does it automatically qualify for its own "Film in X" or "Cinema of X" article? I don't think it should, at least until these topics overwhelm the main article with sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article itself is terrible, but the bones are there and even just based on a quick search I'd say the subject appears to be notable enough for a standalone article. With proper sourcing and a rewrite, this should be fine. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus to keep has been established, although whether or not to merge, move, or simply leave as is has not established consensus yet. — Music1201 ^talk 22:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Harrison Mercer

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

With the Portuguese Wiki containing nothing better and this article also, my searches have found nothing better than these Books links and therefore still questionable for WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG (with Tibagi not seeming convincing for its mayor to be WP:POLITICIAN and certainly nothing merge-material). SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now The article suggests some notability. It seems he was some sort of regional judge. It also seems he was involved in the creation of the Flag of Brazil. We need people fluent in Portuguese to conduct further searches. He was the founding Mayor of an area, the precedent seems to be a keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Christie AusLondonder (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That precedent would be relevant if it could be shown that Mercer had an editorial obituary (not a family-written death notice) in a major national/regional newspaper of the stature of The New York Times, but we have no evidence of that. Walter Christie was kept on the basis of available sources, not because he helped found a town with a current population of about 20,000. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Tibagi has a current population of about 20,000, so being mayor wouldn't be enough on its own to pass WP:POLITICIAN. I'm not quite sure that I understand the bit in the article about the flag of Brazil - if he really did design it then maybe he is notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely nothing is verified. In particular, the claim that he was involved in the creation of the flag of the Republic of Brazil is contradicted by our article Flag of Brazil. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article in its current state is very poor, but the subject seems to be notable to me. He is one of the founding settlers in the town of Tibagi and the name Mercer is all over the place in the region: including the name of the historical museum in town, a major road (named specifically for him), and the current mayor. The article should be cleaned up and verified, but kept. giso6150 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict with Fosse8 below) Do you have any reliable sources to support that? I note that the Portuguese Wikipedia article on Tibagi has a pretty extensive history section but makes no mention of Herbert Harrison Mercer, and that the museum is named after Edmundo Mercer Jr., not Herbert. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verification, no sources suggesting notability, and the bit about the flag is a wonky translation of the original Portuguese - he didn't design the flag of Brazil, he *made* a Brazil flag for the festivities. Unless someone can find good sources explaining why this obscure 19th Century Brazilian regional functionary should have an article, I'd say get rid of this. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the flag issue. Notability looks less likely now. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' He is certainly listed as Mayor in the História de Tibagi, published by the city/town of Tibagi, Prefeitura Municipal de Tibagi, in 1934, p. 151. Only part of the section is visible to me online. He has a page in Wikipedia in Portuguese. There is a Herbert Mercer Street in Tibagi, map [2]. Tibagi is a tourism destination (rafting, hiking) and I presume that there is some tourist interest in the Anglo origins of the town founders. I think keep and hope for further sourcing, at per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing that is reliably sourced is that Mercer was a mayor of a small town, way below the size needed to pass WP:POLITICIAN on that count, and I can't find any reliable sources that say any more than that. I don't know where the idea comes from that he was one of the founders of Tibagi, because the article clearly states that it had already become a forum town (I guess that something has been lost in translation here and "market town" is meant, but, anyway, it was a town) before he settled there, and that he became the twelfth mayor, not the first. It is quite normal for streets to be named after local dignitories, so that doesn't create notability, and I'm sure that it was also perfectly normal for European immigrants to become mayors in 19th century South America.86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced, no better sources seem to exist - there is a brief mention on a Tibagi site of his role (along with several other people) when the Republic was proclaimed, but other Google results appear to be either blogs, or Wiki scrapes, or to relate to his descendants. No sign of notability. Narky Blert (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect is up to editors. Sandstein 11:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's S-Scared?

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

false Digifan23 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad copy-paste job from http://bigidea.wikia.com/wiki/Where's_God_When_I'm_S-Scared?. They are CC-BY-SA so it may not be a copyright violation after I listed them as the only reference but this is not suited as a Wikipedia article. The real episode title Where's God When I'm S-Scared? already redirects to List of VeggieTales videos#Where's God When I'm S-Scared? (1993). Where's S-Scared? would be an implausible redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems adequate after removing the copied information. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible redirect. There may be enough independent RS coverage--in fact, I strongly suspect there is--to turn the redirect back into a stndalone article, but this isn't the way to start that. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to indicate stand-alone notability; highly unlikely re-direct. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has since been renamed "Where's God When I S-Scared?" and now "Where's God When I S-Scared?". The correct title, "Where's God When I S-Scared?", was |redirected to List of VeggieTales videos after discussion at Talk:List of VeggieTales Videos. For some reason that I can't quite figure out, the "Talk" link at List of VeggieTales videos goes to the talk page for the article we are discussing here. I think it has something to do with the italics in the title. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of VeggieTales videos was a redirect as a result of confusing page moves. It is now a real talk page again. It was unrelated to the italics which are made by DISPLAYTITLE without affecting the real page name. The talk page could also get a DISPLAYTITLE to make italics but this is independent of the article and we usually don't do it for talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the correct episode name and plausible variants to List of VeggieTales videos, Delete Where's S-Scared? and any other implausible redirects. This has now been redirected yet again, this time to the grammatically incorrect Wheres God When I'm S-Scared? (missing the apostrophe). I strongly suspect this is a sock of User:Wattsj528. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wattsj528. There will be quite a lot of stuff to undo when the SPI ends. Meters (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where's God When I'm S-Scared?! was just created. Also see Dave & the Giant Pickle and Rack, Shack and Benny (episode) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a mess. I was waiting for someone to bock the latest sock before undoing everything. Meters (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; apparent waste of time to make this a redirect, although there will have to be an extensive clean-up after this user(s). Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:RyanSunshine is now blocked, but for copyvio rather than as a sock, which still leaves us with a mess. I have suggested that the user still be tagged as a sock to make this easier. Meters (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where's S-Scared? is up for a valid speedy R3 (implausible typo). I'll add G5 since User:RyanSunshine is now tagged as a sock. Meters (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The actual show was called Where's God When I'm S-Scared? per List of VeggieTales videos#Where.27s God When I.27m S-Scared.3F .281993.29 and the source cited there. Note that there is an apostrophe in "Where's", it's "I'm" not "I", and the title ends with "?" not "?!"When I checked earlier today we had Where's S-Scared? redirected to Where's God When I S-Scared?, which in turn redirects to Wheres God When I'm S-Scared?. Where's God When I'm Scared? also redirects to Wheres God When I'm S-Scared?. Where's God When I'm S-Scared?! was another copy of the article but has now been redirected to List of VeggieTales videos#Where.27s God When I.27m S-Scared.3F .281993.29 by User:Nikkimaria. None of htese redirects are the correc title. The correct title, Where's God When I'm S-Scared?, was redirected to the main series page one year ago by User:SummerPhD and again about six weeks ago by User:Edward321 after the master restored the article. I may have missed some of the combinations of missing words, missing apostrophes, and added punctuation.
This is not the first time a sock of the user has created a confusing mess of redirects and renamings in an apparent attempt to keep his article split after it was taken to AFD.
I suggest a blanket deletion of all of the sock's redirects (leaving SummerPhD's correct redirect Where's God When I'm S-Scared?) to ensure that all of the copyvio material is gone, followed by recreation of redirect Where's God When I'm Scared? as a plausible typo. Meters (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus shows that this should be sent to draftspace so the creator can continue to work on it. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny's Journeys

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

Seemingly WP:NN video game that fails WP:GNG. The only references to this product I've been able to find are passing mentions and/or catalog listings. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think these points are worth noting:.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 10 references being used, and two external links, all third party and reliable - this to me establishes notability.
One of the external links (What's the call on CALL? - St. Andrew's University) mentions the phrase "Jenny's Journeys" 10 times, and discusses it quite extensively.
Many of the 12 reference/external links in the article could only be accessed via a "snippet view", which means i could only get a fraction of the juicy into those particular sources contained.
The game is from 1984, which in video gaming's case means even if sources exist it is very hard to easily locate them due to the lack of preservation of gaming journalism from the 70s-00s online. (Even the WaybackMachine can only do so much). So a lack of current sources doesn't equal a lack of potential sources.

Comment - Is there anywhere to redirect/merge? Or maybe send it to draftspace? Sources may be there, but its extremely poorly written, contain little content and no flow between ideas. It doesn't really look like its ready for public viewing... Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send to draftspace. "Books.google.com.au" is not a publisher and MobyGames is not reliable. Send the article through AfC when it's cleaned up. Re: snippet view—burden is on the adding editor to prove that the ref goes into any detail so if snippet view is all you have, there's no proof there's anything more at the source. czar 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the information in certain book sources can't be seen in the "snippet" views, the information can clearly be seen in the "GoogleBooks search page. So it can be proved that the info is really there. TBH I don't think this article is that bad. It has all the relevant sections, no copyvio, written adequately. If taken to draftspace, chances are that will be its permanent purgatory. Whereas here, it can flourish in the Wikipedia ecosystem of collective important and support. It's already been edited by 10 users and as a result is already a huge improvement over that first edit.--Coin945 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That a mention exists, in no way demonstrates "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the game actually receives more than just a mention in many of the sources. The only problem is that my view is restricted to the snippet. I would infer from what I *can* see in the GoogleBooks Search preview that the game is discussed in detail and not just fleetingly referred to. However, it is ultimately the decision of the commentators on this page, and I 100% trust their decision.--15:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Send to draftspace. I agree with czar to send it to draftspace.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Draft if needed as I have found nothing better too and this would need archives attention, delete at best for the time being. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Progressive Party (USA)

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

Article's subject only covered by one source, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per nom: the only thing I can find that looks at all like coverage in a third party reliable source is this, which doesn't look very significant to me. Many of the citations in the article are to Facebook, political campaigning websites or to news articles that don't mention the subject of the article, these won't help for establishing notability. If this organisation becomes more widely known or achieves more political successes then it may be more appropriate to create an article on it then. Hut 8.5 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5's research not finding evidence of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of pieces on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. That said, this for me still lies in the realm of Facebook phantasy organization rather than a living, breathing organization — at which point I would immediately opine for inclusion. Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL, a NOTYET sort of situation. Userfy to the creator if so desired. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps it's just WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creating after this Party wins an election, or garners sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only best known currently to Bernie and there's nothing else to suggest, beyond the coverage and information, that it can currently be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedied as a G4 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Kiziloz. Favonian (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Toprak Kiziloz

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

Non-notable person. Primary claim to notability is the intention to buy a couple of football clubs, but no actual purchase appears to have happened, so there is no notability from ownership of those clubs. Second claim towards notability is chairmanship of non-notable gambling site. Contested proposed deletion.

There seems to be some attempts by the original author to inflate the notability/link depth of the subject by creating other articles with questionable notability:

Cigar Smoking Celebrities (AfD)
List of Turkish Business People in Bulgaria (AfD)
List of the Worlds Casino Entrepreneurs (AfD)
List of Famous Turks in Switzerland
List of people from Malatya (which I redirected to Malatya as it was a mess before)

-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I was willing to consider whether his intention to buy the football club might have conferred some notability (via media reports), but the article doesn't tell us anything about it. More to the point, the article on the football club doesn't mention the subject at all, so I'm assuming that any publicity that was generated was short-lived. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longridge Town F.C.

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

Football club that fails the accepted notability criteria of English clubs (having played in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase, or at level 10 or above). Prod was removed without explanation and the false claim that the club has played in the FA Vase added afterwards, presumably to try and prevent deletion (see the 1982–83 FA Vase results – supposedly the season in which the club reached the first round – here. Number 5 7 20:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The FA Vase result is clearly one that can be attributed to one of the teams that amalgamated to form this club in 1996 making this club non notable Seasider91 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seasider91: It's not even that – the current club was formed by a merger of Longridge United and Longridge St. Wilfred’s, but neither of those clubs played in the FA Vase either. It's completely fictitious as far as I can see. Number 5 7 07:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still questionability that this currently can be established as independently notable regardless of any apparent past winnings and such, delete until something better substantial is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab El Yahiz

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

I can't find any sources for this person or for a "Fishan dynasty". The editor who created this article has their own idiosyncratic spellings (see Talk:Karab El Watar but I can't find one for this person. I tried and took advice but I only see one source for that spelling, and no evidence that was this person. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source where "Fishan dynasty" is mentioned could be found here.^[1] From ancient Sabaic language 𐩱𐩡 means the ancient deity El who was worshiped in Ancient Yemen, the suggestion 'il does not mean anything !!

<personal attack removed>User:Ecoboy90 talk 22:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ربوع السعيدة". Retrieved 28 May 2016.

