The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / 07:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hum[edit]

The Hum (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 obvious thing to do with this article is redirect it to infrasound as it is a WP:POVFORK whose title is blatant WP:OR, but fans refuse to allow that and insist it be brought to AfD even though it does not need deleting, only redirecting. The sources are largely unreliable, the title is, as I say, OR (a few places have infrasound known colloquially as The Foo Hum, most places with infrasound there is little or no coverage, it being a natural phenomenon and not necessarily constant). Many people who think they hear infrasound actually have tinnitus - that would be me, as well - but that's an aside: in the end there is only one subject, infrasound, but two articles, of which this has the worse title and content. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action...". Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is precisely why I redirected it and so did someonme else, as I noted above, but the artiucle's fans, as also noted above, refuse to allow this without a deletion debate because, as noted on the article's talk page, they do not understand that no AfD is necessary when an article is a WP:POVFORK with an WP:OR title. I should have said that in the nomination. Oh, wait, I did. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not an adequate reason to come forum shopping here. WP:SK clearly indicates that such inappropriate nominations should be immediately dismissed. You didn't get consensus at that talk page and you're not getting it here. Please see WP:POINT. Andrew D. (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, the fans of the article demanded an AfD. I do actually know policy, being an admin and all, I also know that there is absolutely no point trying for consensus when the only people who give a damn are fans of the article. If we insisted on that, it would be virtually impossible to get rid of any POV fork. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. IIRC I believe I said at the time that I did not believe your rationale for blanking the article wasn't strong, so you can hardly blame me for your choice to launch this AfD or couch it in weird weasel terms. Jjust stopping edit warring and leaving the article alone was an option too, for instance. Also this is the third time you've disparaged editors participating in good faith and making policy arguments as "fans" or "fanbois", if you count the somewhat WP:CANVASy discussion on WP:FTN [1] - I would remind you to remain WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks on other users. Artw (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you've posted on my Talk page, I may be one of the people you're referring to. I'm interested in this subject, not because I'm a fanboy, but because I hear (or perceive) a noise. I was surprised to find out that others do. I feel no sense of group affinity because of this. I rule out no (sensible) and reliably sourced explanation, as you might notice from the discussions I've had with a certain editor over the reliability of his work.

You've made no effort to talk this out. That's fine if it's an accepted way of dealing with articles that attract problem editors; I can see how that might be necessary. However, please don't suggest that you were forced into a corner here, as you made no effort whatsoever to achieve anything like consensus, or even to notify interested editors of your intent ahead of time. Incidentally, as you are an admin, I'd like to register that the majority of the merge or delete comments on this page (including your OP) refer to infrasound, which has not been sourced on this page or on the Hum's. And that, without inviting trouble, you haven't responded to my querying of your assertion that the sources are largely unreliable. Bromley86 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reliable sources on the article seem to prove general notability. Yes, when stuff like this gets discussed on The Joe Rogan Experience it attracts FRINGE material, too. That's not a reason for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• omg this is now my 2nd favorite article on WP (after Reptilians. The B-movie-ness of the title is delectable and i am all swoony. But seriously, this article must go. MERGE INTO INFRASOUND. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not really seeing anything at Infrasound for it to be a POV fork of, and there's articles covering it as "The Hum" here, so I don't believe it is WP:OR: [2][3] Artw (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What unreliable source? Okay, the West Seattle Blog might fail, but it might not; Frosch & Deming are iffy; the rest are reliable. I've no idea what a Foo Hum is and googling it doesn't help. Incidentally, as you say, one of the current explanations given is not infrasound, it's tinnitus, which makes the suggested repointing problematic. Bromley86 (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources include sound recordings (WP:OR), personal web pages, the Daily Mail, blogs etc. The reliable sources are about infrasound (or more often they refer to low frequency noise, which we redirect there). Causes such as tinnitus, the jetstream, submarine communications etc. are discussed. Nothing establishes that there are two subjects. There is only one subject, and this is the title which is WP:OR with the content that is more inclined to be drawn from unreliable sources to advance a specific viewpoint. In other words, the WP:POVFORK. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The personal web page (singular) and the sound recording (singular) are both associated with Tom Moir, an academic who's looked into a hum in Auckland and who's frequently interviewed in reliable sources in relation to that (and the Wellington one). We can discuss whether or not both sources qualify as reliable WP:SPS. Likewise, the Daily Mail is usually seen as a reliable source in this sort of context; it's only used twice (both times because it supports non-controversial points). The blog (singular, again) is the West Seattle Blog. Okay, not a WP:NEWSBLOG, but seemed pretty reliable when I added it (although I now know the difference). It'll be easy enough to replace, although ironically this is one of those cases where the WP:RS will frequently repeat outdated information.

