The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Freedom Coalition[edit]

Sexual Freedom Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Authoer requested AFD as opposed to CSD for deletion, and I see no reason why we can't honor that request. Originally tagged as alleged to be CSD-A7 eligible. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indication of importance. The Dissident Aggressor 15:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found no convincingly good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Than Dallas[edit]

Bigger Than Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing at all to suggest third-party coverage much less improvement and notability with the only links I found this. With this existing since October 2005, I'm not seeing any signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find anything to establish notability. Fails WP:BAND. Me5000 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under CSD A10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · logs) Savonneux (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Moses Conjuration(Other Text)[edit]

The Sword of Moses Conjuration(Other Text) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Un-notable book. Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Uhhhh... WP:BEFORE We already have an article on this. The Sword of Moses I cant redirect it with a AfD tag on it, but I assume that is what the editor was referring to and not the specific ebook reprint of a 19th century translation. Seriously though.--Savonneux (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Storsenter[edit]

Bergen Storsenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD on a mall. One source was added(out of zero). I can't find any other sources. Fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sourcing is easy. Geschichte (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify what you mean by "sourcing is easy"? I see you added one source which brings the grand total of sources to 2. Two sources is not enough to pass WP:GNG. I also can't evaluate the source since no link is provided, but the information you added was just that a different chief executive took over. How is this wp:sigcov? Me5000 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What about 200+ Google News hits? Not that Google News is always very generous when it comes to the non-English sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as easily notable and meeting WP:GNG. A search in Atekst shows 1,521 hits in printed newspapers. A short combing through shows that there were (at least) four non-trivial articles exclusively about the mall just so fart this year. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Does nom speak or understand Norwegian? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added a handful of references and there's plenty more online. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdPushup[edit]

AdPushup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORP. All material about the company is passing mentions in the context of other similar businesses, press releases and articles that appear to be written by its own employees. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: most of the reference cited are not even known website, lot of wrongfull claim leading to indirect promo of the company. and as per WP:CORP is a pass by mention Shrikanthv (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see citations from TechCrunch, TechInAsia and Economic times which are known websites with their own Wikipedia pages. Sonakshi87 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, can you please list out the "not even know websites" as well as the "wrongfull claim" which you noticed? Sonakshi87 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am surprised to see that how come an entry be nominated for deletion that has primary coverage over websites like techcrunch, economic times, the next web, vc circle, business standard, yourstory.com, nextbigwhat.com, techinasia.com and many more & has been featured on a leading business news channel of india NDTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip7jpXGZx-Q) and also has been selected by Microsoft for the Microsoft accelerator program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.70.250 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A search in google news brings several significant references which are enough to keep this article in Wikipedia. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep simply because it at least has minimal news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deltalina[edit]

Deltalina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The notability of this BLP is questionable. Many statements are unsourced, and many sources in this article are unreliable (blogs, forums, YouTube, etc.) Does a former airline safety video presenter really warrant its own article? sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 06:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can see if there is continuing commentary. There were a bunch of articles about it back when her first video debuted. If I find in-depth analysis, especially that made years after the video, I'll say Keep. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sovereign Sentinel: I checked Google Books and found some commentary here:
    • Bogost, Ian. How to Do Things With Videogames (Volume 38 of Electronic mediations). University of Minnesota Press, 2011. ISBN 145293312X, 9781452933122. p. 143
  • He refers to media mentions in Wired and makes a comment comparing Deltalina to the Pan Am era. What do you think?
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Martin, Grant. "United's New Safety Video Helps Turn A Page In Airline Marketing Strategy." Forbes. August 4, 2014. "Delta was the first carrier to user the legacies into the next generation of safety video largely helped by the talents of Deltalina, the finger-wagging flight attendant that both chided and fascinated the traveling publc. Published in 2008, Deltalina’s video has since surged to over 3.2M views on Youtube. Virgin America’s dance number, by contrast, has earned 9.7M views since its October 2013 launch."
  • This indicates continuing coverage.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that this "indicates continuing coverage" so I say keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't really think that it is notable on it's own - would be better as a short passage on the Delta Air Lines page. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Check the criteria for notability WP:N -- this is notable. Keizers (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – adequate coverage in reliable sources, notability guidelines met.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Might also be considered a consensus to keep, actually, depending on how much weight one gives the IP opinions. In this discussion, the nominator's view that articles that may be the result of PR efforts should not be considered evidence of notability is not widely enough shared to gain consensus and to override the standards our current notability guidelines provide for.  Sandstein  19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Burke Harris[edit]

Nadine Burke Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable. What she actually seems to have done is started a clinic and gotten significant publicity. I can find no papers in Google Scholar. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. It is possible she meets the GNG because of the New Yorker article, but otherwise she is merely one of a team that produced a study.She is on committees but is chair of none of them. She has received no awards. This article needs to be started over., to be written without phrases like "Hailed as a pioneer in the treatment of toxic stress". I have removed some undocumentable claims about her from the article on Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I let this stand first time I saw it mostly on the strength of the 2013 and 2015 SF Chronicle and Examiner pieces. What say you about these? Too little to establish notability? — Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle article is one on each of their nominees for an award, an award she did not receive. It takes herr at her own word, as principal investigation of the research project , which she was not. The Examiner is more about the project, & again bases its part about her on her. I consider both PR. The problem here is that a great deal of newspaper coverage is PR. AA PR guy who contributes legit here & whom I trust told me that the ideal way to do things is to persuade reporters to write genuine articles about the person or company, and editors to insert them. WP's notability-by-sourcing rules are helpless against such tactics, another reason why I would go by any rational measure of importance. I no longer think the popular press can be trusted as an indicator of notability (FWIW, I've for several years been having this suspicion about New Yorker profiles of various interesting people, and I have not been adding them routinely.) The only thing that ultimately shows notability by sourcing is the historical record, and that too depends on the particular interests of historians, and of course doesn't help us for current topics. We need WP:V, but anything dependent on the subject doesn't even have WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous sources here as well as ones in article demonstrate clear notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous sources on Google Scholar. Look under her maiden name "Nadine Burke" here

Here is some of the ones I found:
Burke, Nadine J., et al. "The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population." Child abuse & neglect 35.6 (2011): 408-413. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population

Briggance, Bram B., and Nadine Burke. "Shaping America's health care professions: the dramatic rise of multiculturalism." Western journal of medicine 176.1 (2002): 62.

Scott, Brandon G., et al. "The Interrelation of Adverse Childhood Experiences within an At-Risk Pediatric Sample." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 6.3 (2013): 217-229.