Delete Okay, I found the same thing as the nom. Either a hoax, or just not notable. @Doug Weller: @Ecoboy90: I'd watch what you say if I were in your position. You are in clear violation of WP:NPA with that "Dog Weller" comment. Also, Doug Weller is an admin and an arbitrator, he can block you. It doesn't seem to me like he's at fault, he is just following WP:GNG. You are dangerously close to being blocked. Calm down. Read WP:NOSHAME. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia not a nursery school !! we are writing here because we want to share the knowledge and nothing in return !! that one who is called User:Doug Weller is an admin on himself and he doesn't mean anything for me !! we are not writing her to earn money or getting famous, we are history fans who want to share what we believe is true because we know the language, what is the harm of different spelling if it is true but not sourced in english language .. you can help to verify it by studying the name itself and not by listening to some people who don't even speak the native language !! if you block me from editing, this is called tyranny and you are doing just like military or religious dictators in real life !!!!! that User:Doug Weller has changed the titles of my articles repeatedly without even giving a notice !! he started to provoke me with silly remarks about spelling !! I have included the Sabaic spelling in musnad writings but that "Weller" has ordered the page to be deleted !!!!! he is always arguing about english sources meanwhile he doesn't even create a single page about the related topics, so how can he understand what we are talking about?! I hope that I am dealing with wise adults not with some lobby of tyrants !! Ecoboy90 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for a compromise if there is no problem, I would agree a change in spellings if I am going to be contacted by a decent historian admin whom I can discuss with him ... any changes, edits or further interference from that one who is called User:Doug Weller in my articles will not be accepted and will be considered as tyranny in a freely editing environment. As you know that I can make millions of accounts so it is not wise to be hostile against somebody who wrote history articles without offending anyone .. I will say it again, a compromise with a history expert and not with that User:Doug Weller Ecoboy90 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThePlatypusofDoom, User:Ecoboy90, I wouldn't block normally block someone I'm in dispute with. Ecoboy90, we don't compromise on policies. And we don't rely on experts, we rely on sources. Your claim at Talk:Karab El Watar that the fact that all the reliable sources have the spelling Karib'il Watar shows that they are all wrong is ample evidence that you are happy to ignore our policy on naming, and your threat to create sockpuppet accounts strongly suggests that you aren't hear for the good of the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 05:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yeah, he is probably WP:NOTHERE. If this continues, I'll report him to AN, because I doubt that going to WP:DRN will do anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a hoax and a sad effort to garner attention, to the extent that Ecoboy90 is probably a bad-faith contributor. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went to the article on the same subject on Arabic Wikipedia and found a citation for an English language source, ironically enough. There are three mentions of inscriptions bearing the name "Wahab" mentioned in a source published by Johns Hopkins Uni Press: one of which is for the subject of this article in passing; one of which is for a completely different individual (Wahab'awwam), also mentioned only in passing; and one of which is a translation of a damaged inscription and the last name and thus identity of which is indecipherable. There do not appear to be any mentions of this person in any original Arabic sources, and Arabic is the closest language to Himyarite, which is dead. I suspect that this person was a real guy...who is mentioned in one line of an inscription in one of those "whom beget whom" passages. Hardcore fail of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the evidence presented by Doug Weller and MezzoMezzo. BMK (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might be transliterated wahab'il yahuz? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing for an acceptable substantial English article, if there are sources, this is best then restarted when better. Nothing currently convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Girls Junior Derby

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

no indication of significance. Speedy declined. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur there's nothing at all here for any applicable notability, it's a local league founded only 4 years ago and the sources show exactly what a non-notable subject would be: their own links and such. Nothing at all convincing for notability here. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should be speedy delete. Nothing in the article is suggestive of notability per WP:NSPORT ( = no "claim of significance"), also not a single unaffiliated Google result. Speedy incorrectly declined. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Miller

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

Non notable plastic surgeon. I consider the list of see also's to indicate advertising, but my speedy on that ground was declined. With respect to WP:PROF, clinical assistant professor is the lowest possible academic rank in the field--essentially an adjunct. Only minor publications, which may account for why none of them are listed. Highest citation figure 50, which is trivial in the field. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clear CSD#A7: not even a shred of a claim of significance. --Randykitty (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources currently in the article are either self-published or are listings on webpages of various societies that he pays money to. I found lots of promotional material, including press releases but during my searching I didn't turn up anything that was reliable and independent. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability of an academic. We seem to have a lot of promotional articles on surgeons of various types going around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Chang

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

Non notable plastic surgeon. Looking at Google Scholar, I see several papers, but the one with the highest number of citations has only 49, which is utterly trivial in medicine. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I waited for perhaps people to improve at best, but no one has, so I comment Delete as the analysis is convincing and there's nothing at all for the needed solidity notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND with no substantive independent references. What is given is clearly originated by the band . Was PRODed but PROD removed Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's just enough in the references to meet WP:GNG. If I understand the automatic translation of the reference in Slovak, the band won a 41-band contest to open for Desmod. The band's producer is fairly renowned Roland Grapow and the band's albums receive reviews in metal-specific publications. Pichpich (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I googled more references to meet WP:GNG. Band has mentions in worldwide magazines and webzines. Also known guitarist of Masterplan Roland Grapow is producing them, I also added a video where he talks about their album. Xextro (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus, no deletion calls outside of the nominator and an excellent effort to update the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO standards. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtissam Lachgar

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

Lacks notability. Fails WP:GNG. CounterTime (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly a major human rights activist in her country, the most cursory of searches brings up ample independent, third-party coverage, clearly meets GNG. Some source material is in French, however. But it's there: Examples: Quoted iN USA today, also: [3], [4], [5], [6]
Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, including in major international publications. AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to be one of the few openly irreligious people in Morocco and also an LGBT activist. I have improved the article (see here) and added references. I guess it can be kept now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Worlds Casino Entrepreneurs

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

Non-notable list of people. No explanation on why this categorization of people is notable as a group. Seems to have been created by the editor to prop up the notability/link depth of Deniz Toprak Kiziloz. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. shoy (reactions) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing insinuating why this is its own article instead of, what would be better, a part of another article especially if a list is all here. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish Business People in Bulgaria

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

Non-notable list of people. No explanation on why this categorization of people is notable as a group. Seems to have been created by the editor to prop up the notability/link depth of Deniz Toprak Kiziloz. Twice contested proposed deletion -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both entries don't even reside in Bulgaria according to their Wikipedia articles. Arved (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Arved, since it's not only an irrelevant, WP:indiscriminate category but also factually inaccurate. GAB^gab 15:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Notability not established. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as by far nothing to suggest its own actual notable article, this is also vulnerable to constant promotionalism, non-notable and other concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Smoking Celebrities

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

Non-notable, trivial list of people. No explanation on why this categorization of people is notable as a group. The inclusion criteria is also vague. Reads more like a clickbait list than a Wikipedia article. Seems to have been created by the editor to prop up the notability/link depth of Deniz Toprak Kiziloz. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Autarch (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. shoy (reactions) 15:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. I will now attempt to create Celebrities who use Windows and Celebrities who wear glasses. GAB^gab 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this it's indiscriminate to list such a wide group of people like this over something that's not a major part of their lives. It's certainly possible to verify that many of these people are cigar-smokers, but I'm not convinced that the article satisfies WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as by far too large and unclear a subject to actually have its own article, especially here at Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging the Kundiman

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

No coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines nor does it meet those for albums. Opencooper (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redirect is the proper way to go here: not every album by a notable artist is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing for independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves of Paris

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

This article contains two references, one of which is to a vanity press, and both of which seem of dubious reliability. No citations are provided for any of the (short) text to these references. Most of the online subject matter using this title regards gay erotica, fiction of the event, or is fork or mirror. There is also Metaphorical Representations of the French Revolution in Victorian Fiction from JSTOR, which suggests the term was created as a metaphor about enemies (I can't access the text, but the Google Scholar snippet view gives this impression.) Mind matrix 18:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-I absolutely agree it's low-quality. Given contemporary references to some of these events - Alexandre Tautey's 1880s edition of Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, written by a 15th-century cleric (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_d'un_bourgeois_de_Paris) - I do wonder if further research would be beneficial, or if the article should simply note that while this has been written about extensively - by, for example, Mark Twain - there's little primary proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.18.27 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This relies way too much on Lulu.com and Edwin Mellen Press, neither of which is reliable. The Simon-Schuster book, Of Wolves and Men looks to be a literary analysis of wolf stories. Barry Lopez mentions the story of Courtaud but doesn't seem to definitively state if it's fact or fiction. Not unlike Beast of Gévaudan, I think this story conflates details of actual wolf attacks thereby assembling a tale. Were the article written per WP:WAF it could be passable but using questionable sources that assert it's true, I have to say no. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the matters of hands being actual accuracy and other information relevancy is enough, and this is not an easy subject to help clear such concerns. Delete as there's nothing currently convincing of what it is expected for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Koller

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fail of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has never managed in a FPL or a full international match Seasider91 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the PROD should've deleted this, nothing at all for any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Music from Chicago

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

This orphaned article was created by an SPA, who likely had a COI in creating it. The only source used in the article never appears to have been valid, but took until 2 years ago before it was noticed that it was dead. Even the "official website" hasn't been updated since June 2008. While cleaning up this article I tried, but was unable to, establish notability of the subject so I prodded it, but the PROD was removed. AussieLegend (✉) 18:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be no longer in existence, no notable coverage, fails WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two words; brokered programming. Paid to get on TV, really lousy late night time slots (As a viewer of WMLW I can't even remember this show to be honest). Another one of many paid music programs on broadcast television which mainly exist to give local bands the ability to brag "we got on TV" but had neither the ratings or acclaim to get anything but that (the fact they bragged about being tied with a Packers pre-season replay at 3:30am is downright embarrassing), much less any radio airplay. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC
Comment I dePRODed this because I am not sure where regional TV shows stand in terms of notability. I guess, I think of WGN and TBS when I think of regional, but they are now almost full fledged networks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's still nothing to actually suggest any form of independent notability apart from it being a majorly local indie show. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving Rip Currents The Willis Way

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

While there is some notability to this survival method, it really only merits mention in the Rip current article, not a complete article on its own. Article is written in a "how to" style and also is a back door plug for the Willis Twins. The title does not look like a good redirect. Safiel (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could not locate any reliable sources for this topic. Tinton5 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly nothing to suggest why there should be its own article for "surviving" it, there's nothing at all and there's nothing here that cannot be moved to the other article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Leonard

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

Non-notable Funimation voice actor. Her major parts are all supporting/minor roles with Joshu Kasei in Psycho-Pass being the most prominent. No appearances in anime convention circuit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notalbe voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing suggesting any solid independent notability apart from works with notable films and series, thus not acceptable since inherited notability is not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough prominent roles, no reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematicians who studied chess

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

A non-notable intersection, entirely unsourced. An unsourced assertion is made that "naturally" chess appeals to mathematicians. Some of the people listed are noted mathematicians who happened to play a bit of chess, others are noted chess players who happened to study mathematics at university. A similar list could probably be made of economists, lawyers, psychologists etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There are no sources present to give any indication of why this particular intersection is notable at all. It is just a list of people who happened to have had interest in two random, unconnected fields to varying degrees. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see BBC and New York Times. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even allowing for this the article needs a lot of work to bring it up to wikipedia standard, and I don't mean just adding a few names. There is simply no comparison between Anthony Santasiere, a minor chess master who taught high school mathematics for his day job, and Abraham de Moivre, the great 18th century mathematician who may or may not have played a bit of chess in his spare time (no source is given of course). To me the article doesn't look worth saving. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid problems of this type, I'd like to see this restricted to people who made notable contributions to both chess and mathematics. This is definitely a non-empty set — it includes for instance Elkies and Smullyan — but is it large enough for an actual list? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people would meet wikipedia's notability criteria in both chess and any other field. Elkies wouldn't qualify for an article on the basis of his chess achievements - he's one of about 1000 National Masters in the US, and the World Chess Solving Championship doesn't get a lot of attention from chess news media, let alone from mainstream media. Off hand, I can think of very few people who meet wikipedia's notability criteria for both chess and one other field, and none of them are mathematicians - there's Kenneth Rogoff (economist), Mark Taimanov (pianist), Miguel Farré (also a pianist) and Stuart Milner-Barry (codebreaker). MaxBrowne (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elkies, NM is not enough for chess notability of course but I was actually referring to his contributions to chess problems and his problem solving championship. And for Smullyan, his chess notability comes from his popularization of retrograde analysis through writing two books on the subject. I don't think we should require that the subject be independently notable in both categories, but they should have some sort of claim of significance beyond studying mathematics at school or playing chess at an amateur level. Another possibility is Kenneth W. Regan. We don't have an article on him but he has made contributions to both computational complexity and chess (specifically, analysis of rating systems and of computerized cheating, not so much for his over-the-board play, although he is an IM). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention Primary decomposition and Emanuel Lasker. :) 189.63.172.98 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that's the other one I was trying to remember. So that's three people with significant contributions to both worlds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, although I would be willing to change my mind if the entries were cited and some actual, referenced justification was given as to why this particular intersection is interesting. Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my feeling too. I can be brought around but only if the article is significantly improved. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Andrew Davidson mathematicians who studied or played chess is a topic that has received attention. David Spanier wrote in Total Chess that music, mathematics and chess are linked by their propensity to produce prodigies, and the pursuits have other connections too. Admittedly the article is not the best right now, but the current state is not so poor as to demand immediate removal and it won't ever improve if it is deleted. List of amateur chess players is an example of what the list could become if it were trimmed a bit, sourced and expanded to describe the contributions to math and chess. Quale (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about the list (leaning a very weak keep), but I wonder if it makes sense to think instead about an article Chess and mathematics which would cover a broader intersection of the subjects. We have, for example, Go and mathematics. There's also Mathematical chess problem, recreational mathematics, and the Chess'n Math Association... Not something that has to be decided at this AfD, but if such an article existed, it would make for a very sensible merge target (for any sourced content). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of citations, no obvious standard for inclusion on either criterion (what's the threshold to be declared a "mathematician"? What's the threshold for "studied chess"?), no way to judge completeness or timeliness. I agree Chess and mathematics would be an interesting and valuable article, as it's clearly a significant crossover; this list, though, is no more verifiable or useful than, say, List of mathematicians who wore braces. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Before I !vote is it me or is there a WP:SYNTH going on with this article...? There are obvious source issues but just wondering if it's just me? - Pmedema (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never sure what these lists are meant to achieve. "Studied" is a very flexible term and mathematics come in many forms, pure and applied. There's an obvious link between the disciplines, but equally we could have a list of musicians; stringing together notes to form a tune is akin to combining chess moves to create tactics. Ed Lasker has written about these connections, but here we have no discussion and a consequent lack of usefulness. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt. Sandstein 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Syria