Not sure which article you're reading, as there's no mention of the jetstream or subs in The Hum. The article mentions mechanical sources (infrasoundlow frequency noise), fish (infrasoundlow frequency noise) and tinnitus (which you don't talk about). Bromley86 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple reliable sources are evident in the article as it exists. Not the same topic as infrasound, although they are related; this article is about the various "hums" claimed to exist around the world, with such claims substantiated in reliable sources. The lede should be a little more explicit about this being a notable, but disputed and possibly fringe-science, topic. But that does not justify a defacto evisceration of all this well-sourced content by redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you all. This is so obviously a POVFORK WP:FRINGE article - the real, relevant science is discussed in Infrasound. See for example Chemtrail conspiracy theory (that is treated as such!) and Contrail. For pete's sake! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get your point, those appear to be two separate articles? surely as an example you'd want to use an article that has been successfuly blanked and redirected? Artw (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrail Conspiracy theory is to Contrails as The Hum is to Infrasound. But The Hum takes itself seriously (a disaster) and should be merged into a section of Infrasound. Please note that Low frequency sound redirects to Infrasound) but The Hum"!!! The Creature from the Black Lagoon! The Blob! It would be funny it weren't so sad. Well it is funny. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should apologize I am not usually this silly in WP but this article is just so wrong and so funny. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I support merging what little content is really necessary to the article on infrasound. Should the outcome of this discussion not result in a merge, then it might be reasonable to add a section to the infrasound article on locations where infrasound has been broadly reported and then propose merging the articles thereafter. But I agree with Jytdog and others that this seems to be an attempt to dramatize what is apparently a natural phenomenon. There might be places where the infrasound is more notable than others, but there is no reason to think that it is not just infrasound. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No-one seems quite sure what the cause of this phenomenon is and tinnitus commonly appears in the sources as a possible alternative explanation. Merger into a particular cause such as infrasound would be quite improper in such circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No one else, other than wikipedia, seems to believe that this so-called "phenomenon" is a single phenomenon, rather than a set of possibly similar, but distinct, phenomena. The fact that much low frequency sound can be counted as tinnitus is also not sufficient to say that the other possible causes of low frequency sound might not be applicable in these separate cases. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Hum" - the very title directly references' low frequency sound - Infrasound. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Infrasound, by definition, is too low in frequency to be heard. A hum, on the other hand, is audible. So that we understand the term more exactly, here's the OED definition, "A low continuous sound made by a bee or other insect, also, by a spinning top, machinery in motion, etc. (Distinguished from a buzz by not being sibilant.)" We have a separate article on that topic: hum (sound) and so the proposal to merge to infrasound is clearly tendentious in that it is favouring a particular explanation of the mysterious phenomenon. None of this has any business being discussed at AFD because AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned above, Low frequency sound - sound - redirects to Infrasound, and that article talks about some people being able to hear it. The merge is the way to go. The Hum article, besides having a ridiculous title, is a mixture of hookum and poorly understood science. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not addressing why something that may be tinnitus, a perceived noise in the absence of an external sound, should be merged with something that is the definition of not being tinnitus. Bromley86 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't addressed the rebuttal to that seemingly straw man argument which seems to be predicated on the possibility because one cause of infrasound phenomena is in some cases tinnitus. In fact, that argument seems to assume, illogically, that there can be no cases of infrasound which might not be possibly tinnitus. Nor do I see anything in the article which explicitly makes the assumption inherent in the article itself that the phenomenon is causally a single phenomenon, rather than the more likely possibility that perhaps one or more environmental conditions in distinct areas, coupled with perhaps some genetic variations in certain communities, might not be involved. In short, the article seems to be, to some extent, asserting that similar but not necessarily identical phenomena perceived in widely disparate areas by only a portion of the population in those areas must, somehow, all be at least potentially causally connected, when in fact there is nothing in any really reliable sources which seems to be making that statement.