Trade2tradewell (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per excellent comments by DGG. User:Trade2tradewell, those are original papers by the subject, not independent third-party sources and don't seem to me to answer the notability requirement. This is in part my implicit taking of sides with DGG in the effort to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios, even when they have the backing of what I would have expected to be reputable publications. If I have anyhing to do with it, we shall not be content to be "helpless against such tactics". Tomwsulcer, would you do us the favor of not just throwing up a Google search, but rather point to specific entities that demonstrate notability? Brianhe (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe, I reference those papers because DGG wrote that he could not find anything on Google Scholar, so I pointed out that she does appear in Google Scholar as "Nadine Burke" , see link above. You stated that you are biased even though the objective evidence shows that the sourced publications like The New Yorker, San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, Los Angeles Sentinel and a news piece from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are highly reputable. Whether you or me expect them to be reputable or not, The New Yorker is reputable. see here. She has received an award, I just included it on the page a few minutes ago, The James Irvine Foundation 2014 Leadership Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 August 2015

Brianhe, maybe you could do us a favor and not vote "delete" until you've done your homework, such as looking at sources like this one, source says she is winning an award here, she's quoted as an expert here, a source says she is advising Hillary Clinton here, in which it says The San Francisco pediatrician is a key figure in Hillary Rodham Clinton's first philanthropic effort, an initiative to promote scientific studies of early childhood development and research-based policies to help kids. Many more sources possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trade2tradewell I did not say I was "biased"; I said I was persuaded. There's a difference, which you should understand if you'd like to participate in deletion debates. In fact my first statement when I entered this conversation was that I had decided that the subject was notable, so where in the world do you get this idea? Also please sign your comments. Tomwsulcer I guess the right response here is a succinct "all awards are not created equal", and to reiterate that I was persuaded by DGG's analysis that the Chronicle (sfgate.com) sources are now suspect. I think I'm done here. — Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe so you think this source is inaccurate? What part of it do you think is untrue?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If true, it contradicts the basic premise of your article, and of your addition to the article on the study, because it says "i n late 2008, a colleague told Burke Harris about the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, a long-term project led by Kaiser Permanente and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. " The articles have been repeatedly insisting that she is the leader of the survey--it seems from this she isn't even involved as one of the leaders, though she may have participated as one of the people in this multi-center study. There might possible be a basis for an article on her, but not by a COI editor. You have shown your inability to write about the subject in a NPOV manner, so there's nothing else to do but to start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I see your point, that there may be a discrepancy here, resulting in confusion about whether (1) Burke Harris was the leader of a medical movement that figured out the link between adverse childhood stressors (parental divorce, incarceration, abuse etc) and long term health risks later in life or whether (2) Burke Harris implemented study recommendations in her clinic, such as asking about stressors and, if found, getting psychotherapy for her young patients possibly to help ease the stress. Still, DGG if you're right, that simply involves us Wikipedians getting the story right, and in my view, does not affect whether Burke Harris is notable or not. I continue to think she's notable, regardless of whether she was the study pioneer or not, since her role in this area is considerable, with plenty of media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solution might possibly be to make an article on the clinic, which is the only thing that appears certain, and the only thing for which there are RSs for notability. BLPs with substantial reliance upon unverifiable claims are normally deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: added this: Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship Recipient[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8101:8B82:BDDD:F911:6AF:68F2 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — 2601:640:8101:8B82:BDDD:F911:6AF:68F2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as per DGG and Brianhe. Searches did not reveal anything to show the subject meets notability requirements. No substantial coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - our job is to determine if subject is covered in depth in reliable sources. It is NOT to do an investigation whether or not said coverage is the result of "PR" by a reporter who was persuaded to write an article by the source in order to get a Wikipedia article - that's completely ludicrous and is not policy in any way. Oh and Brianhe it's nice of you to side with DGG's witch hunt "to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios," but as someone who was outright accused by DGG as being "clearly" a paid COI editor, I can assure you that DGG's instincts as to what is a promotionally placed bio aren't that great. I'm still waiting for an apology on that one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK if there are minor inaccuracies in the sources or article, the entire world is welcome to edit. 009o9 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON.Mango 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) 28 August 2015‎— Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Confirmed sockpuppet's !vote stricken
• Comment 1 Certainly it is "our responsibility" to find out if the coverage by what purports to be reliable sources is based on PR, because if it is, the source is not reliable for notability in this instance--and if they make a habit out of it, not reliable for notability at all. Efforts to remove promotional articles are based on WP:NOT, and I think the present state of Wikipedia is evidence that all of us who care about our remaining an encycopedia need to greatly intensify them. I of course can be wrong in any particular instance, but I do not think I am in this one. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 I do apologize for missing the articles listed. For the first one, there are 56 citations in G Scholar. The second is cited 14 times, the third zero. This is way below the standards for notability in biomedicine. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of multiple examples of significant coverage in presumably reliable published sources. In short, a GNG pass, which is what we're here to determine. Content debates belong elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR. Also, WP:GOOG provideth: Mar'11.[1] Jul'11.[2] Nov'13.[3][4] Jan'14.[5] Aug'14.[6] Nov'14.[7][8] Lastly, WP:SCHOLARSHIP means legit papers, via wiki-reliable co-authors/editors/journals, do help show WP:N, there is no WP:ONLYIFSHEHASTENTHOUSANDCITES that I'm aware of. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@75.108.94.227: Just curious, as someone who is not voting here myself, why are you invoking WP:IAR? Seems a bit odd. Quis separabit? 17:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, satisfying WP:GNG is sufficient for a bangkeep. Clearly she does. But the arguments being made here for deletion, is that she's "gotten significant publicity" but somehow still fails wiki-notability. So I'll go ahead and fall back on the gold standard: WP:IAR applies to exceptional situations, where the rules indicate one thing, but common sense indicates another. Here at this AfD, the rules clearly indicate a bangkeep, so the only argument for bangdelete is basically, ignore-all-rules-and-delete. However, that would be mis-applying WP:IAR, since the article (when de-pufferized which isn't a matter for AfD) actually improves the encyclopedia. Anyways, I don't think invoking IAR ought be necessary, for either bangkeep or bangdelete, but I also think WP:GNG is passed with flying colors... since GNG has been brought up multiple times before, I figured I'd just cut to the chase. Shrug. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Animal magnetism. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetizer[edit]

Magnetizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Nothing here that isn't in Animal magnetism, & I don't think article title is a suitable redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't this substantially a list?--Savonneux (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that the article isn't very good. (That's not my fault -- all I did was make a Redirect.) But let's leave at least a Redirect. The reason I created the Redirect was that I heard someone use the word "magnétiseur" in French, and I wanted to know what it was. So I found it on the French Wikipedia. But there was no link to an English Wikipedia article. So I went to the trouble of searching for an article in the English Wikipedia that talks about these people, and then created an "article" (really just a Redirect) so that people can click on the link in non-English Wikipedias and find the article "Animal magnetism" in English. So please don't undo my work just because the article now is not of the highest quality, or for some other reason. (Find something else to do please.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and disambiguate It's a list-ish article with few sources and a confusing name. Could easily be merged into Animal Magnetism as a list of practitioners. The term 'magnetizer' is used more often in the sense of 'Give magnetic properties to; make magnetic' per Magnetism and not Animal Magnetism making this potentionally confusing as well.--Savonneux (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article animal magnetism does not have the necessary explanations, found in article magnetizer (magnetizer, mesmerizer, mesmerists and magnetists), as Mr. TheLongTone says. I believe we should also explain the difference between magnetizer and hypnotist (to enrich the theme). The Mr. Savonneux comment about being a possible list, He that would be a reference to the issue, identic to Nobel Prize (although there list), and to remedy the confusion referred, I suggest a disambiguation of the term, because merge or delete the article is take "effect for the cause" (Scientist - Science, Philosopher -Philosophy and etc, etc.), so the improvement of the article is required, but not to excluded.Rodrigo Elias Cardoso (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Animal magnetism (when we say "merge" this allows useful content to be transferred). At present we have a lot more to say about "Scientists" and "Philosophers" than we do about "Magnetizers", so these topics have their own article per WP:SPLIT: If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article... then the topic can be split off. If a large amount of encyclopedic information became available about magnetizers we could reconsider making it a stand-alone article: Noyster (talk), 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that, at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Delete without prejudice to re-creation if better in-depth reliable sources become available. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil America[edit]