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

clearly fails WP:GNG. this article is entirely based on primary sources being government press releases. In fact most of the sources are actually about the appointment of an ambassador to Egypt whilst holding a secondary role as non resident ambassador to Syria. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with non genuine WP:MUSTBESOURCES or WP:ADHOM reasoning which will only weaken the case for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge info. I agree with the nominator. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little. I must admit to have had some trepidation when these pages for former embassy postings were created. The page List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway being a prominent example of this (Australia has never had a resident embassy in Oslo!).Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt. It appears that a partial merge has occurred, but some of this content is not on the merge target page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt. As a stand-alone topic, it is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and then consider Merge as needed, nothing to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of batsmen who scored 50,000 or more runs in all forms of recognized cricket

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

An other sock creation with questionable notability. 50 000 runs seems like an very arbitrary number and what says this is notable? This is just an other list (among many others) from ESPN Cricinfo without evidence of widespread notability to pass WP:GNG. Once created and never updated (so out of date) is one issue as well. Qed237 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons of geographic bias. This clearly favours English cricketers who play a lot more of first class and limited overs cricket. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ESPN list works on a threshold of 40,000. St Anselm (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Completely arbitrary threshold, and there is no category called "all forms of recognized cricket". Wikipedia is not a statistics database. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe this is a notable landmark (say compared to 10,000 Test runs) - it's just a random cut-off with a vague inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing to suggest the needed solidity as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely made up (in terms of benchmark) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we were to keep this list, then what stops us for having lists with 15000, 20000, 25000, 30000 runs etc? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Marfone

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

Entirely non-notable. References are, putting it very kindly, insubstantial. AfDing rather than speeding because some people might consider being responsible for a couple of non-notable games is a claim of notability; there's nowt so queer as folk. TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following related pages should also be deleted for lack of notability, and have added them to this AfD. - ubiquity (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. Plenty of references, but they don't establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets standards defined in WP.GNG. As the author of this article, I have verified that the article and references establish notability:

Significant coverage is referenced
Cited sources meet guidelines for reliability
Secondary sources are cited
Content is independent of subject
Therefore, the subject can be presumed to be suitable as a stand-alone article

Removed date of birth per request below. I still believe this is a notable topic. Vrinvestor (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that you cite indicate independent coverage. A link to Amazon, or the App Store, or PR websites may establish that this person exists, but they do not indicate notability as Wikipedia defines it. Press releases or user-submitted content websites are by definition not independent of the subject. shoy (reactions) 17:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All 3 - I don't agree that the sources are reliable but I'll say that he and his games do exist. Where it fails quite obviously is that there is no notability for this subject or the games that he has made which can be more specifically found in WP:NGAME. In looking into Ryan Marfone, I can see that is is "investing in Virtual Reality". Possible WP:COI issue? - Pmedema (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this - Hello, I am Ryan Marfone. While I'm super humbled that you want to create a page for me I kindly ask that you take this down. I'm not a fan of publicly displaying my personal information on a site that can be edited by anyone. - ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmarfone (talk • contribs) 18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC) I also want to add that I'm not a notable topic. I'm just a normal dude. Please delete.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with G7 after original author blanked page in response to request of the apparent subject of this bio. dstone66 ^{(ṭạḷḳ)} 20:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far this has not happened with the two game articles, so they are still under consideration here. ubiquity (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both games - unsourced and no claims of notability. shoy (reactions) 15:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've deleted the original article under G7 as the creator blanked it. I'm leaving the AfD open to discuss the two other articles though. Hut 8.5 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both that still exist, nothing at all for any minimal independent notability, newly started indie games with nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balkrishna

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

How is this nonsense allowed? "He has explored four rare and extinct aṣṭavarga plants used as ingredients in the preparation of chyavanaprāśa, an Ayurvedic tonic. Discovered the sañjīvanībūtī of legendary fame." This article should be up for deletion. If no neutral information can be provided, none should be provided at all. Least of all claims of resurrecting extinct plants or creating magic medicines!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.152.105 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Edit: Marked for deletion. As per Wikipedia's deletion policy ^[1], this article violates rule #4 "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content", #7 "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" - Good luck finding sources for him rediscovering extinct plants, #9 "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons", blatantly violating no original research and #14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" which clearly states no to "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" or "Self-promotion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.152.105 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite heavily, or blow it up and start over. I have completed the nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. Subject is clearly notable based on the sources already in the article, but the article is completely whitewashed of the negative information found, for instance, in the cited Business Standard article. This needs a far more neutral treatment. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per WP:UGLY I'd like to see the article cleaned up a little, sources are not a problem here. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think this should be subject to WP:TNT or deleted as a whole. The article is too biased to be saved and evidently written with a clear autobiographical positive bias and serious whitewashing. A few newspaper articles and recognition by the Indian Prime Minister in a minor, insignificant and not well publicized press release does not necessarily demonstrate the necessary notability requirements, and sources should be more carefully examined to determine whether if they indeed do establish notability based on their credibility, the significance that the subject matter of the article is reflected upon (in this case, Acharya Balkrishna) and reliability as sources. Works of publications/primary sources by the Balk... that do not add to the article itself and uncited awards/information further lends itself to the notion that it is an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: A 94% stake holder of a ₹5000 crore company Patanjali Ayurved.[7]. & in news not just for that.[8][9]. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've reverted the article to an earlier revision which is reasonable if not great. I've warned User:Kingsuknandi who was responsible for much of the NPOV issues with the article. Another editor who edits the page frequently is User:Aashishssharma004; his might be a promotion-only account as his edits are only concerned with Balkrishna, Patanjali, and Patanjali's Acharyakulam. I'm unsure if he should be reported/warned.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the person and the company are very notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-independent sources and a few passing mentions elsewhere do not establish notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cours de Formation Generale pour Adultes Ruraux

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

Non-notable organization. Another in the dozens of Jesuit centres stream of articles that are largely based on thin notability and a web of inter-related self-published sources. This one has very poor sourcing. This organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise and promote religious ventures that do not meet the notability rules. Belongs on a its own site. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article deals with a notable developmental work over a long period of time, with sufficient international notice shown in the references.Jzsj (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. the sources do not cover the subject in depth and secondly zero gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better and there's nothing to suggest actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Gulf Finance

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

I would've PRODed too, my searches are finding several links, including some about the actual Deutsche Bank itself and not this 2010-start company, but all that I've found of this specific bank is nothing convincing for better notability. You'll notice this article's history is also troubled therefore notifying past user and tagger AllyD. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added another reference to support part of the article text, and I did find mention of one other award (TradeArabia (2011) – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), though too trivial for the article itself, but this amounts only to evidence that this joint-venture exists and not evidence of its encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic Games

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

Non-notable video game company who have yet to produce anything. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they were notable back in 2012 for going to develop a game called Police Warfare and are now notable for developing Last Year. It is going to come out this November. Don't make James Wearing mad he gave me all the info about everything and he was really happy about it so how about I give you his email and you take up its Non-notable with him as all the members on his team are notable they worked on all kinds of games. And Canada Media Fund and Epic Games donated to them for Last Year so why would they donate if there a Non-notable game company. And there game is due for November 2016. So how about you tell me why it's Non-notable and il send that to James Wearing and then he will probably write something about this to. So I don't get why you say Non-notable thousands of people donated to to the Kickstarter campaign and Canada Media Fund and Epic Games the makers of Unreal Engine even donated to them so why would they do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistoryKnower (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is obviously way too soon to have an article about this company. Notability is established if the company gained significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. However, most sources seem to only focus on their upcoming game, Last Year, instead of the company itself. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have still found nothing better, the company is only newly started within the past few years and there's nothing at all to at least insinuate this has become better noticed and can be minimally independently notable from its own games. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, much WP:TOOSOON. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, classical case of WP:TOOSOON. Cavarrone 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Melville

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO and doesn't inherit notability from his brother, Herman Melville. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not inheritable -- Wikipedia 101. Quis separabit? 20:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all to suggest there's the information and solidity for his own article, quite unlikely to ever happen. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betelgeuse Studios

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

WP:TOOSOON. The company was formed two months ago and is clearly not not notable. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, it looks too soon for an article yet. There are no hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search for any of the company's given titles. Once they get coverage, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've got my suspicions that this is a hoax altogether. I came across the article when he added it as a developer for a game that is stuck in development hell, and it seemed unlikely that a studio formed months ago had come out of the blue to take over. Zero sources, and questionable edits by the article creator, make me think this is fake, or no more "real" than me declaring out of the blue that today, going forward, I'm going to start a video game company or something... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and there's enough consensus for this, only a newly started localized company with therefore nothing at all for any applicable notability and I would've frankly considered A7 and PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a probable case of advertising and definitely too soon. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSSCart

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

No indication of notability for the company. Essentially no coverage in independent sources except for trivial company listings. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC) No longer a penguin (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New company, article self-soruced, producs blank news google search [10] delete as WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and there's enough consensus, there's nothing at all to suggest a 3-year-old local company would've obtained enough news sources to suggest any applicable notability including the specific companies notability. There's nothing at all convincing whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Elston

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

Despite the text, this is an article about an Associate Professor at an American University. This level in academia is deemed inherently notable. The remaining refs show that she has won an award and has been an editor on two publications. Nowhere is there any evidence of independent notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google scholar lists [11] five papers with over 100 citations, and an h-index of nearly 20. It's not enough even to put her in to the top 25% of economists in her state [12], let alone the top 10% of the US or world [13] [14] but I think it may be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. -I've also sent it to WP:RFPP due to it being repeatedly created, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Creation-blocked/protected" by Ponyo. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DXZQ

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG one of a tranche of very similar articles that look like re-creations of articles deleted in the past Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per CSD G5. The Creator was blocked by @Bbb23: indefinitely with the note "Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roi Casilana" --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as no consensus after two re-listings. The nominator was blocked as a sock puppet and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus and a third relist wouldn't benefit the article in my eyes. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fazlur Rahman Faridi

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

~~Notability~~ - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 12:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Fazlur Rahman Faridi) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the nominator elaborate, please? The article is a bit underreferenced, but it does have links to two lengthy independent obituaries that call him "eminent" and "renowned". Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Content copied from the link: http://thesolution.in/wiki/dr-fazlur-rahman-faridi @User:RHaworth • Arts Rescuer 23:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but it looks like it is vice-versa: the text of the article was copied to the external web site. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks like a copy of wikipedia: the article's creation date (according to its metadata is 2015), while the wikipedia article here has been around in its present form since 2013. Uanfala (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArtsRescuer, Your vote as nominator counts automatically. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and restore or restart if needed at all later because, if there's anything acceptable from the current article, I'm simply not seeing it and the current article is noticeably troubled thus there's simply nothing at all to actually suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is probably notable, as shown by the sources cited in the article [15][16]. Also, Google Books search returns many hits [17]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I've had a look at the first 15 results in the google books link you provided, but they all either cite him or are written by himself. None of them appear to be about him, so I don't think they are relevant here. Citations might be (according to WP:PROF), provided he's been cited substantially more than other scholars in his field. Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator did not have a decent reason to delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found in sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Of note is that there is disagreement herein about whether or not WP:FRINGE and fringe theories are applicable to the subject and the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Traynor (Royal Marine)

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

Non-notable recipient of an alleged miracle Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be among the list of published historical miracles associated with Lourdes. Quick Google check of this man brings up info published about him http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/09/france.religion and he is notable enough to get some debunking coverage in Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/zdxtb/investigating_the_alleged_miraculous_recovery_of/

Article just needs better references, which shouldn't be too hard to get IMHO. 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC) He is mentioned in a number of books, and I found one book on him specifically "John Traynor: His Miraculous Cure at Lourdes" 1858 - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NIuHNQEACAAJ&dq=John Traynor miracle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUlOKU3N3MAhURtJQKHbJrBCIQ6AEIIDAB Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reply - that might justify a paragraph in the article on Lourdes, but not an entire separate article, especially one with such NPOV sources as the one you mention; falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to have an entire article to himself. Article runs into problems of fringe issues. His supposed 'miracle' cure seems to be presented as fact. Only unreliable paranormal books seems to cite this guy. Reddit is not a reliable source but I see what you were getting at, but even those comments do not list any critical or skeptical evaluation of Traynor's claims. There is no in-depth coverage from any reliable academic books, so I would have to say delete. HealthyGirl (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above book that was mentioned "John Traynor: His Miraculous Cure at Lourdes", I believe to be an error. No publisher is given and appears to be self-published. If you search for this book on Google Books or any search engine, literally nothing comes up. The book is not listed or sold anywhere. The date is also wrong. It is listed as being written in 1858, but Traynor's story occurred in the early 20th century. Whatever this is, it is not a reliable source. HealthyGirl (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it may (or may not be) worth there actually does seem to be an entry for "John Traynor: His Miraculous Cure at Lourdes" in Worldcat.org (pls see here - [18]). Given the lack of bibliographic details though (i.e. no date, no publisher and no place of publication) you may be right about it being self published. Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all here better convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding sources to article now. Agree with [[User:Deathlibrarian, sources exist, page needs improvement. The Patrick Marnham book on Lourdes that I just added to the page has a long section on Traynor. Note that although I often run paywall-protected and archive searches on subjects at AFD, all that was required here was to glance at the first page of a simple google search on John Traynor Lourdes. Then , after reading two articles in newspapers, I clicked books. There are lots of good sources, including the sort of "in-depth coverage" form reliable books and scholarly article taht an editor above sweepingly assers do not exist. It clearly passes WP:GNG even without taking the time to assess the reliability of the many Catholic pietist websites. I am NOT accusing anyone of bad faith, but I do think that running couple of simple WP:BEFORE searches ought to be the least an editor should do before dragging an article to AFD or iVoting keep, let alone making sweeping assertions that turn out to be falsifiable with a cursory search. End of rant. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you are doing is adding sources written by believers into the article that support fringe claims. This is a problem for WP:Fringe. You are writing this article like this miracle is factual. This is a problem. I have been reading skeptical articles and books on the paranormal now for over six years (I have an extensive library of over 400 books), and I am telling you there isn't a single academic or skeptic source that evaluates Traynor's claims in a critical manner. All we are left with is sources written by believers endorsing his claims. The article is seriously in violation of WP:NPOV. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian?? Patrick Marnham??? the Liverpool Echo Believers in saints and miracles?? Seriously?? Those are the sources I added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I did not add, nor do I maintain, that a miracle happened at Lourdes. If we can please return to reality in this AFD, all that I am claiming is that pilgrimiages and milagle claims can be notable in the same way anything becomes WP notable, by being discussed in multiple reliable sources. Of source, I don't edit about ghosts. I do read sources before commenting about them at AFD. And I respectfully request that User:HealthyGirl rescind her remarks about me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pious sources I do wish to clarify that books by Christians can be used to established notability. For example, Father Paul Glynn is notable author and a Catholic Priest. His book, Healing Fire of Christ: Reflections on Modern Miracles has an entire chapter on Traynor and THIS IS A KEY POINT I do not know what he says in that chapter, but I do know that that chapter counts towards notability even if it proves, upon reading, that he what HealthyGirl calls a "believer" in Traynor's miracle cure. In other words, an article on a miracle might pass WP:GNG even if "there isn't a single academic or skeptic source that evaluates (it) in a critical manner." Just as many, probably most, WP articles meet GNG without academic sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that had User:HealthyGirl taken the trouble to read my edits - or the page - before commenting, shoe would have seen that among the sources I added was an article from the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. I apologize to other editors for this lengthy post, but I take sourcing seriously and I'm just ticked by that accusation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have come across too hard, but I am afraid I am not convinced this article should be on Wikipedia from only sources that present this 'miracle' as factual, there are serious fringe problems here. The Guardian piece for example only mentions Traynor on one line that says "Royal Marine John Traynor was wounded in world war one. In 1923, he was dipped in a bath nine times. His paralysed legs then supported him again." The content in the piece in the Liverpool Echo is also entirely unreliable (it even spells his name wrong as "Jack" - "Jack was a Royal Marine severely wounded during the First World War,” explains Michael. “He was from Liverpool and he went with a group of fellow Catholics from the area to the shrines at Lourdes. While he was there he went to services and visited the baths nine times, even though he couldn’t walk or move one of his arms. After a blessing from the Archbishop of Rheims he went to bed. When he woke up he walked straight out of his hospital bed and ran into the town. He went to the Grotto and prayed the rosary." Whilst these might be considered reliable sources because they are newspapers we are dealing with fringe claims here so I do not believe this is acceptable weight. These are not academic sources and this to me is just endorsement of fringe claims. Of course it is not up to Wikipedia editors to question what is in reliable sources, we just cite them but it's impossible to have a neutral article if we are citing sources like this. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and John are the SAME English name, Jack being an very old and accepted nickname for John. President John Kennedy, for example, was called Jack by all of his friends and family. That is NOT an error of fact, but even if it were, newspapers are RS even though thy do make the occassional error of fact. Please familiarize yourself with sourcing on Wikipedai.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

respond This is not relevant to notability. The article can be written in the same tone we take with any other miracle story. "According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad flew in a single night on his mount (whatever that horse's name was) from Mecca to Jerusalem where he ascended to heaven, returning in the same night to Mecca." We do this all the time. Not just on Wikipedia. It is the way people write objectively about miracles. It is not all that different form the way objective people write in the articles you usually edit, about ghosts and people with paranormal abilities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article runs in violation of WP:Fringe, the book that has now been cited The Healing Fire of Christ was written by Paul Glynn a priest and believer in miracles. His book is described as "This book draws our attention to the intervention of God in the lives of those devoted to his mother. The blind see, the lame walk, the poor have the Gospel preached to them. Miracles are real but they are metaphors as well, calling our attention to the power of God and our destiny beyond time." [19]. So much for "objectively" writing about miracles on Wikipedia. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that a miracle happened. It states that the both notable author, journalist and travel writer Patrick Marnham and the notable author and Jesuit priest, Paul Glynn wrote at length about the topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am done trying to communicate with you, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia policies on fringe theories. I think it is time other users have a look at this, I will not be further responding. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources, both academic historians and popular books, I remain flummoxed by Healthy Girl's inexplicable characterization of article/sourcing, let alone a justification for posting this on the FRINGE theories noticeboard. Religion, history - but FRINGE????18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

Merge/Redirect over to the main page about Lourdes apparitions and miracles as he, as an individual, is not that particularly notable other than within the context of the long-running claims about the site. Both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E are very much on my mind. I don't think the justifications are proper for him to have his own page, let alone one with the details that it now has. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who he was "As an individual" hardly seems relevant. More to the point is the fact that for a century he has been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable newspapers and, to an even greater extent, in books: in pious books; in humour books, in travel books; and in serious, scholarly considerations of pilgrimage, miracles, and belief. In re: WP:ANYBIO, it is certainly easy to source the facts about his life to mainstream sources. But in re: WP:GNG the sourcing is so strong that he passes, he just does. (full confession, I stumbled on this one, but was provoked to source it by the patent falsity of HealthyGirl's assertion; "Only unreliable paranormal books seems to cite this guy.")E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fringe is not applicable - you could apply that to any religious belief. There are source that indicate this was believed by some, and there appear to be a number of sources written on him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note That while there may be sources characterizing this as "fringe" or "paranormal" no such sources have been found. Many discussions of Traynor exist, so such sources may exist. But we cannot add "fringe" to the article unless sources are brought to support it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was posted on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Prefer Merge and Redirect - I can see that this fringe theory is well sourced and apparently generally notable, however, I'm not convinced there is enough content to justify a solo article. I think that the autobiographical details could be cut or significantly trimmed, and the relevant claims about the miracle could be merged into the Lourdes article. I do not support a complete delete, but I'm not fully comfortable with keeping everything we have here either. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but think that our collective secular bias is showing. The sourcing already on the page is strong, although I pandered to the secular bias I share with other editors in choosing to add secular sources to the page. I could have added sections in books from pious publishers, such as Saints Who Raised the Dead: True Stories of 400 Resurrection Miracles by Father Albert J. Hebert published by TAN Books. It covers Traynor in some detail, and is not the sole pious book to do so. Note that the publisher's page is paltry, although it looks like a reputable house [20]. We lack good articles not only on Christian publishers and Christian pilgrimages, but on many significant historical and contemporary Christian topics - and I would argue that this is a result not merely of the fact that we skew secular and edit on topics that interest us, but that we have editors who apply different standards to articles of interest to secular people and topics of interest to believers. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the recent work of E.M.Gregory this topic does appear to have the legs to be notable per WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage it has received (not just at the time but many decades later in some cases). Given that the article is now in decent shape (with the potential to continue to move forward) there seems little need point in binning it. That said just because there is enough to write an article doesn't mean our readers would need this level of coverage for this topic, and I agree with Fieari's suggestion that this could be covered just as well by merging and redirecting (baring in mind any undue weight issues in any possible merge target. Dealer's choice. Anotherclown (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted as copyvio by Doc James Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek H. Potts

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

Impeccably formatted article with lots of references created in just 4 edits by a new editor. Deceptively well-sourced. (Likely paid editing.) Minor award and limited coverage not above what can be expected of any lawyer. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for mentioning its flawless , I have been researching for 2 months to post articles in wiki and Thanks for the comment . May i know the reason why its shows such a template ? The article got enough news articles compared to similar articles . And I wrote this article with Bryan Aylstock as reference, it got even less news mention. Fimiosilana (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not say that it was "flawless". It's deeply flawed. I said it is "[i]mpeccably formatted", something quite different. As for Bryan Aylstock, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : impeccably means flawless , whatever as I am new here , I can learn only by looking at other articles. Its unacceptable than you see flaws with this page and not with the similar other page ? Moreover the awards mentioned in the page are prestigious awards, Awards see the link . Fimiosilana (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting is impeccable, not the contents. Whatever. As for other pages, if they are deficient, you're welcome to propose them for deletion yourself. This is not the place to discuss their merits or lack thereof, here we are solely concerned with the article on Derek H. Potts. And, no, as far as I can see, the awards are rather minor. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much is copied and pasted from http://www.potts-law.com/attorneys-2/derek-potts/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeet Vishwakarma

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

Nothing indicates that the subject is notable. There were a bunch of references in the article, but I pruned out those which did not have a single mention of the subject's name. The ones which are left are not reliable sources and in any case not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Neither are any reliable sources available online to support notability. In addition to all the above, I suspect COI editing going on here. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Soi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Kewat --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per my comments on the other two AfD's. Probably vanity article and possible conflict of interest involved. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::: Conflict confirmed here. see the Vicky Kewat AfD. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Just because this person might be known in India, it doesn't mean it should have a Wikipedia article as there are almost no sources that can confirm his significance. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Soi

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

Nothing indicates that the subject is notable. There were a bunch of references in the article, but I pruned out those which did not have a single mention of the subject's name. The ones which are left are not reliable sources and in any case not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Neither are any reliable sources available online to support notability. In addition to all the above, I suspect COI editing going on here. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajeet Vishwakarma and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Kewat --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the unwanted reference has been removed from this article and only true soursces are now there so please check the page.Akash Dahariya (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:PROMO, failure of WP:NACTOR. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Probable vanity article. Suspect also a conflict of interest with the involvement of Akash Dahariya above. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict confirmed here. See the Vicky Kewat AfD. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established, when judged by the various criteria already mentioned above. Currently there are two self-published sources and an indexing website included in this article. A piece from the Tribune Lifestyle section is included as a reference, but Soi only gets a passing mention and it doesn't really substantiate any content in the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Just because this person might be known in India, it doesn't mean it should have a Wikipedia article as there are almost no sources that can confirm his significance. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Person not notable. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jinnahpur. Actually, consensus is to merge this somewhere else, but editors will need to figure out where to. In the meantime I'm redirecting to the most-mentioned possible target. Sandstein 17:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhajir Sooba