Phil America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous AfD resulted in "no consensus" due to only two !votes (delete and weak keep). Only third-party ref with any depth is one article from the Bangkok Post. Other than that, sources are mostly primary or non-notable blogs, etc. Edit history of article creator suggests a strong conflict of interest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probable vanity page with an enormous number of sources, claims, of which the strongest probably is this [9] article in an expat newspaper in Thailand. Exhibitions in minor places with no press coverage. The thing is, Notable people, authors, photographers show up in searches. This [10] news google search on his unusual name shows how lacking in notability he is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Reexamined, still voting DELETE, see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The photographer has held two TED talks that can easily be found online just by googling his name, a google search on his "unusual" name shows this [11] the search even leads to third-party journals and magazines where he's featured, i say the article should be kept but it should be updated. Tenuta134 00:13, 21 August 2015

• Comment. Tenuta134's "Keep", immediately above, was struck out in this unexplained edit by an IP. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is numerous references to museum shows, an ISBN for at least one of the books found through google and numerous other links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.51.150.177 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Sock vote struck. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Phil America is a well known artist who has shown artworks all over the world. He exhibited at the museum I worked at. Can be seen with a simple Google serach. Shelly200mirrors 06:31, 22 August 2015
• Keep He has held two TED talks.--Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 13:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:GNG requires non-trivial third-party coverage, and it's not there. A TED talk is by its very nature not third-party, and plenty of people do them - it's not just Steve Jobs-level people, and it's gotten so big they do "independent" TEDx talks now. I can find a talk on Youtube, but nobody talking about the talk, and one of them, according to PA's Facebook, was a TEDx talk, so to claim two is inaccurate. The sizes of his exhibitions aren't ascertainable, nor is the notability of where he exhibited. He doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. His articles (and what I assume are exhibition books) are all considered self-published works and on indie press; they're not in major magazines, and there are no reviews of his work. His GHits from the search cited above are, in order: official site, WP, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, the TEDx on Youtube, Vimeo, etc. Hit #10 is a Guardian article, followed by a photo blog, another personal page, 2 Linkedins, and another Youtube of the TEDx talk. He exists, but he's not verifiable as notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Probable delete as I pointed out above, searches on his unusual name are unpersuasive, although if you look far enough down the search some articles in reliable sources do come up. I just don't have time right now to read them all and render a firm opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Reexamined, still voting DELETE, see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just like the GNG, an artist who has been around and is notable is going to have some combination of published third-party reviews, exhibition announcements, critical essays, and perhaps a few appearances in books. Aside from the Guardian article^[1] on his Thai slum project (which actually disparages his work as being far less notable than that of Santiago Sierra), I find very few of these. Third party sources are easy to find for notable artists. Sources for Phil America are not. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. What a wretched article. It at first appears to have have lots of references, but they're a mess. A lot of the URLs look very fishy. I tried a few. Some actually showed something useful; some did not. Imaginably enough is actually sourced for an article to be merited. (Incidentally, the fact that the opinionated Jonathan Jones didn't like what PA was doing doesn't affect PA's [Wikipedia-style] notability, if I understand the latter. For Wikipedia, any publicity is good publicity.) If any or all of Tenuta134, Shelly200mirrors and Eat me, I'm a red bean think that an article really is merited, they might make a convincing start of converting it from the mess that it is now into something solid. (Don't know what to do? Here's inspiration for you.) I'd then "!vote" to "keep" the result. ¶ MSJapan says: His GHits from the search cited above are, in order [...]. Uh-huh. One thing that should not affect the notability of Mr America is any awfulness of Google, particularly when the species of awfulness is likely to vary with one's particular "bubble". What matters is what good sources exist, not how much junk one must boredly go through in order to find these good sources. ¶ E.M.Gregory, are you saying roughly what I'm saying? I can't work out whether "probable delete" means "this will probably end up deleted", "this should probably end up deleted", "if I knew more I'd probably want this deleted but till then I don't", or something else. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thanks User:Hoary for reminding me to come back. When several editors insist there's something there, I feel like I ought to take a careful look. Searches on his name showed flickers of possibility like the Guardian that made me think there might be more out there. I've now just spent a few minutes looking. Phil America's slum stunt makes this a sort of WP:BLP1E of the art world. "Slum Vacation", the only Phil America accomplishment for which I find secondary sources, was a performance art stunt: he built a shack in a Thai slum and lived in it for 2 weeks, then took it apart and put it on display at the University of Bangkok. This got him dismissive coverage in The Guardian as an example of a failed attempt by an artist to be relevant to the conversation about poverty, and an article in the Bangkok Post that none of us can access (past the first 3 paragraphs). He posted the project on his facebook page, and a handful of apparently non-notable blogs and websites ran photos. That's all I can find, and it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - just FYI, since you changed your vote and this is the one you want to count, you should go back above and add the <strike></strike> tags around the other one so the reviewer knows which one to count. MSJapan (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for the clarification, E.M.Gregory. The more I look at this article, the worse it seems. A humdrum example: "In 2014 Phil helped organize and took part in Freedumb, the first art show to be shown on all continents within 3 days." (Attributed to http://publicdelivery.org/freedumb/ .) Amazing that they got the show up and running in Antarctica so quickly! Except that of course they didn't: not "all" continents but six, and the source says nothing about this being the first time that even this had been done. I just now fixed that. Personally I've had quite enough of this sorry article; but I notice that Lopifalko has been doing a lot of work to it, and await his comment here before "!voting" myself. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It truly is a beast of an AFD. I would like to see some coverage in edited publications (not blogs, unless they are notable blogs). On the other hand, that exhibition list is starting to persuade me. Not Zurich - Zurich practically throws money at artists to show in its myriad art spaces and an artist living there as America was could fairly easily talk his way into getting a show. But he really did do a mixed media gig at MoMA. On the other hand, New York teems with small publication that pay intense attention to exhibitions, and the MoMA exhibit is sourced only to MoMa's own website. I'm a big fan of WP:HEYMANN, so I'm writing this to cheer User:Lopifalko on. Flag me if anything changes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MOMA, as in the big museum? Sadly, E.M.Gregory, I looked it up and, as it says here, the exhibition was in some kind of education centre, which turns out to be the MOMA research library. Sounds like the MOMA, but a show in the library is very different from a curated show in the gallery. I think this a telling example of the, ahem, inflation that has us looking so closely at the claims and notability. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have made that clear. A "real" MoMA show would have changed my vote in a heartbeat. My point was that he did get a moment at MoMA, and even that moment in the library or wherever it was is something of pretty big deal. But it was a couple of years ago. Nobody wrote it up. It does not appear to have been any kind of breakthrough for him. The other listed exhibitions are far less persuasive. I try to look closely at artists AFDs that show some indication of notability. But about the best I can find here is the possibility that it's just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Lopifalko is doing an excellent job, but I fear that the irritation is getting to him. Understandably so. -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thank you for the motivating comments folks. I've whittled down this huge cloud of hot air, into its few constituent parts, so we can best see what this person's achievements amount to. I feel there could be a reason to keep this article at the end of all this, but it would be on thin ice. I'm as yet undecided, haven't weighed it against WP:NOTABILITY yet. Lots of the achievements are based on his photographs of other peoples' graffiti, in publications focused upon the graffiti and not the photographer. And then there is his video-based work, where video is a less onerous medium to incorporate into a space than other media. And he has had installations, which I've not given much thought to yet - I would still like to whittle away at his solo exhibitions to see what they amount to. The MoMA show, which has been mentioned here, comes down to very little. It's disheartening to see how an artist bio fluffs up their career, employs smoke and mirrors, and it take enormous scrutiny from an interested observer to decipher what has actually happened - a lot lot less than what has been inferred. The obfuscation work itself feels like a work of art. -Lopifalko (talk)