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

This article came to my attention after an IP began making claims that this article was a hoax and vandalism (see page history and this discussion on my talk page). After discussing the issue with the IP, I looked for sources and couldn't find any at all. Even the sources in the article do not mention the words "Muhajir Sooba", and I think that it either fails GNG for complete lack of notability or should be redirected or merged with another article (the IP thought it should be redirected to Mohajir people). Nominating for AFD to get community input. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it was a pure Vandalism (Hoaxing Vandalism), and Political hoax (Hoax) , Defamation, derogatory, and I had just only AGF to point out the misconceptions, hoax, utopian, buried topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.156.252 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "hoax"? Your use of that word is very confusing, and you never explained it when Oshwah asked either - could you please do so now? There is nothing defamatory or derogatory (much less libellous) in the article, so those claims are also very confusing. Please explain what you mean by those words (and note that Wikipedia includes topics that many people find distasteful - in fact, I don't think there is anybody in the world who won't be offended by one or more of the topics we have articles on. That does not mean that those articles should not exist.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral(Assume good faith) Merge to Mohajir people or to Sindh as suggested by bonadea, hoax I mean (Hoaxing Vandalism) and Political hoax as well , in other mean political gain, blackmailing in a politics to gain the advantages. It was a political advantages gaining from the government, as the hoaxing group had already more perks and privileges they had enjoyed since 1947. After the government resolved their concerns then the issue became dead and it does not exists anymore. There are examples of Refugees in the world that refugees migrate from one land to another due to various reason but it has never been happened that the separate province had been built for the Refugees , refugees had always been merged into the native community, and that is also the case with refugees after migration from India to Pakistan during and after the partition of Indian subcontinent. actually Pakistan was never been the demand by all Muslims in Indian subcontinent but it was coined by the northern India Muslims (in the North India these Muslims were in minority; whereas the Muslim of India who were in majority in Indian Subcontinent states/provinces did never demanded for separate country, Abul Kalam Azad had rejected a separate small country for the Indian Muslim whether he wanted to a united India which had been governed by the Muslims since centuries) who loss their perks and privileges in the British India. When these so call Mohajirs came to Pakistan they did got all the evacuee property left by Hindus of Sindh, Since then they had been enjoyed all the advantages of the new land.61.5.156.252 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly why I asked for your definition of "vandalism" and "hoax". So, it appears that (by what you said above) the article subject is a hoaxing group, or a group of people that exist, but create "hoaxes" or (probably by your definition) miss-statements of truth in order to gain unfair advantages or receive things in return that they wouldn't otherwise have. This is entirely different from hoaxes themselves, which was what I was trying to figure out from you. I'm not going to lie to you: there were some editors here who believed that you were pushing a point of view. I believed that you were, too. But, I will always honor and abide by the principal of giving others the benefit of the doubt.

Articles that are about hoaxes are allowed on Wikipedia; it is not vandalism or a hoax to write about a hoax. It is a hoax in Wikipedia's definition of policy if the article itself was completely lying about the existence of something that doesn't actually exist. Writing about Santa Clause, something most parents "lie" to their children about until they figure out that he isn't real (sorry to break it to you, Bonadea, but your parents were eating the cookies you left on Christmas Eve :-P), isn't a violation of policy. Now, if the article was created and said that he was real, then that would be a hoax (and essentially vandalism). I know that you were beginning to grow frustrated with my questions, but editors ask me for help with resolving difficult and heated disputes for a reason. It's because I take the time to ask these questions if they need to be asked; they're very important! They help me to determine how you define certain words and terms we use here and why you believe an article meets them, and they help me to investigate your claims correctly and explain the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that are not being understood correctly.

All of this aside, I will acknowledge that the revision of the article that was previously published here appears to be a "hoax"; It's unreferenced and, by your explanation, is describing the very thing that this group of people falsely fictionalize to others. This revision is not a hoax, as it describes the group of people that lie about the very thing that the previous revision was stating was true. All of THAT aside, there doesn't appear to be references that describe this group of people at all, and I don't think that they're notable enough (per GNG) to have its own article. Hence, it is being discussed here.

There was a lot of information and a lot of different issues and misinterpretations of policy definitions that I had to figure out. It's important to know that this is how dispute resolution should work; if done 100% correctly, even the most difficult or complicated dispute can be resolved and proper action taken! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perception/assumptions by some editors are not true as I didn't intended such things, I have not pushed anyone to a point of view, however I was only being a netural and I gave the explains why its subject to Vandalism, and Political hoax or political gain , it was issue, which is no more existed, it has been buried. I was only pointing out that such topics does not qualifies for the standalone articles here on Wikipedia. Regards... (.....)

You have acknowledged the concerns raised by me, there is no sound proof as no any given reference mentioned topic title and its important and its also not justified why the topic is important the title of the article also does not justifies the reason why its important. I had initially suggested that either it should be deleted or merged to the relevant articles. You would have been very glad that you have achieved the success by asking THIS IP , well I also congratulates you all, but friends as I saw the history of that article I saw it was useless content, sometimes I observed it was a vandalism, to resolve it I did what I felt was good enough. Any way I still thinks that article does not bears to be existed at all, So its suggested it should be speedily deleted or merged. Thanks (The IP(Intelligent Person))

Merge to Sindh. Hopefully some editors who are knowledgeable about Pakistani topics will weigh in, in addition to the IP above, but while we are waiting for that: the article talks about two partly different things, first about a political movement to create a separate province for the Muhajir people, and second about that province itself. The fact that the movement exists is well-sourced in Dawn (newspaper) (dawn.com), which appears to be a thoroughly reliable source, and all the existing sources confirm the fact that there has been a proposal to divide Sindh, but that it was rejected in the Sindh Assembly. The name of the proposed province is not mentioned in the sources, as Oshwah observes, which means that the current name of the article looks like it might be original research. I haven't actually searched for spelling variations, which is always necessary when looking for sources for names that have been transcribed from other writing systems, but it is perhaps telling that Dawn.com doesn't mention the name of the proposed province at all. I suspect, based on the IP's information, that this is a minority proposal trying to use Wikipedia to gain more legitimacy (especially since the article was rewritten to make it look as if the province actually existed!) and I think it's probably not notable enough for a standalone article. Since it is a proposal to divide Sindh province, and since there are sources for it, I do feel that the info could be moved to the article about Sindh. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Muttahida Qaumi Movement. My talk page was also 'accosted' by the IP, and after further investigation, I've found a number of disconcerting edits by them, but more of that later. So, first off, this topic seems to be highly charged and politically divisive, but that being said, there is no way that the page would meet the requirements of a hoax or vandalism, not even close. I do notice that the page was subject to an edit war in October 2014, with the first shot being the addition of this, which was seemingly reverted on political grounds. So, given the creation of an independent province is an actual political objective of the MQM, I would suggest that the page be created as a separate topic of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement page. Now, an investigation of the IP's edits reveals a history of politically motivated vandalism, starting with his very first edits, here and here. His first edit on the page in question was this, where he deleted by insertion, followed by tagging with a CSD with no reason attached. It was shortly after declined by an administrator. The IP then blanked the page which I immediately reverted. He then blanked the page again and created a redirect, which was then reverted by Oshwah. (Hence why the IP rushed to our talk pages about 10 min later). I passed the hot potato to Oshwah, the consummate negotiator that he is, who patiently negotiated with the IP before deciding to achieve consensus by bringing the matter here. Technically the IP should have already been banned for 3RR with 6 reverts, but we have been very considerate in giving the IP significant latitude. I also think Oshwah should be commended for his amazing fortitude and patience in dealing with a difficult issue. David.moreno72 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In the province under reference there exists a division of Rural and Urban with a ratio of 60:40. This is the proof of administrative division. Therefore two tiers of a unit seem to be logical and sustainable. In this scenario page be kept separately. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nannadeem, The division ratio you have mentioned is the jobs division ration between the urban and rural, in real such geographical division does not exists. So its requested do not mislead. Thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "Under reference division ration 60:40", I have gone through the references and could not find evidence of such claims; Even I could not find the title of article Muhajir Sooba, which is not mentioned in the references.Jogi 007 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jogi 007 Neither I have discussed geography nor the page title. In the interest of encyclopedia I am attempting to save the contents/page. Besides I am not certain which reference have you talked about 60:40 ratio. 60:40 ratio is fact, please see Merit/Provincial/Regional quotas for recruitment to civil posts Sl. No.13 of Civil Establishment Code (ESTACODE) [21], in addition to page Quota System in Pakistan one more link, here [22]

Comments: Your statement “In the province under reference there exists a division of Rural and Urban with a ratio of 60:40.” What do you mean by under reference which reference you were talking about which you have asked me, the reference I mentioned articles references, where as you have given the external links for 60:40 ration, which I have told you is the ratio of job distributions, yes it’s a fact for job distribution for rural and urban but it’s not a geographical distribution ratio.Jogi 007 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table-I: Area & population of Administrative units by Rural/Urban: 1951-1988 Censuses for the Province of Sindh, see here [23] provide total population of the province @ 3,04,39,893 with a breakup of 1,56,00,031 (rural) and 1,48,39,862 (Urban) in 1998 Census. Thus 60:40 ratios are self explanatory question and route cause of disturbed urbanization. I think it is two wings of a units and needs solution on the basis of logic and equity instead of dealing with adhoc arrangement. Nannadeem (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It’s the job of assemblies and legislators to balance that equity, but it does not qualify that two separate articles with different name be kept on Wikipedia. So the editors have voted for the merging the article with the relevant articles.Jogi 007 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (1) The province under reference - I mean Sindh Province. (2) I have already stated that "neither I have discussed geography nor the page title. Now for your satisfaction, it is submitted that: if there is one province and two divisions of quotas then geography may be defined in like manner of Urban and Rural distribution of quota where all cities except Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur are considered rural Sindh. For detail of admin Divisions please go through Divisions of Pakistan and List of cities in Sindh. Nannadeem (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jinnahpur, which also demonstrate the same topic, I reached here by the Watchlist of the page.Jogi 007 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jinnahpur Agree with Jogi don, subject remains the same. Both Jinnahpur and Muhajir Sooba refer to same geographic piece of land, were demanded by the same political party for same/similar reasons. No need to have a separate article. --SMS ^Talk 06:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Page Jinnahpur also reveals Jinnahpur a conspiracy (allegation) which has also been denied, whereas wing (e.g. Sindh-I or II) in a province is a demand. If an allegation and a political move seems to have like routes and strategies then merger to Jinnahpur appears to be rational, otherwise it will be a misnomer. Nannadeem (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Jinnahpur was also intended for the same purpose, so therefore its suggested to merge article 'Muhajir Sooba' to 'Jinnahpur ' as per Wikipedia rules two separate articles with same objectives and topics should not be kept. you mentioned Sindh-I or II, which is not the name of article. first making a conspiracy (or according to your point of view 'allegations') then masking it as a political move for the same intentions and objectives make no difference. So its clear that two separate articles with same objectives can not be kept separately on Wikipedia so they should be merged.Jogi 007 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Karachi Soba was first launched by one of the leader of National Awami Party (NAP), Mr. Mahmoodul Haq Usmani, when the Capital of Pakistan was shifted from Karachi to Islamabad. At that time there was no MQM or Dr. Saleem Haider, President of Mohajir Iteehad Tehreek, I think well known initiator of Mohajir Sooba, for details please read this[24] and this [25]

(2)The MQM has policy for division of Sindh on administrative grounds. I quote from the contents published in The Nation (Pakistan) newspaper on 10-Nov-2014 Quote:The slogans of PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari against the division of Sindh getting close to the people of Karachi with the MQM proposal of Sindh 1 and Sindh 2. Apparently MQM Chief Altaf Hussain has cleared that the party doesn’t want to divide Sindh rather than seeking administrative division for the prosperity of Sindh and Pakistan and it could be named as North Sindh, South Sindh, East Sindh and West Sindh, said Ameen. Quote over, link is here [26] more links [27] & [28]. In view of this history the merger appears to be out of context. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you have stated above there is no evidence for the separate province, it was political issue for some time, There have been severe allegations on MQM for its treason, disloyalty with Pakistan, Money laundering cases, Karachi Operation, its links with external spy agencies i.e RAW South Asian Terrorism P{ortal [29] [30] [31] [32],and its better to merge the article with one of the above merging suggestion. Both Jinnahpur and Muhajir Sooba relate to same geographic piece of land, were demanded by the same political party for same/similar reasons. No need to have a separate article Jogi 007 (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps instead because if there are concerns about this IP who mentioned all of these claims and there's nothing to suggest otherwise, we can redirect if there is the substance and need for it. SwisterTwister talk
Redirect Delete or merge with Jinnah pur. Even better if merged with MQM Waqaroptimist (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knackered Barnacle Enduro Racing p/b FedX

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

Non-notable cycling team. It does not pass the notability guidelines for cycling and a quick google search find no evidence that the topic passes the general notability guideline. Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself claims non-notability. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a recreation of a page that was deleted under speedy. Eagleash (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bengi (video gamer)

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

Not a notable person and article creator was blocked as a sock puppet. JDDJS (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Claimed notability is that of a two time winner of a high profile (professional?) video game championship... if the game in question was Starcraft, I'm pretty sure this person would meet our notability standards. My only question is whether League of Legends tournaments are of as high notability as Starcraft. If so, or if at least comparable, I'd have to !vote keep, but I'd like to hear other opinions first. Fieari (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional, yes. My feeling is that there is at least as much coverage of LoL as there is of Starcraft (Kotaku, for instance, has fairly regular coverage of both), at least in English-language press. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and say keep then. Fieari (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy google search turns up Daily Dot and The Score about him in particular, not to mention all the coverage he has gotten as a part of SKT. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoy. Also, I'm not certain what the article creator being a sock puppet has to do with the article notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zbig Kepa

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

Fails athletics specific notability requirements and gng. Nothing notable in his college playing career in division 3, no pro experience and no head coaching. John from Idegon (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find nothing but routine local newspaper coverage of changes of position between three local schools and a few quotes, not much different than what is, or was, found on the school web sites. No head coaching or professional league coaching experience. Does not meet specific sports notability standards or WP:GNG. Donner60 (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I have to agree for now. One day he could pass the threshold of notability, perhaps one day soon. But we have to judge on "now" don't we. Hope so!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding the kind of significant coverage needed in multiple, reliable, and independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Brickley

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

Ann Brickley is no longer a public figure Amandasm4 (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't believe that current status as a public figure is one of our notability criterions. If someone WAS a public figure, than for wikipedia's purposes, they always are. So I find Amandasm4's argument completely irrelevant. That said, I'm currently on the fence about whether political candidates for local districts are sufficiently notable. I'm not going to say that they are notable during the campaign, and then not notable if they lose and leave politics behind them forever. For consistency, either a local politician is only notable if they win, OR they are permanently notable. Obviously, candidates for larger political positions are notable... serious US presidential candidates, for instance, should all have articles (and permanently so, regardless of whether they retreat from public life later on). Small town sherrif positions probably should not have mere candidates listed as notable. So clearly there's a gradient... I'm just not sure where to draw the line. Governors? Senators? Representatives? A US Rep is still national, after all, but not as big as a senator.
I'll withold a !vote for now, as I want to hear more opinions first. But please consider the above. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the wrong way to think about things. This article is a biography. The rules about sourcing apply very strictly. So the only question is whether the primary notability criterion applies: whether this person's life and works have been documented in depth in multiple published sources by people independent of the subject with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. What class of person this person belongs to is entirely irrelevant. This is a biography of a living person. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office are not considered notable just for being candidates: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source a credible reason why they have enough preexisting notability to have qualified for a Wikipedia article independently of their candidacy, then they must win the seat to become notable because of their political activity per se. That's what Fieari's missing: candidates for president, or for statewide offices like governor or the US Senate, may very well already have enough preexisting notability — even in the uniquely bloated Republican presidential primaries this year, frex, every single candidate either had already held another NPOL-passing office, or was already prominent enough in business or medicine to get over those inclusion bars regardless of their non-passage of NPOL. But being a candidate for president is still no automatic guarantee of a Wikipedia article — we do not necessarily maintain an article about every tinfoil hat candidate from Podunk, Utah who's ever declared themselves a candidate for president, but restrict ourselves only to the ones who can be shown to pass WP:GNG for something. And candidates in individual US House districts are significantly less likely to have the necessary level of preexisting notability — it's still not entirely impossible, but it's less common than it is in the gubernatorial, senatorial or presidential races. So no, candidates don't get automatic inclusion freebies because candidate — they get articles if either (a) they win, or (b) the article is sourced well enough to show that they were already notable enough for articles anyway. But neither of those applies here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I believe that Bearcat is correct that WP:NPOL requires people to actually win their race or have additional notability factors. Here, I see insufficient outside notability factors. That said, I would argue that being a major party's nominee for federal office is still notable all by itself, but that is a bigger issue than this article. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst her notability is lasting and does not disappear if she ceases active political activity, she simply does not have enough notability. I strongly disagree with the above contention by @Montanabw: that anyone standing for an individual constituency in a national election from a major party is notable. Would that simply apply to the United States? Or would it apply for the UK? India with it's biggest democratic election? What about WP:NPOL? AusLondonder (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Poland, Mexico and every other multiparty democracy in the entire world. It would get completely unsustainable and unmaintanable fast. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of, " such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." In a federal system such as that of the USA, most major Congressional level candidates easily meet GNG for coverage. Where nations do not have state-level government, but merely a huge national assembly, I can see the problem, but essentially, instead of having an endless debate over the issue, I think it may need to be sorted out at NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES with a nation-by-nation determination, as determined by the editors in that nation or familiar with its politics: For example, the Greens in nations with a strong two or at the most three party system, such as Australia, the UK, or the USA are not "major" parties in any way, but in Austria, for example, they now are. In nations with massive multiparty systems and coalition governments, such as Israel or perhaps India, I can see the need for a determination of where the line is. One size definitely does not fit all. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the example of the United Kingdom. The House of Commons has 650 members. Labour and the Conservatives combined won 86% of seats. But the Scottish National Party came first in Scotland and won 56 of 59 Scottish seats. On the other hand from 2010-2015 the Liberal Democrats were a part of the government and in 2010 won 57 seats. In Northern Ireland all seats were won by local parties. So how would we decide what parties were included? In addition, regional parliaments exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We could soon have thousands of articles (often promotional) for each election. Coverage can almost always be found for major party candidates. In India a similar problem exists with different parties doing well in different states. AusLondonder (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of a legislative election, it would be a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR violation to base the "major party" distinction on how much chance the party has or doesn't have of winning an election outright. WP:NPOV would essentially require us to define "major party" as any party that has ever held seats in the legislature at all — so by that token, while the Greens in the US wouldn't qualify, the Greens in Australia, the UK and Canada would. And notability is not inherited, so the Greens having won a presidential election in Austria doesn't transfer special status onto the party's parliamentary candidates above and beyond that which the party's elected parliamentarians have already collected for themselves. And then you get into the fact that upstart parties sometimes break through with a handful of seats, or form from a small caucus of existing legislators who cross the floor due to a political dispute — and thus now also qualify as "major" under the only purely objective definition we could actually apply. It's an ugly road we don't want to go down. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the case of the US, the number of candidates for major parties greatly outnumbers those who have won elections, since figures like John Dingell faced 20 opponants over their careers. The truly notable ones will generally have held office as a state house member or state senator, and thus are notable on holding some office, not merely for running for office. A rare exception is probably Mia Love, who even in her first run for congress which she lost got way more than routine coverage. On the other hand I created the article back after she was elected mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah and no one challenged it then, and with her now being a member of congress whether the article on her should have been created as early as it was is merely an academic question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your example, John Pack Lambert is a good reason to consider US Candidates at least potentially notable. IN contrast, the position of {[u|Bearcat}} represents a consensus that should be reexamined for US Politicians. The points raised by AusLondonder show why we can't create a "one size fits all" rule and perhaps NPOL should be spun off into a separate page that outlines the general rule and then the rules for individual nations where a consensus exists. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His example, in fact, is completely consistent with the rule that already exists now: a unelected candidate can, in certain circumstances, already have preexisting notability for other things prior to their candidacy (e.g. if a person has already held another NPOL-passing role and then falls short in their run for a different office, then they're kept on the basis of office #1 rather than being deleted as a failed candidate for office #2), or can, in certain circumstances, "explode" onto the national radar with a volume and depth of coverage that more closely resembles the kind of coverage usually afforded to incumbent officeholders than the kind normally afforded to candidates (Christine O'Donnell is another example of that; the coverage turned into such a national media frenzy that she easily passes WP:GNG regardless of the fact that she technically still fails NPOL.) But Mia Love or Christine O'Donnell don't constitute proof that the rule itself needs to be rewritten to grant automatic notability to all candidates, or that the US needs a special US-exclusive exemption from the rule that would apply in any other country — they constitute proof that the rule is already working the way it should, because the rule already does allow for situations like theirs to get through the "more notable than the norm" gauntlet. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally oppose some kind of US exemption from the rules. We are an international encyclopedia that should cover topics with genuine lasting significance not cable channel election hype. WP:GEOBIAS is relevant here. Indian candidates contest larger constituencies in colourful and closely fought contests. If American candidates who lose are notable why not them? AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unelected political candidate & insufficiently notable businessperson. Quis separabit? 20:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The consensus is that failed candidates for the US House of Representatives are not notable for such, and Brickley has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Page does not exist. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfg2015

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

Reason sfg (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Summers

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

Minor non-notable baseball player. Article lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding any evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of a non-notable minor leaguer --Penale52 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But if kept, most would prefer a combined biography of husband and wife. Sandstein 17:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Grimaldi

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

Delete: as non-notable businessperson. Quis separabit? 23:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she had a New York Times obit. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Carol and Patsy Grimaldi (or something similar). I don't think we have enough info for just a Carol Grimaldi article, however, the couple and their work over time I do think merits an article. There was a lot of drama involved with the pizza business with these two. Including Pasty Grimaldi will allow Wiki editors to expand into a good and interesting article. I'd be happy to work on it it some more myself. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a weak keep, but given the news coverage, looks like a keep. I agree withMegalibrarygirl that it should really be a combined bio. Normally, I would say it should be an article on the business, but it changed names and that would make it hard to find.RockyMtChai (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grimaldi's Pizza instead as although the NYTimes could keep this, it's expected still at best and is still best connected to the pizzeria itself. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the obituaries, sources do in the main treat these two people inseparably, and thus so too should Wikipedia. There's a documented history for these two people crossing three different pizza shops, Patsy's, Grimaldi's, and Juliana's. And it is moderately in-depth coverage that addresses the people themselves, not solely the shops. Consider this 2012 New York Magazine article for instance, a source not in the article, and there are books that touch upon these people as well. There's other stuff about the husband in a book by Ed Levine, ISBN 9780789312051, for example. I think that the editors above have the right idea and the right approach: Patsy and Carol Grimaldi.
I forsee some interesting talk page discussions, as we have supposedly reliable sources giving the same man as both the wife's and the husband's uncle. New York Times says in the 2014 obituary it was the wife's uncle. New York Post in 2012 and several books say the husband's. Enjoy sorting that out.
Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diler & Associados

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

My searches found nothing at all to suggest better improvements for WP:CORP and WP:GNG, the Portuguese Wiki also offers nothing else better, this simply seems like a local company with nothing noticeably better for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per being arguably notable to Brazil. Portuguese translation of sources needed and the article then needs work and sourcing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Schmidt, , there are plenty of good sources that would make it pass WP:N, but they are in Portuguese. Some further adding of sources would be great. - Henry ^TALK 04:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Abdul-Shaheed