• User:Lopifalko's detailed examination (and highly informed deeflation) of this article's claims is nothing short of heroic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E.M.Gregory, most humbly. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment I took a shot at improving it, and was able to find one new ref for the show in London. The gallery that is promoting his work (Public Delivery) has some decent artists on their roster.I was actually thinking about changing my vote, until I started editing the biographical details. The name "Phil America" is a stage name/artist name, and its ref was his own site. A whole lot of unsourced self-promotion going on. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public Delivery have a page for everything he does (and a list of exhibitions here with locations that appear to differ from the locations he desceribes them having been at on his own site here). They seem to be organising a lot of his exhibitions, rather than merely promoting them (or is this what New Media Theorist means, I'm not fully understanding). I don't yet trust using them as a ref for anything. -Lopifalko (talk)

Lopifalko, Public Delivery seems genuine to me. They have a few artists whose names I recognized-- Erwin Wurm really cements some notability for them. Although maybe they just exchanged mail correspondence one day and now they're "collaborators". I agree with what you say about "smoke and mirrors above." Regarding the MoMA show, it seems that it might have been just a "free exchange" show where anyone could submit. It was in the mezzanine of the MoMA library. See note #2 in the article. Yet another inflated ref, it would appear. One thing I did add to the article introduction is that he's an "activist", a term which seems to define many of his projects. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko you explained it perfectly when you say "it take enormous scrutiny from an interested observer to decipher what has actually happened - a lot lot less than what has been inferred. The obfuscation work itself feels like a work of art". E.G. I just discovered that Public Delivery is run by Martin Schulze, who is a collaborator on many of Phil's other projects. Keeping my Delete vote and stopping any further work on this! New Media Theorist (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. User:New Media Theorist You have my deep and sincere sympathies, as someone who revisited this article half a dozen times, just double-checking PhilAmerica's smoke-and-mirrors page to see if there was something to see. Just one last Question - Do you thing the whole Wikipedia article thing was another PhilAmerican piece of performance art?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I think Lopifalko deserves all the credit for figuring this one out and stating it so succinctly above. What he says about the way some artists operate is really interesting. In the real world, it's a valid way to make a living; here, it's not a valid way to present yourself. In answer to your question, the Stage name Phil America is a performance of an imagined artistic persona... New Media Theorist (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per @New Media Theorist, to wit: "whole lot of unsourced self-promotion". Quis separabit? 17:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the deconstruction that has gone on here, is there a Wikipedia criteria for keeping an article based on it providing a clearer picture of an almost notable person than is available to interested readers anywhere else?! -Lopifalko (talk)
• Comment. Lopifalko, you deserve some Quixotic barmystar or similar. (Another for New Media Theorist, for all this.) The amount of work you've done on this (non-) article, no wonder it's got your mind, um, whittling clouds so that they may rest on thin ice. I took another look at the article today, particularly on the man's solo exhibition "Journey of Voices" ... which turned out not to have been solo. (NB neither this nor any other exhibition was previously billed as "solo". Just "selected".) There really doesn't seem to be much left. Perhaps this is an "emerging" artist; if so, my comment is, as always: "Let's wait till the emergence has already occurred." Until then, somebody thinking that the biographee merits an article (Tenuta134? Shelly200mirrors? Eat me, I'm a red bean?) would be free to work on a draft, augmenting it with disinterestedly sourced material. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear. Hear. I think we can close this now on a delete consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hoary for all this decent editing attention. -Lopifalko (talk)

• Delete Wikipedia:Too soon -Lopifalko (talk)
• Delete per Lopifalko. There's something to the biographee, who could well be "emerging". If this is closed as delete (as seems likely), and if more material about the biographee comes to be published, then somebody wanting to revive an article should of course ask whoever has closed this AfD. But one tip: Work from the latest version of the deleted article, which may be far shorter than the latest before the AfD notice was slapped on but is far better (with a far higher percentage of references that actually say what the article implies that they say, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ^{(non-admin closure)} samtar^{(leave me a message)} 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartisan[edit]

Cartisan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a company that fails notability. A search found no reliable sources about the topic. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : The sources cited in the article are reliable. Multiple credible sources including Economic times and Entrepreneur magazine confirm the information provided in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.16.70.12 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Current article has multiple sources where Cartisan is the subject of the article. The sources aren't in a lot of depth, but they are bylined by reporters, as oppose to being an announcement or news release. CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATOM Records[edit]

ATOM Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN record label, possibly defunct. Endorsed prod removed by article creator. MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice ATOM Records has one chart-ranking with Cornerstone and noteable musicans Jon Butcher (three albums in the Billboard 200, several singles in various charts) and Leland Sklar in it's rooster, one of the most prominent Bass-players in the music-business. MSJapan, by clicking this blue underlined words on every WP page, you'll redirected to the related pages, where you can check out all of the facts. I'm sorry that you're obviously not know that, but absolutely no problem to help out :-) User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)

Strong oppose MSJapan tagged the page Cornerstone for proposed deletion over and over again, altough reliable third party sources were delivered and refered to. MSJapan wants to remove the page plus related pages, because he personally hates the band and construct and invite reasons to do so, which has nothing to do with the reality or the facts. Simply ignores third party sources. I’ve already contacted Wikipedia in reagrds of this, block of IP requested because of vandalism. Talking ‘but the band page in accordance to WP: band:

“1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.”

Fullfilled. I have refered to two example sources (Classic Rock (magazine) and Powerplay Magazine), I don’t want to start refering to hundreds of reviews and interviews regarding the band. ^[1]

“2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart”.

Fullfilled. It doesn’t matter, if for one week or hundred weeks. ^[2]

“4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”

Fullfilled. Countless medias reported about the band’s USA-Tour and their several UK-Tours.^[3]. I refered to one example source (Dayton Daily News). Again, I don’t start uploading and refer to hundreds of sources, because one guy hates the band

“10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. “

Fullfilled. Delivered two songs to the soundtrack “Little Alien”, which won multiple awards. Check out the films WP or the films Website.

“11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.”

Fullfilled. Rotation on national Austrian Radios Hitradio Ö3^[4] and “Radio Wien^[5] Example playlists delivered and refered, too.

Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet). The band played the mainstages at all of the Festivals that was mentioned, as cleary is viewable at the refered Flyers and several videos in the Internet. Btw., MSJapan, “Fireworks” and “Powerplay” are “two of the biggest rock’zines in the UK, not “the biggest”. Learn to read, or in case you can’t, tell me, so I’ll read it aloud for you. Let me add, that there should be no place on WP for personal grief and personal tastes.