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

This is so questionable including for any applicable notability such as WP:CRIME and WP:GNG, it's not surprising my searches found nothing at all aside from this and this (PDF) and that's with searching at News, Books, browsers, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sources have been provided herein and in the article demonstrating the subject's notability inre #2 of the "For perpetrators" section of WP:PERP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources exist to support notability. As "Midget Molley" see, for example, a long 1989 profile in the Philadelphia Inquirer HIGH-LIVING N.J. 'MIDGET' CROWNED WITH DRUG INDICTMENT [33] 1989 AP/NYTimes article : Raid on Cocaine Ring Results in 16 Arrests [34] identifies him as the ringleader of the gang. His release form prison is covered [35] More coverage after he finds peace in Allah. [36] He is also Covered in a number of books [37]. At this point I was persuaded, and stopped searching.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Twister found, asnd linked above, to an Inquirer article I did not find. Searches always vary. I suspect that more searching would find more articles. But he appears to have been a notable criminal back in the day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really am quitting now, but here's a good one, it says that he was a preacher's kid. The press loves that. DRUG 'KING' DETHRONED JUDGE CROWNS HIM WITH 19 YEARS IN JAIL [38] Philadelphia Daily News, 23 January 1990. These are far from routine crime stories, they are filled with personal bio details and this one claims: "The February 1989 bust that crushed Shaheed's empire - described by Atlantic City authorities as their largest ever - snagged the king and 20 of his underlings." 'nuff said. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Possibly Keep~~ – I'm unable to access the Proquest links posted by E.M.Gregory, but from those I'm able to access and from the analysis presented above, the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC and WP:PERP, the latter of which per that historical significance comes across as having been demonstrated by sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage, devoting significant attention to the individual's role. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not sure per WP:BLPCRIME - there is far too much unsourced content for an article on someone who's notability is for something extremely negative - I would have closed the AfD as "delete" but it would look too much like a supervote, so I'll park this here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A matter, though, is that WP:BLPCRIME warns against "including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" for subjects who are not public figures. However, the subject was convicted and sentenced to over 19 years in prison (see this source from the Philadelphia Media Network for verification). As such, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to this subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I probably meant more straight notability rather than BLPCRIME specifically. It is perfectly possible to be convicted of a major crime and receive a large sentence, while still not receiving coverage beyond basic news press. If the crime was notorious enough to be all over the national press like a rash (eg: Fred West, Harold Shipman), then I think the article would be obviously kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, notice that the sources provided above by E.M.Gregory also cover his release and a settlement he received at the time of his release (Press of Atlantic City), and further information about the subject's life after incarceration (NJ.com). The subject also has an extensive biography published at Biography.com, which is provided by A&E Networks. The subject was also featured in an episode of American Gangster (see this link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – After further investigation, I have struck my "possible keep" !vote above, and am !voting for a "full" keep. The subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:PERP, the latter of which per that historical significance has been demonstrated by sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage, devoting significant attention to the individual's role. A source summary is presented below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

American Gangster. Season 3, Episode 3. BET. 60 minutes.
"Midget Molley Biography". Biography.com. A&E Networks.
Hummel, Jack (August 28, 2014). "Writer's journey from crack house to God's house". NJ.com. Retrieved June 10, 2016.
"Former A.C. drug kingpin free from prison, with extra money". Press of Atlantic City. November 22, 2009.
Suhr, Jim (October 3, 2007). "Muslim Ex-Inmate Alleges Prison Abuse". The Oklahoman.
Gonzalez, Steve (September 28, 2007). "Muslim prisoner claims mistreatment post-9-11". Madison County Record.
Campbell, Douglas A. (October 11, 1989). "3 Convicted As Members Of A.c. Drug Empire". philly-archives.
Schurman (June 11, 1989). "The Downfall Of A Drug Kingdom In A.c." philly-archives.
AP (February 16, 1989). "Raid on Cocaine Ring Results in 16 Arrests". The New York Times.
There are also three Proquest articles linked above by E.M.Gregory, which I am unable to access.

That looks pretty good actually, especially the biography.com article. I don't know much about that site though, how reliable is it? Anyway, I'll have a look at the sources and see what I can come up with. I will say that if this does get improved to a keepable state, large swathes of it will have been rewritten from scratch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited and added citations to the article; it is actually already very factual at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan al Haseri

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

Apparently WP:BIO1E, WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are questionable here since there's no other information aside from the currently listed and my searches have only found expectedly that coverage from the time. At best, this could restarted if needed as an article for the event, regardless I'm taking this to AfD for attention. Notifying author Geo Swan. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

@ArtsRescuer: WP:NOREASON - why? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This tagged by User:SwisterTwister 16:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) [reply]

Yes, we know that SwisterTwister nominated this for deletion, but what is your reason for supporting deletion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would basically consider this as "per nom" and agreement with my nomination. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be guessing what ArtsRescuer meant. If an editor doesn't explain an opinion then that opinion doesn't help us build a consensus, so it should be disregarded. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists about seven years ago. In my opinion the individuals on those lists, for which there is no additional information were the ones best described as being "one event" individuals. In my opinion those for whom there was significant coverage of why they were put on the list, or some significant event, after they were put on the list, were not "one event" individuals, and thus were candidates for standalone articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran a quick search, Results [39] persuade me that this was a notable killing of terrorists. That's lots of open access material that can be used to build the article. Looks like article creator had this one exactly right, only puzzling thins is why this was brought to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - E.M.Gregory finding is good. notable indeed. per WP:GNG as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Significant disagreement about the notability and worthiness of this topic relative to Wikipedia's purposes exists in this discussion. Those opining for deletion have stated that the article is promotional as attempted publicity, that the topic is not notable, and that the topic gained coverage per a "slow news day" but lacks notability per "enduring significant coverage in reliable sources". The nominator later followed-up stated that WP:NOTNEWS is applicable regarding the topic and that some of the recent sources added to the article are about a different topic. Users opining for article retention have stated that the topic is notable per sources that have covered the topic, that major news sources have reported about the topic, that it has received "news followup", and that the source coverage is "in-depth" and does not have an "interest in promoting the imaginary event". In a follow-up comment, a user stated that the topic "seems to be too local", "only localized to that local store," and lacks lasting notability, but this notion has been countered with the argument that the topic has received coverage in major news media sources and that it has received "news followup" This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular action has emerged here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suntukan sa Ace Hardware

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

Attempted publicity for an imaginary event. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by far as there's no minimal notability here and nothing at all to suggest anything else convincing from the apparent event. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article maybe notable as an internet phenomena. It has been covered by independent news sources such as ABS-CBN and GMA. Although the structure of the article is problematic. Too "memey". The supposed "8 rules" of the fictitious fistfight is likely not even posted by the organizers of the fictitious event and is more likely a non-serious/just-for-fun synthesis of the 8list.ph. The response of ACE Hardware to the event as a subject in marketing/advertising is a notable aspect of the internet phenomena, information such as if they boost sales from the event, if they failed to take advantage of the event.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why delete? Okay. Really, it was an internet (Facebook) phenomena. The event, too "memey"? It was actually considered as meme by [or news giant], GMA News and Public Affairs. The response of ACE Hardware really came from their management (because of the damage that the event can do and the mall security can't take on that), and you got the point, they failed to take advantage, that they should do, according to a big person (I forgot his/her name) working on an advertising agency. But later on, they realized that they should use bad publicity as marketing strategy so on the imaginary event date, they prepared small boxing ring where customers can take pictures, coinciding 3-day sale at SM City Lucena. Since, the event page owner took down the page already, I can't confirm if the 8List thingy was really posted on the event page. I am a Filipino and I can say that the 'crazy' event was really trending for how many days. They also relate the event to Baron Geisler, a Filipino actor on these past years that is always related to legal troubles, and even imaginary "Taguro", a take of "Togoru" from Ghost Fighter^[2], so please don't delete the page. Also, you can advice me what I should do to maintain the page. Thanks!--Manila's PogingJuan / PogingJuan (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about the tone of the article being "memey" not calling for the article to be deleted outright for being too "memey". Memes are allowed such as Doge article. Pardon if I'm going to nitpick one particular line but it's clearly that the netizens are joking when they said they cancelled weddings or childbirth. No one disputes that the statement was not really from ACE Hardware. Look I see this article has potential. Here is some advice. Add more references to the article. Discuss the article as if you are an outside observer in a more "serious tone" for the lack of a better term. (I know its a little challenge for something lighthearted for a meme like this but Doge managed to pull it off.). Also if you can manage to retrieve the source on the statement of this person on an ad agency, please do so. Avoid blogs like 8list.com or by non-professionals since these are unreliable sources. This also includes Facebook. Youtube videos can be cited as long as they are from a reputable source. Maybe add some concrete effects on the career of celebrities involve such as Baron Geisler, not only their fictional involvement. I can't assure anything regarding the deletion, since I'm not a moderator but please don't get disheartened about this.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've already got the blog of the President and CCO of Mullenlowe Philippines, the one I've said that is from an ad agency^[3]^[4]. I'll add it on the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PogingJuan (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! Seems like I forgot to sign. --Manila's PogingJuan / PogingJuan (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close the discussion? Thank you!

Reason: I have explained about the article, that it was an Internet phenomena at the time the imaginary event was posted on Facebook. I've also fixed it and added more references on it. --Manila's PogingJuan / PogingJuan (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment - The comments above however long they are are not actually emphasizing how this can be notable and improved thus there's nothing to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No. It's not because the comments are long so that the article must be 'keep' or discussion must end. Have you considered to visit the article first? As I compare the article now to its oldest revision, I can say that the article now is more notable than the time this afd discussion was started. Do you know what makes this article notable now? Simple. It has third-party reliable sources from GMA Network (GMA News) and ABS-CBN (ABS-CBN News), two of the biggest television networks in the Philippines, INQUIRER.net, one of the most widely read broadsheet newspaper in Metro Manila and the Philippines, FHM Philippines website, and a post from the offcial and verified Facebook page of Ace Hardware Philippines. Now, can you say me what makes the article not notable and improved? By the way, it was also notable and a trend to Filipino netizens. --Manila's PogingJuan 12:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the article currently stands, notability is self evident. It could possibly use more cleanup, and more improvements, but it's clear this made the news and was covered from at least two different angles, and was worthy of news followup as well. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N(E)- All improvements that is needed for an event article to be notable are set on this article, comparing when afd was started. All non-notable sources from 8list.ph for example are removed. Since the improvement of the article and afd being relisted, I haven't read any comments from User:DGG, who initiated this afd, and what a 'pro-delete' commenter User:SwisterTwister only commented about my long comments above that don't makes article notable and I think, he didn't even considered to visit the article first to see the difference of 'then' and 'now'. --Manila's PogingJuan 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough articles with more than trivial coverage to meet notability. The in-depth sources don't appear to have an interest in promoting the imaginary event. Gab4gab (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you think this is better now, you can restart it at userspace, for example: User:PogingJuan/Article or User:PogingJuan/Suntukan sa Ace Hardware. However the case simply seems to be too local and otherwise not convincing for any lasting notability and this was apparently only localized to that local store. Even if you say it's an "Internet phenomenon" and has been known, the article is still questionable and would perhaps read instead like a guide for that event and the "Response" section is particularly not helping either. It was also apparently "fictitious" and never actually happened nearly 2 months ago so even if it was a known "Internet meme", there's nothing else to suggest it's anything else than an apparently planned event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (comment by SwisterTwister)[reply]

Looking at it again myself, I continue to think it should be deleted. It was a local advertising stunt, which became a very minor meme, with no lasting presence or significance, or likelihood of any. I think the general rule is that such matters are covered by NOT NEWS. There is a degree of triviality that does not warrant coverage in an encyclopedia. In order to make it seem more important, references have been added for another event, claimed to be related. But this seems to have been an expected confrontation between lawyers for two politicians that turned out to be a extremely little interest; but from the reference, there was in fact some at least minimal factual basis. I see no connection besides that the two memes occurred the same year in the same country. Another ref.does see them connected on the basis that they are both absurd memes, but the actual article is bout the fictional events on two major TV shows. (btw, for those unfamiliar with me and the other editor, he does notify me about interesting afds at my request, but we agree only about half the time) DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This now forgotten and misleading meme was a short term "flash in the pan" phenomenon which received some "slow news day" coverage in the Philippines where it originated. More recent reliable sources dismiss it in a few words as "grotesque" and "absurd", and lacking enduring significant coverage in reliable sources, it also lacks notability, and should therefore be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Originally, it was not an advertising stunt for Ace Hardware. This event created in Facebook by a 'non-Ace Hardware personnel and a person who have nothing to do in life', is a suntukan or brawl and it's impossible that the management will create some brawl event (because of mall security and so it is considered by news reports as a 'meme') so they denied it by a response. Here in the Philippines, especially people in social media and the news media people, events like this one is being often sensationalized. But, AH realized that they should take the 'publicity' so on the same date, they just build a boxing ring where people can take picture. The 'suntukan' did not really happen in sense of a real brawl because of mall security and reputation so it was called imaginary or fictitious. Now, the real confrontation of the-now-president-elect and outgoing senator about undeclared wealth was really nothing to do about 'suntukan'. It's just they (especially people in social media) only described the confrontation similarly to this event. --Manila's PogingJuan 10:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. If this gets recreated repeatedly, this redirect may be protected. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 391

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

Had redirected, however an IP has decided to revert so I'm nominating for deletion.

No evidence of notability, just another run of the mill bus route. Jeni ^(talk) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG because there isn't "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" in place here. Imzadi 1979 → 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable(Ajf773 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, as the existence of this Category:Bus routes in London suggests that such routes usually have an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN:, On what basis do you feel the existence of a category merits a page to be kept? Where is the guideline that says "Articles that are categorised are inherently notable"? Do you care to explain how this route is notable? You claim that bus routes usually have an article, how have you come to this conclusion? It massively concerns me that an administrator isn't familiar with Wikipedia policies on Notability. Jeni ^(talk) 01:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the existence of a category for a type of article (or the existence of many such articles) is not evidence of notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the category exists, but that it contains (if you follow the link) more than 100 pages. That suggests that most or all such bus routes have articles, probably by a formal or informal consensus at the relevant WikiProject. There are many such "have an article regardless of GNG" consensuses here, some formal (automatic articles for populated places or national-level politicians), some informal (years ago I nominated a trolley station article for deletion and found out there was a local consensus that all constructed trolley stations were regarded as worthy of articles). I got the feeling that must be the case for London bus routes. However, I now see that there are also 200 articles in the Category:Redirects from London bus routes, so apparently redirects are accepted for some routes. So I am changing my opinion to "redirect" to List of bus routes in London. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources and I can't find evidence that this passes WP:GNG. I am happy to change my vote if another editor can show significant coverage of this bus route in secondary sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything which makes this particular bus route notable. Existence of a category an article fits into doesn't automatically confer notability: for example there's a category for Amateur mathematicians but that doesn't make everyone who dabbles in maths notable enough for an article, and the same principle applies here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. When some members of a class of articles with a predictable naming scheme (e.g. London bus routes) are notable then all members that class are normally going to be likely search terms. Non-notable members of the class then should redirect to the most appropriate page, in this case I see that as the list of London bus routes article which contains what information we do have about this route and offers links to other resources for the interested reader. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. If this gets recreated repeatedly, this redirect may be protected. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 350

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

Had redirected, however an IP has decided to revert so I'm nominating for deletion.

No evidence of notability, just another run of the mill bus route. Jeni ^(talk) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG because there isn't "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" in place here. Imzadi 1979 → 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the existence of this Category:Bus routes in London suggests that such routes usually have an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN:, On what basis do you feel the existence of a category merits a page to be kept? Where is the guideline that says "Articles that are categorised are inherently notable"? Do you care to explain how this route is notable? You claim that bus routes usually have an article, how have you come to this conclusion? It massively concerns me that an administrator isn't familiar with Wikipedia policies on Notability. Jeni ^(talk) 01:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the existence of a category for a type of article (or the existence of many such articles) is not evidence of notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the category exists, but that it contains (if you follow the link) more than 100 pages. That suggests that most or all such bus routes have articles, probably by a formal or informal consensus at the relevant WikiProject. There are many such "have an article regardless of GNG" consensuses here, some formal (automatic articles for populated places or national-level politicians), some informal (years ago I nominated a trolley station article for deletion and found out there was a local consensus that all constructed trolley stations were regarded as worthy of articles). I got the feeling that must be the case for London bus routes. However, I now see that there are also 200 articles in the Category:Redirects from London bus routes, so apparently redirects are accepted for some routes. So I am changing my opinion to "redirect" to List of bus routes in London. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources and I can't find evidence that this passes WP:GNG. I am happy to change my vote if another editor can show significant coverage of this bus route in secondary sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything which makes this particular bus route notable. Existence of a category an article fits into doesn't automatically confer notability: for example there's a category for Amateur mathematicians but that doesn't make everyone who dabbles in maths notable enough for an article, and the same principle applies here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. When some members of a class of articles with a predictable naming scheme (e.g. London bus routes) are notable then all members that class are normally going to be likely search terms. Non-notable members of the class then should redirect to the most appropriate page, in this case I see that as the list of London bus routes article which contains what information we do have about this route and offers links to other resources for the interested reader. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona graham-mackay

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

Fails WP:ARTIST; no works in major collections &c&c. Article unreferenced & smells to me of copyvio. TheLongTone (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources to verify notability per WP:BASIC/WP:ANYBIO/WP:ARTIST were not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found multiple RS about her role as a portraitist in the UK, especially her role as a painter of the British Royal Family. Added the sources to the article, rewrote it and removed copyvio issues. Article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to the efforts of Megalibrarygirl. Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's actually nothing particularly better for WP:CREATIVE, none of the necessary museums connections, nothing else here. Sourced, of course, but still questionable thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are Reliable Sources questionable? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it now stands does show notability - being commissioned to produce official portraits of members of the British Royal Family is notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that is essentially inherited notability. Secondly I don't think the lump of paint on canvas in question is an official portrait, merely one privately commissioned by the Windssors. I'd describe the (distressingly bad) portrait of whatever her name is in the National Portrait Gallery as an official portrait. What is it about royalty that makes people produce such shocking paintings??TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:HEY applies. Cavarrone 15:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Reed encounter

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

No WP:RS found for non-notable UFO claim. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can cover fringe theories and such if they are notable enough to have attracted non-fringe attention, such as a mainstream newspaper. Searches for any such reference have turned up nothing. I also tried searching for Jonathan Reed as a psychologist... again, nothing. Does not meet any notability guildelines. Delete. Fieari (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "encounter", which received plenty of publicity including exposure on the Art Bell show, has been shown by multiple sources to have been a hoax. Rather than gather these up in this comment, I can at least report that a google search for "John Bradley Rutter", which is "Jonathan Reed's" real name brings up several sources about the hoax. The article should not be kept as an example of an encounter or an example of a fringe theory. In fact, the section that describes the bogus encounter, which is a large part of the current article, should be entirely or almost entirely deleted. The article should be kept as an example of an elaborate hoax which did get widespread attention but which also was subsequently thoroughly debunked and discredited. The Google search turns up multiple mentions and appears to present adequate sourcing for the affair as a notable hoax. I may try to revise the article with the supporting citations soon, but I thought I should report what I found for consideration in case I do not get to it immediately. (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/jonathan_reed.htm is a link to a web site which exposed the fraud and discusses it in some detail.) Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched "John Bradley Rutter" on proquest news archives and on google news and came up completely empty, no hits at all. Am I using the wrong spelling? should I omit the middle name? I did find one strange book mentioning "John Bradley Rutter" but it's self-published by Lulu (company).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ufowatchdog.com is not a WP:RS, being on Art Bell isn't a guarantee of article worthy notability. I searched "John Bradley Rutter" and still only came up with mention in fringe sources and lulu selfpub books. No coverage by mainstream sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vested interest in this either way. As I said, I think this is not notable as some sort of prominent or unexplained UFO encounter but as a hoax which received some notice and then was debunked. I'll see what others think before working on the article. If the consensus is for deletion, so be it. If a consensus develops to keep and rewrite, I will work on it. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete a news archives search on proquest for "jonathan Reed" Extraterrestrial , then on jonathan Reed" UFO got only 3 hits: an October 2005 mention in a Seattle Times article about a UFO-believers convention, An out-of-this-world convention ; UFO believers tell extraterrestrial tales (color story about a convention); Oct 7, 2005 Irish Esaminer: UFO buffs tell of contact (includes some details of Reed's story); and an 11 May 2015 debunking in the Express online edition: Man behind 'irrefutable UFO crash proof' linked to string of alien hoaxes. That's not a lot. I found 3 items on a google books search, none by notable authors, 2 were credulous, at least 1 of these self-published, 1 called itself "critical," all read like WP:SENSATION in book form. No scholarly material or serious journalism found. I am not seeing enough here to keep, but f it is kept I want to confirm Donner60s sense that this article needs a total rewrite, and to say that the title would ABSOLUTELY need ot be changed to something like Jonathan Reed allegation or Jonathan Reed hoax to indicate the lack of, er... reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it were kept it would need a total rewrite to focus on the hoax, not on the fake encounter. A rewrite of the title also would be a good idea. It looks like the consensus is heading for deletion, however, and I am ok with that. I agree that the article as it is, even with the introductory material about it being a hoax, is not worthwhile. I do think the faked encounter and subsequent showing of a hoax have gained some notoriety, albeit since this is almost all from out of the mainstream sources, perhaps they don't make a case for notability even as a hoax. I am not changing my position, just acknowledging that I can see it not being the consensus. Donner60 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The hoax isn't really notable. It's gotten a smattering of commentary but not the kind of significant coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red Velvet (band)#Yeri. A merger can be performed by accessing the history of the redirected article. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeri (singer)

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

Yeri is not independently notable per WP:MUSBIO; co-hosting one show is not enough to make her notable. Random86 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not independently notable, and the relevant info on her page is already on the Red Velvet page. Yannaynay (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even Irene's not notable enough. Lonedirewolf 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:MUSBIO, or GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this insinuates how she can actually have her own notable article apart from the group itself. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect to Red Velvet (band)? --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As all the coverage I found was about the band and there is no independent notability. I wouldn't mind a redirect though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: In fact, once again, we are trying to nuke something when content can be salvaged. Just merge and redirect. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time given to consider redirect. st170e^talk 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Red Velvet (band)#Yeri is fine, but I don't think there is anything to merge. Random86 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep pending further discussion. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R160 road (Ireland)

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

This road is a regional road in Ireland and is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD because of a lack of multiple secondary sources. The sources on this article only confirm the fact that the road exists, but is a local road (to the county) and is therefore not notable and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. st170e^talk 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

Delete: It's not notable enough. Most regional roads don't seem notable. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 00:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MRD2014 pinging you because I've added more relevant pages to the nomination. st170e^talk 01:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:70E5:1E5D:56FC:CFF8 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~St170e~~ 2602:306:3357:BA0:70E5:1E5D:56FC:CFF8's argument that the article is too short is invalid. Current article length is not, and will never be a deletion criteria. That said, this particular local road does not seem to be notable in any appreciable way, which is a deletion criteria. So delete. Fieari (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken User:Fieari, I did not comment on article length. st170e^talk 02:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My eyes glazed over at the long string of hex codes that is the intended person's username, and your signature was close enough for me to mistake it. Sorry! Fieari (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable road. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, listifying it doesn't seem such a bad idea. I'm not going as far as to say keep though. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If these roads are deleted, then probably most of the Regional roads linked in the {{Roads in Ireland}} page footer template should go for consistency, and the template be remodelled to link only to notable roads. Some have been around a long time - this isn't just one editor mass-creating stubs: see R444 road (Ireland) created 2007 by @Sarah777:, R600 road (Ireland) created 2011 by @Darrman:, R123 road (Ireland), created 2012 by @O'Dea:, etc.

If these roads aren't found to be notable enough for stand-alone articles, perhaps it would be more helpful if the effort which has been put into them was recycled into a List of Irish Regional Roads (possibly split into two or more numerical ranges if it's too cumbersome) which could give a table with the basic information, with the sources already provided, for each of the roads, and would link out to the minority which are actually notable (and have incoming redirects for the rest). If the seven articles here were deleted, it would leave seven more redlinks on that template: I suggest that that would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. There are a lot of articles on a lot of fairly non-notable roads around the world (yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!) I guess this adds up to Keep all pending discussion of the whole group of "Irish Regional Roads" and the template and consideration of creating a List rather than mass deleting. PamD 10:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways/Europe#Irish_Regional_Roads to alert European Roads experts (there's no Irish Roads project as such) to this discussion. PamD 10:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be quite happy to merge all of the roads into a List of Irish Regional Roads because most of them aren't notable, with a few exceptions like R101 road (Ireland). st170e^talk 12:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per PamD. Typical practice in the U.S. is to listify minor roads that are likely to get a mention somewhere else (example: List of county routes in Rockland County, New York (1–38)) and I don't see these regional roads as being any different. –Fredddie ™ 11:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list as suggested by PamD. While the individual roads do not appear to have sourceable notability, the system seems to (based on my cursory understanding of the content at Regional road). The WP:USRD/RCS-style approach mentioned by Fredddie would work well here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, pending a broader discussion of Regional roads and the {{Roads in Ireland}} template. I endorse much of what PamD has said above. The template, with R roads, has been in existence since 2010 and may appear to confer class notability. Considerable effort has gone into many of these articles over time.

I would add that R roads are not county roads, though many run within a single county. They are a national system of regional roads below national primary and secondary routes. Many, often large, areas near the west coast are only reachable by R roads, particularly peninsulas. Areas of cultural and natural significance. Ireland's N roads are limited to two digits, whereas UK A roads run to three (or indeed four) digits and appear to have notability as a class. Axxx roads in Scotland, a good Ireland analogue in population, transport and terrain, are sometimes single-track or short and frequently minimally referenced in their articles. (This might be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but possible useful analogues have been mentioned)

I would offer that a good many R roads are significant, in the Irish transport context. Not all, I accept. And I hope we primarily consider this issue in the context of these roads' importance to Ireland. Disclaimer: I have created a number of R road articles myself, but wanted to add to this important discussion as such an editor and I hope the other pinged editors will too. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all— for now, but we can listify them in the future pending a discussion on what to do with them. Imzadi 1979 → 09:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and listify per WP:FIVEPILLARS. Wikipedia functions in part as a gazetteer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "ربوع السعيدة". Retrieved 28 May 2016.

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

[3] ttp://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/560923/hashtag/suntukan-sa-ace-hardware-goes-viral-on-facebook

[4] ttps://medium.com/@leighpod/it-s-not-everyday-i-get-invited-to-a-brawl-ee88ab400987#.u54q6jxkx

[5] ttp://philippines.mullenlowe.com/us/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]