User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)

• Reply: Then you shouldn't prod articles in retaliation. Also, label notability is different than that of the band. Therefore, citing the band meeting criteria does not address the label. ATOM isn't notable because they distributed a single that charted, especially when it is very likely the single charted because it was for charity. Nothing else Cornerstone released on ATOM ever charted at all. That's why I find it interesting that a cover charity single is the only thing that did. A label is also not notable because an artist on their label charted somewhere else. The reason you find this to be a problem is because you are trying to establish notability for four distinct things using the same sources, and you can't do that. MSJapan (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey1976 as an editor who created this and other articles with an undisclosed COI (I do appreciate you finally disclosing it, btw) in an effort to promote Cornerstone, its label, and its single in Wikipedia, you are not objective with regard to this content, and taking a combative tone is not helpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP; the only two outside sources are passing mentions. Miniapolis 22:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:CORP and was created as part of a promotional campaign. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It may be that a few artists notable enough for articles have released on this label but none of them seem to have a long term relationship with it, so I can't see how it hopes to inherit their notability as it has not released any of their more notable recordings. I don't see any albums on this label with articles. The search results are not encouraging in the least. The points made above by the promoter of Cornerstone are mostly unconvincing although the point about having released records that appeared in recognised charts could be persuasive if any evidence was offered for this beyond the one Cornerstone single scraping the edge of the Austrian singles chart. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated above, the organization just isn't really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age[edit]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contains mostly OR (I doubt there are references for the fact that Robert Walpole's retirement lasted 3 years and 35 days...) and trivial factoids. WP:LISTCRUFT. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mathematical calculations are not original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but assertions such as "[t]he prime minister with the longest retirement" and other trivia are unsourced OR. Even if you include that, too, under "mathematical calculations", the fact that this is absolute LISTCRUFT remains. --Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A clear and concise article on all of Britain's PMs by age. And very much to the point. Boy Named Stu (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simply put, this is not WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, for the exact same reasons as applied in this AFD discussion for List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination's arguments of "trivial factoids" and "LISTCRUFT" are best avoided per WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:WHOCARES and WP:USELESS. They are not supported by policy or guideline and so are inadequate as reasons to delete. The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN and the topic passes it - see Today's Prime Ministers are younger than ever or Prime Ministers: Salisbury to Blair, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topics such as this do not qualify as WP:LISTCRUFT. Halftime Hero (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Amable[edit]

Daniella Amable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable child actress. Quis separabit? 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's hardly much to improve and she's not independently notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above - Cant find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Watt-Smith[edit]

Claire Watt-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable for Wikipedia, just personal promotion/PR, article contains errors, links only to own personal Linkedin page and her company website Sheroddy (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "of of the Future 100 Young Entrepreneurs Of The Year" is in our terms an unmistakable "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm finding more recent sources, so the article is in need of updating: The Industry, Sunday Times, Management today, Marie Claire. There's probably more - this was just a quick G-search. LaMona (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now or at best weak keep as LaMona said (but draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing convincingly good, this and this (best results I found aside from a passing mention at Books). BTW, Sheroddy it seems you never notified the author (who is still active) Jpbowen. As I mentioned the possible drafting and userfying, maybe Jpbowen wants to save it in his userspace. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — she has multiple articles on her in national publications. I have added more references to some of these. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Current version of article clearly demonstrates the GNG is satisfied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It looks like she's reasonably notable. There may be issues with the article needing some clean-up, but this isn't the place for that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Number of sources appear to confirm notability. Just because an article is promotional does not justify its deletion, it justifies it cleanup. Also, as WP:BEFORE makes clear, a nom should search for sources first, not simply nominate for deletion AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey women's national under-18 volleyball team[edit]

Turkey women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, this is the only existing under age national team article and template. Wikiproject Volleyball do not back the creation of under age national teams articles. Similar articles have been deleted so far, like this examples: 1 and 2. Osplace 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are such articles for other sports branches. Why not for volleyball also? What was not existing before, may not mean that it may not be existing in the future. --CeeGee 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, I don't think we need these kind of articles for any other sport (Football can be an exception) Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CeeGee Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ROTM routine coverage as a sports team but not inherently notable. Even wikiproject vball doesn't consider them notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball--Savonneux (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, but if you are concerned about keeping under age team records I suggest to create a section in the senior team page. Tomcat313 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, I don't know we need created articles for any other sport. Boyconga278 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Denning[edit]

Steve Denning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, only links to own personal website, seems more like promotion Sheroddy (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He has one book that is held in >1K libraries in Worldcat (ISBN 978-0470548684); all of the others are in the low single digits. So that's a single successful book. The article lists awards, but none of them are of the type that supports notability, with the possible exception of being a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and nearly everyone there has a WP page. The only book review I found was on the American Express site. He does do the speaking circuit, but that isn't terribly notable. LaMona (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep more or less per LaMona. The nom's assertion that Forbes (forbes.com) is the subject's "personal website" should bring their WP:COMPETENCE into serious question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above, and the article was nominated for deletion by a new user User:Sheroddy who began nominating articles for deletion within their third edit. While I strongly believe that we should be bold this is maybe a bit too bold. Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hattat Aziz Efendi[edit]

Hattat Aziz Efendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no evidence of notablity Redsky89 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...except for the freaking monograph about him cited under references? Look, this is a substub, and it can well be merged into "Ottoman calligraphy" or "list of Ottoman calligraphers" if you are up to the task of compiling these. But there are no grounds for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the English article was created long ago than the tr: one (2012‎ by Basak) but the tr: article is much longer now. Perhaps someone can translate and thereby expand this article. Solomon7968 12:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was definetley a notable calligrapher. I've tried to expand the article. I am not that good in English, could you please check and edit it?--Basak (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now the article is quite ok in shape. Having calligraphic panels hanging in a notable Mosque (I note the article on the mosque is currently unreferenced) is not in itself enough for notability but having personally invited from a King presumably is; assuming that it is a very selective honour. Solomon7968 16:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I didn't even bother to type "keep" because this is quite clearly a spurious submission. There in't the remotest appearance of a "case" for deletion here, so I see no reason to even begin to argue. The article can be merged for being a stub, no deletion debate necessary. It can always be re-created with the addition of content, no deletion review necessary, but there is nothing in our deletion guidelines that would suggest a "debate" here. The submitter said "no evidence of notablity"; they apparently copy-pasted the phrase from somewhere, but as the article has cited a full monograph about the subject for years, that phrase as no applicability to the case, and the submitting user either does not understand the phrase, or deletion guidelines, or the information in the article. Either way, there is nothing to see here and I have to ask why this is relisted rather than speedy-closed as spurious. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 08:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hurley (doctor)[edit]

Peter Hurley (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An accomplished but otherwise non notable doctor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No especial notability. Looks like a memorial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Yet another in the plethora of articles about St Peter's College old boys who clearly fail WP:N. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have used the search term "Peter Hurley nz -photographer" (without the quotation marks, of course) on Google to see what shows up, and Dr Hurley does not appear to have an online presence of a contemporary person who meets notability criteria. Schwede66 06:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Duffbeerforme clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He made an important contribution to the development of nuclear medicine in Auckland. I have referenced a published history with a description of his role. He is notable as a pioneer of nuclear medicine rather than as a photographer.Rick570 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from tidying up an already existing department at a hospital exactly what did he pioneer in the field of nuclear medicine. There is nothing in the biography to make him particularly notable. NealeFamily (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment found some sources. Leading number is # cites according to google scholar:

• 477 Strauss, H. William, Barry L. Zaret, Peter J. Hurley, T. K. Natarajan, and Bertram Pitt. "A scintiphotographic method for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction in man without cardiac catheterization." The American journal of cardiology 28, no. 5 (1971): 575-580.
• 248 Zaret, Barry L., H. William Strauss, Peter J. Hurley, T. K. Natarajan, and Bertram Pitt. "A noninvasive scintiphotographic method for detecting regional ventricular dysfunction in man." New England Journal of Medicine 284, no. 21 (1971): 1165-1170.
• 99 Scott, P. J., and P. J. Hurley. "The distribution of radio-iodinated serum albumin and low-density lipoprotein in tissues and the arterial wall." Atherosclerosis 11, no. 1 (1970): 77-103.
• 115 Pritchard, David A., Bramah N. Singh, and Peter J. Hurley. "Effects of amiodarone on thyroid function in patients with ischaemic heart disease." British heart journal 37, no. 8 (1975): 856-860.
• 93 Hurley, Peter J. "Red cell and plasma volumes in normal adults." Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 16, no. 1 (1975): 46-52.
• 72 Smith, H. J., B. N. Singh, R. M. Norris, M. B. John, and P. J. Hurley. "Changes in myocardial blood flow and ST segment elevation following coronary artery occlusion in dogs." Circulation research 36, no. 6 (1975): 697-705.
• 59 Scott, P. J., and P. J. Hurley. "Demonstration of individual variation in constancy of 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion." Clinica chimica acta 21, no. 3 (1968): 411-414.

...

Not sure, but leaning keep. User:Rick570, Do you want to do the work to integrate these works? I strongly suggest that you work out how to use google scholar if you're going to be writing about academics. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He probably satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, as the founder of a department of nuclear medicine and a co-author of quite a few highly-cited articles.[12] Unfortunately all of the article's references are offline so they can't really be evaluated, but for someone who died in 1983 that's not too surprising. It sounds as if he gets a significant chapter in the Bruce White book; presumably the Auckland Star and New Zealand Herald articles are obits which also suggests at least some notability. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  founded? Really? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have incorporated a list of Hurley's research publications as researched by talk|Stuartyeates. Rick570 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is introduce some peacocked original research that it not supported by the references provided. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: doubtless a fine physician but not otherwise notable. Quis separabit? 17:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The citation record listed above by Stuartyeates is a strong indication for meeting WP:PROF#1. Granted, the most-cited articles only list Hurley as a minor author (listed somewhere in the middle of multiple authors), but some of the opther highly-cited articles he is first or last author. Especially for someone who passed away 30 years ago, this is not bad at all. The absence of accessible sources on the person himself is a bit worrysome, though (WP:V...). --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While borderline, the fact that his work was more than 30 years ago may have something to do with a lack of a web presence. But what is currently there is enough for him to pass WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article may fall short of WP:EVENTCRIT: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." (my emphasis) This lawsuit may meet WP:GNG, but it has no historical significance or lasting effect, as it was only started in March, and as far as I know, no hearings have been held. I also question whether the sources are WP:ROUTINE, as almost all of them are dated from the 10th and 11th of March (press releases were released on the 10th). This google news search:"Wikimedia" "NSA" lawsuit, revealed very little of substance dating from after March. This lawsuit may gain some historical significance or lasting effect in the future, but for now, it is WP:TOOSOON. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: When will the lawsuits outcome be revealed? Dustin (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone can tell at this stage. According to this source, the first hearing will be on September 4th about a motion to dismiss, it could end around then if the motion is granted, or it could last for years. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• High level legal cases are not EVENTs. WP:GNG applies (and as you accept, GNG is met). Darmokand (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misrepresent my statement, I never accepted that GNG is met, I said: "This lawsuit may meet WP:GNG" the word "may" in that sentence is intended to imply uncertainty. You provide no evidence in the form of prior discussion, policy, or guideline that WP:EVENT does not apply to lawsuits, just the statement that they don't. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge - There are over half a dozen sources listed for the article. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected with history, or merged to another article, such as Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Foundation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Article is both sourced and notable. Arguments to delete are strained and unconvincing. I am, frankly, astonished by this Afd. Jusdafax 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Agree with @Jusdafax: the argument for deletion seems like a stretch. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - This is a notable case that has received significant media attention. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channelomics[edit]

Channelomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is clear for a merge rather than deletion, which can be discussed from the article talk page separately; I'm happy with this.Klbrain (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. It conflates well-known methods used to study ion function with proteinomics and genomics; the term isn’t used with sufficient frequency to be notable. The definition is unreferenced, and I can’t find reliable sources that use it. The only evidence provided for its use are 3 listed examples, of which the first mentions the term only fleetingly in the discussion (Camerino et al, 2007; and uses a different definition to that used on the page), the second doesn’t mention it at all (Lehmann-Horn & Jurkat-Rott, 2003; did a text search on the full article), and the 3rd doesn’t mention it in the title or abstract (I can’t get to the full text). An ‘all fields’ search on pubmed gives “Your search for channelomics retrieved no results.”

Other minor points made on the page are made more comprehensively on the Ion channel Page. Alternative: merge into Ion channel Page; but my feeling is that there is little left to merge. However, my recommendation is to Delete. Klbrain (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page needs a lot of work, but the subject passes WP:GNG rather easily. Here are results for Google Scholar [13], showing the term used repeatedly in peer-reviewed scientific papers (I'm not sure why the nominator got a negative result at PubMed), and for Google Books [14], which even returns a 2010 book entirely devoted to the topic. That said, I would not object strongly to merging the page to Ion channel and Proteomics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My error on the pubmed search. Not sure what happened there, but it now turns up 20 articles in total (that doesn't do a full-text search). I don't think that this is noteworthy over a 12 year period, and does rather smack of fishing for a catchy grant submission trying to catch the 'omics' wave ... call me cynical! On the google books search, the book you refer to is 30pages long from an obscure publisher with a mixed (non-specialist) output. That doesn't seem to be a notable contribution. So, I still suggest a Delete on the grounds of notability, but would be a relaxed by a merge; then await Enzymoomics, Histonomics, Lipidomics, Gproteinomics, TRKomics ... Klbrain (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to what you are saying about all those trendy omics, but it seems to me that that becomes an IDONTLIKEIT argument. And I just realized that that book publisher, Books LLC, is a Wikipedia mirror, so let's discount that. But, even discounting the book, WP:GNG is satisfied here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up the to the IDONTLIKEIT argument; consider it my conflict of interest declaration! WP:GNG requires significant secondary sources; I think that the Google scholar search shows up some primary sources, so still don't agree that WP:GNG is met.Klbrain (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three secondary sources: [15], [16], and [17], that I could find quickly; there are probably more. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And two more: [18] and [19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree the article needs work, and I would think merge would be fine, but I have issues with some of the reasons for deleting. Proteomics does not usually involve studying the *function* of proteins. In theory it would, but generally it determines (with fabulous resolution) the identity an quantity of expressed proteins. Furthermore, proteomic analysis cannot generally capture the membrane pool of proteins (such as channels). There are techniques where you snip off the bits of the proteins which dangle out of the membrane into the cytosol or extracellular media, but the channels within the membrane themselves are excluded from most proteomics. There is no other term to describe the study of ion channels other than just that "the study of ion channels" . The study of other topics such as proteins, metabolites, inflammatory mediators are all now termed omic and there is no logical reason why some topics would be and others would not. "omics" is now really the new "ology". Merger with channelome seems logical though. Possibly converting this to a link to channelome and then including channelomics (the actual study of ion channels) as a subsection within that. I would volunteer... but am just off on holiday right now!!! (For the record, I have never used channelomics in a grant application!! ;-) ...but I do get that sensible semi-cynical view!! Does "channelome" itself return many hits? Is there a wikipedia entry for proteome AND proteomics? Thanks all you Wikipedians for keeping up the old quality control!! Its very important!!! Richard (user:RBJ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBJ (talk • contribs) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything salvageable and redirect to ion channel, or possibly to ion channel#Channelomics if there's enough material for a subsection. Probably need a redirect at channelome too. This is total grant bait, but it's notable grant bait. (Note we've already got lipidomics and glycomics and kinome, and we don't seem to have GPCRome but it's used un-self-consciously in the literature.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that we also have Channelome. No way do we need both, so they should become a single article, and I'd have no problem with a merge to Channelome. Here's Google Scholar for channelome: [20]. But – grant bait or not, notable is notable. The subject still passes GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a Merge if that's the general feeling. The questions is, where too. Perhaps both Channelomics to Proteomics, with a view to then doing the same for Channelome ? Klbrain (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm still arguing that the subject passes GNG, and I just pointed out, above, five secondary reviews. I support merging Channelomics to Channelome, but I'd keep the resulting page. Not that it wouldn't still be badly in need of major improvement, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't need three articles on this, but I'm mostly indifferent to whether there's one or two. I suspect the channelome/omics content is better housed as a subsection in the ion channel article - which isn't too bad, but definitely isn't complete - unless it's expanded quite a bit. Meeting GNG doesn't mean it needs a standalone article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course it doesn't mean that. But it does mean that it should not be deleted on the grounds that the subject is not notable. Aside from notability, the arguments for deletion or aggressive merging come down to subjective dislike of having a page on a subject that some editors regard as "grant bait". That's a WP:IDL argument. At this point, the discussion here seems better suited to a requested move discussion at the article talk page, rather than an article for deletion discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant M. Shah and Vimal M. Shah[edit]

Hemant M. Shah and Vimal M. Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Okay, where to begin. First, article is not about a single person, but about two non-notable people. Searches on news, newspapers, highbeam and JStor produced zero hits on either of these folks. The only valid source is that one of them is very rich because he inherited a bunch of money. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. I don't see any notability here. Me5000 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with assessment above-- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I haven't searched for better sourcing yet but why not simply redirect to the ccompany, if that's notable? If not, simply delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Tiger (rapper)[edit]

King Tiger (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC: no clear secondary sources except WP:BLOGS, many are just top-level domains rather than specific pages. It's unclear what "Top 100 Number 1 Music Charts" is, whether the unsourced mention of a "Platinum Plaque" for a single is meant to be a serious claim to have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" of WP:NMUSIC, and I can find no obvious evidence that King Tiger is "award winning". McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This is the worst article I've ever seen. The entire thing is original research and most "sources" just link to home pages which say absolutely nothing about this person. This is a major WP:BLP violation. Me5000 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, verging on Speedy G3 (hoax), G11 (unambiguous promo). Sources don't seem to bear out the claims made, such as #1 on the Dominican Republic music charts sourced to the main site for the country. This article was previously speedied a couple weeks ago with the explanation: "(G3: Blatant hoax: Not a single source I checked backed any of the claims to notability (songs charting, magazine coverage, etc)).[21] Crow^Caw 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See also King Tiger (Musician)... Crow^Caw 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also see also King Tiger (Recording Artist). This pattern is starting to ring familiar. Flipping to speedy. Crow^Caw 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the claims have been dialled down each time, after repeated initial speedying as obvious hoaxes. This particular article has already backed down from "ranked as the Top 10 Hot New [etc etc] by Billboard Chart" to "ranked as Top 100 Hot New [etc etc] by Number 1 Music Chart". --McGeddon (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Turned my speedy back into a regular delete. Since this has been open for a few days, I say lets let it run its course. That way we have CSD-G4 in pocket as well as the likely G5 from the socks. Crow^Caw 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To be frank, the article looks like nonsense right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a notable rapper.--Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means as this article has so many holes, it makes Swiss cheese look minor. If it hadn't been nominated, I would've AfD or speedied. It's worth mentioning my searches found not even a shred of good sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hoax, blatantly inflated with false claims. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Universal Records for more of same. JNW (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt all variants. Non-notable. Multiple re-creations and confirmed sockpuppetry. GermanJoe (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above and fails WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it's not a hoax,[22][23][24] nothing out there suggests subject meets WP:NMUSIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Axelrod[edit]

David B. Axelrod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Thinly referenced biography (probably an autobiography) of a not-notable writer. Poet laureate of small suburban area in central Florida and was one of dozens of Fulbright award winners one year. Received one of a large number of "Florida Book Awards" annually given out by a college in mid-sized U.S. state of Florida. BlueSalix (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree: delete, unfortunately. For a poet to be notable as a poet we'd need to see significant publications in the major journals, volumes published with reputable presses, reviews by reliable sources, etc. We don't have that here, I'm afraid. And I don't see any evidence of the subject being notable per WP:PROF, for instance, as an academic, or generally as a local cult here via WP:GNG. Sorry Mr. Axelrod. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have gone through all the sources listed by the subject himself at the reliable sources noticeboard and this Florida government press release (and this state funded magazine piece, which expand upon that) is the only independent, reliable source in the bunch. However the Florida Heritage Award is unlikely to suffice, by itself, to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, especially given that the book on Merlin Stone that won the award has two other authors. Unless more sources are forthcoming, the article should be deleted. I had posted this comment at the RSN board, before noticing the talk-page discussion, which led me to this AFD. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Subject fails general notability guidelines, WP:NPOET, WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. I can find no reviews of his work and his material which shows up in GScholar is un-cited. A spot check of previous versions (Going back to 2006!) does not show better versions of the article which might shown notability. Jbh^Talk 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much I can add to the research done by the editors who preceded my comments, except that the article was created by one of the co-authors of works previously mentioned, and the subject himself being a major contributor to the article. So, WP:COI can be added in with the other reasons. Scr★pIron^IV 20:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith kollam[edit]

Sreejith kollam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references. Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of course as another classic case of a Non-notable behind the scenes worker and there's not even much at IMDb, so often if there's not much there, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched for sources and found none. And yes, people in minor production roles are almost always impossible to source. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sakarya University. Why wasn't this Merged or atleast redirected in the first place?, Anyway don't usually close on one !vote but the norm is to merge/redirect non notable institutes in to the parent article so Merge it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakarya University Middle East Institute[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Sakarya University Middle East Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article for institute on a single campus. We normally do not make articles for these unless they are actually famous, for which there is no evidence. articles listing all their researchers belong on the web site, not an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it since it seems useful info about a university institution  especially for students  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.244.18 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

• Keep because article is about a public institution and it seems useful for students and academics. It does not seem a promotion. rather it is just a description of a university institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.140.21 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a useful article because it introduces a public research center affiliated to a famous university in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.232.96.219 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it since it seems useful info about a university institution especially for students — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.244.18 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this institution is exactly same with the following ones University of Utah Middle East Center, Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, the last of which also includes staff category in its Wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.154.143 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sakarya University, stand-alone article not warranted, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chadbourne[edit]

Mark Chadbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This biography doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO. A search for "Mark Chadbourne" brings up a semi-notable cyclist, but I couldn't find any reliable sources for this musician. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: -- deleted first time it was nominated; article not improved to merit keeping any further. SALT if necessary. Quis separabit? 00:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE: Clearly promotional page about a non-notable performer. --Slashme (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You should think with a discography like that there ought to be some sources to add, and still I can't find any. Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Narsete[edit]

Thomas A. Narsete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is rather spammy. The first ref is not reliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Does not pass WP:BIO. It's PR for a small cosmetic surgery business. John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN per nom. Brianhe (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Does not pass any notability guideline. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Puffery. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Football Federation[edit]

Arena Football Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable proposed football league. Right now, only mentions I can find about this league are two websites run by the "league" and several facebook pages. This shouldn't be confused with Arena Football League or the former af2. LionMans Account (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good and it's not surprising as this is newly formed and I would've also suggested moving elsewhere but there's no apparently good target. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No substantial coverage in secondary sources, so it fails WP:GNG. This may eventually be notable, but it isn't right now. I'm not opposed to userfying if anyone wants to keep this for potential future use. ~ Rob^Talk 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: Technically, the primary notability guideline for organizations, including sports teams and leagues, is WP:ORG, but the WP:ORG standards are so close to WP:GNG, that they usually amount to the same thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the specific guideline, yes. No notability guidelines can be passed with zero coverage, though. ~ Rob^Talk 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Non of sources used in the article are independent of the subject; they are a collection of websites of the proposed league and proposed franchises. The article can be recreated if and when there is significant published coverage of the league in independent reliable sources, e.g., newspapers, magazines, books, sports news websites, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:CSD#A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) by Jimfbleak

Stacy Gunn/The Glad Yeah[edit]

Stacy Gunn/The Glad Yeah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references. My sweep of Canadian news media did not reveal anything suggesting the WP:GNG. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (and tagged as such). Similar material has been deleted and salted at Stacy Gunn, and the author of that article (Peter Phillip Charles Leoni has been blocked for his belligerent attempts to keep the material up. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer Amos[edit]

Tomer Amos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The player's best achievement is almost signing with a Cypriot First Division club, which fell through. Otherwise, he didn't play senior football any higher than fourth division in Israel. Eranrabl (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can we be definitely sure that he didn't make any appearances for Hapoel Jerusalem? They were in a professional league at the time by the looks of it. Spiderone 08:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked and doublechecked. Played with Hapoel Jerusalem youth team in 2008–09 (in Hebrew) and his senior matches after that were with Liga Bet clubs, starting with Beitar Givat Ze'ev in 2009–10 (in Hebrew).
    • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 13:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was speedily deleted by User:Sergecross73 today. Kraxler (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JY discography[edit]

DJ JY discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist). Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• An obvious speedy delete. No sources found whatsoever for the artist, either. 和DITOREtails 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US soccer clubs listed by stadium capacity[edit]

US soccer clubs listed by stadium capacity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. The article is a haphazard assortment of poorly-sourced, practically unverifiable information and OR. It is an expressly "partial" list of stadiums claimed to be used by a variety of North American-based soccer teams, based on two sources of questionable reliability and utility. Both sources must be mined, deeply, to confirm the list here, which was constructed, state-by-state, by hand. The article does not explain what the criteria for inclusion are, or what teams or stadiums might be omitted or why. Finally both sources generally round capacities to the nearest 1,000, and contain obvious errors even then - e.g., two of the first three entries are simply wrong: Gillette Stadium has a soccer capacity of 20,000, and football capacity of 68,756 - not "68,000" as shown here; similarly CenturyLink Field. JohnInDC (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It appears from my quick check of a check of the first few stadiums in the list, that most of the capacities are correct and a reference exists for it on the stadium page. So it appears to be a valid information for which references exist in the linked articles - they only need to be copied to this article. The Gillette, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial & Vanderbuilt Stadiums' numbers are rounded and the Yankees Stadium number appears to be off but based on initial reports. Not sure if it merits deletion - the only reason I can think of is if the selection of which stadiums to include could be original research. My only other concern is whether this article was created to boost the Google ranking (ie the SEO) of the references included in the article. --Trödel 12:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium is also wrong, for soccer (it's 20,000, not the 45,000 shown on the chart), as is the as-yet-unbuilt Mercedes-Benz Stadium, which reflects the general seating capacity, not the soccer capacity. Also at least two teams, Atlanta United and FC Cincinnati haven't even begun to play yet. JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am seeing almost no reliable sourcing for the general topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There already exists this article List of U.S. stadiums by capacity which renders this one obsolete. Spiderone 08:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Duplicates information at List of U.S. stadiums by capacity. Completely unsourced, so there's nothing here worth merging. ~ Rob^Talk 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee 1[edit]

Coffee 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The current article has two sources, both the company website. I have searched for additional sources and have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. There is a potential problem since the name is so generic it is hard to narrow down a search for this particular company. The article is very close to just being an ad for the company as it stands. -- GB fan 11:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Bordering on A7, no claim of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is written like an ad and I can't find any sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deletion isn't needed here - please use the processes outlined at WP:MERGE if you think that this merge proposal requires discussion (though I'd suggest just going ahead and merging). . Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M17 Half track[edit]

M17 Half track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have barely reliable sources to work with and I'd prefer to merge it into the M16 article. Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if someone can actually demonstrate it exists. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedia[edit]

Dedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no evidence that this place exists. It is not present on Google Maps. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no parallel articles on any wikis, nor any other clue as to where this village is. If it isn't a WP:HOAX, there's nothing to indicate that it meets GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it in both Serbian and Albanian through GeoNames. The only place that comes up is Dedinje/Дедиње in Serbian, or Dedi in Albanian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no reference to this place. It is not on GeoNames. No evidence for existence. Jbh^Talk 12:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If Dedinje/Dedi are correct and the location/details match then move the page to whichever of those titles. --OJ (TALK) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already an article Dedi, Mitrovica, which claims that Dedi(nje) is in the Municipality of Mitrovica, while this article claims that Dedia is in the Municipality of Leposavić. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If there were any forms of citations to VERIFY its existence, it would meet inclusion based on WP:GEOLAND. As there is nothing to indicate its existence (unlike Dedinje and Dedi, Mitrovica), I'm still for deleting it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Collard[edit]

Jacob Collard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having appeared in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that he hasn't played in a professional "league" per se is not an issue. Like I said when I removed the PROD, he played in an FFA cup match between two fully professional sides ie Perth Glory and Newcastle Jets. This is no different than an individual who has played in an English FA/league cup game featuring two pro sides, example: Andy Higgins, Daniel Koprivcic. Simione001 (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:NFOOTY says. In any case the rationale for the AFD is the failure to meet WP:GNG. I've searched the Factiva and ebscoHost databases and can only come up with one reference that deals with him in any detail and that was a community newspaper in 2009. Hack (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles relating to players who have only made appearances in a cup games involving two fully pro teams; example: Andy Higgins, Daniel Koprivcic. I myself have nominated such articles in the past and I've lost. Simione001 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koprivcic has never played for a club in a fully professional league, so that's an odd example. Hack (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet his article remains. Simione001 (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just barely, certainly the Higgins articles does not, I'm certain there are many more. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]