One might almost as seriously say that John F. Kennedy was named after James T. Kirk. After all, the first and last initials are the same, and the middle one has only one variation which might have some sort of hidden significance that only some people can understand. Regarding the temporal disparity and the fact that one is apparently fiction and the other, maybe, not fiction, well, people have different concepts of the meaning of "fiction" too, particularly in the fields of woo physics. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The straw man here is this Kennedy/Kirk drivel which seems utterly irrelevant. A better example of a similar phenomenon might be the phantom vibration syndrome. We could merge that to vibration but that would be silly as the topic is about perception not just the basic physics. Andrew D. (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen nothing to date, in the article or here, which specifically addresses the issue of how these disparate phenomena in disparate areas are somehow reasonably described as being "the hum", or, for that matter, "the" anything. The obvious implicit assumption in the title, and in the article itself, that there is some sort of common basis to these phenomena, and the attempts to somehow try to find some sort of common basis for the phenomena beyond the obvious scientific explanations for infrasound, raises very serious questions, already pointed out by others, as to whether the content of this article is some sort of SYNTH violation to try to implicitly draw a conclusion regarding these particular phenomena perhaps not even raised in the sources themselves. That being the case, in I believe any objective review of the relevant content, this article is a rather clear fork for a POV that somehow these specific phenomena are in some way causally related in a way, and, honestly, the evidence presented does not justify that implicit assumption in both the article and its title. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article calls this "The Hum" because that's the common name used by sources such as the BBC and The Independent. Other types of mysterious noise have other names such as skyquake or bloop. The fact that no-one's quite sure what causes them is not a reason to delete or dismiss such topics. There are many phenomena which may have multiple causes such as headache or dizziness. It's like the title of the book I'm currently reading, I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it probably should be noted that per WP:UNDUE any kind of merge will result in at most a paragraph being added to the Infrasound article, if that. Artw (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy the irony of your noting that and failing to spot the obvious inference of WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been repeatedly covered by mainstream media such as New Scientist, the BBC, the Guardian &c. It is therefore not fringe to the point that we should ignore it. The infrasound article is a very general one about a particular frequency of sound. Low, penetrating sounds may be produced by a variety of causes such as foghorns, whale song, thunder, &c. These all have separate articles and so should this because it is notable phenomenon which has received widespread and continuing attention. Andrew D. (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE absolutely would apply to both articles, as it does all articles. However WP:FRINGE simply isn't the magic stick for deletion it's that Guy believes it to be - in the case of The Hum he'd have to make individual edits and justify them, not blank it and run off into the sunset. Artw (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE doesn't seem especially important here because that is concerned with particular theories. The primary topic here is a phenomenon (people complaining about an annoying noise). There are a variety of theories about what's going on but, as none of them seem dominant yet, it seems to be anyone's guess as to what the truth of the matter is. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THINGSPEOPLECOMPLAINABOUT is not a notability criteria. We can only write articles on subjects that have been studied seriously. This subject has not been studied seriously and there are no reliable sources which even identify it as a coherent phenomenon except for fringe sources. Thus the appeal to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:THINGSTHATHAVESTUDIEDSERIOUSLY is not a notability criteria either. This is Wikipedia where we have WikiProject Bacon and the main page currently has a picture of someone dressed as a side of bacon (see right). The Hum is looking quite serious in this company. For example, we have the BBC - a serious mainstream organisation - reporting that the audiology department of Addenbrookes - a serious hospital - investigated the matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - a serious ministry. Andrew D. (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It takes minimal reading comprehension of WP:GNG to see that it clearly covers "things that have been studied seriously". jps (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It takes minimal reading comprehension to see that the phrase which QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV puts in quotation marks doesn't appear anywhere in WP:GNG. That guideline doesn't use the word serious at all. What the guideline requires is that we have independent, secondary sources with editorial integrity. Sources such as the BBC and New Scientist. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those sources are enough for WP:GNG in light of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From that BBC article, Baguley (Addenbrooke's) said "in about two thirds of cases no external noise could be found", and the Leventhall (DEFRA) said "It's been a mystery for 40 years so it may well remain one for a lot longer." In both cases, they appear to currently believe that the Hum (or the hums that they've looked at, as distinct from, say, the hums that have been confirmed as low frequency sound (mechanical or fish)) is effectively a case of Hyperacusis. I.e. they're not suggesting that these people can hear sounds that are below the threshold of human hearing (aka infrasound), but they are suggesting that people are fixating on something (either internal or external). The Baguley mentioned above is the same one used to cite almost the entirety of the Hyperacusis article. Bromley86 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is an argument that this article is a POV-fork of hyperacusis. Doesn't change the overall point that there is no evidence that this is anything. I can point to government-sponsored investigations into all sorts of things that turned out to be nothing -- for example, whether $2 fees for paying a bill online are justifiable. Wikipedia articles are not written on the basis of the government investigating a complaint. C.f., the lack of a Two dollar online payment fee article. jps (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, per Baguely's statement to the beeb, it's hyperacusis in 2 out of 3 cases. In 1 out of 3 cases, according to him (but not necessarily everyone else), it's plain, old low frequency noise. So again the repointing fails. Bromley86 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I agree with John Carter's assessment. The sources in the article don't support separating this into a separate article. If the article is kept for whatever reason, it needs to be gutted and seriously reworked, because it's a mess in no small part due to the recent flurry of edits to the page. Even in an ideal state, however, it wouldn't warrant a standalone article. - Aoidh (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with redirect per above, POVFORK of infrasound loaded with OR. The content is a mess of OR not enough quality material to merge. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Merging with Infrasound (as distinct from the Low frequency noise redirect page, which the creator acknowledged was a mispointing) is further complicated by the definition of infrasound (a "sound that is lower in frequency than 20 Hz"). There's been no suggestion that the sounds covered in the current Hum article are in that range (common ranges are 40-85 Hz). The hums attributed to toadfish, for example, would have been around 100 Hz;[4] other sonic fish that have been reported in a hum context can go up to 500 Hz.[5] I.e. low frequency, but not infrasound. Bromley86 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable and valid comment. Much of the sound range in question might fall outside the range of infrasound, but within the range of low frequency noise. That however, might not preclude moving this page to low frequency noise in the short term, with perhaps a merger discussion after the move if appropriate. I am assuming, perhaps unfoundedly, but I doubt it, that pretty much the entire range of sonic frequencies can be determined to be notable at some level, given the amount of information on the topic out there. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POVFORK of infrasound or low frequency noise. No redirect necessary as no independent sources have identified this as a phenomenon worthy of study. Once sociologists take notice of this, we can write an article. Until then, we need to remove the temptation to be on the cutting edge of describing new-fangled ideas that show up on Joe Rogan's show. jps (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP article created in 2005. Hum section in 2003 in a UK government report into low frequency noise (there are plenty of earlier references, but that's a solid academic reference), so it's not like we're talking about a WP-fueled phrase.[6]^: 43 The point is that this is, rightly or wrongly, a phenomenon (or, more likely, a series of phenomena) that the press report on. They reported on it before WP was here, they're still reporting it (Taos is the most famous: LA Times, 1993,[7] but there have been earlier ones (I just can't link to the reports). As mentioned above, infrasound literally makes no sense. Low frequency noise works for the majority of the explanations, but doesn't allow for the possibility that (for a number of people) it's an internally generated noise. Bromley86 (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that this is a neologism. I'm arguing that the topic is subsumed by other articles we have on Wikipedia. In cases such as this, what is essentially going on is a synthesis of news-of-the-weird stories that superficially sound the same, or may have even been collated by some Fortean or Riplean. But inclusion of a flight-of-fancy in a collection of flight-of-fancy material is not a notability criterion at Wikipedia for good reason: we need better sources than that. If there are a dozen instances of people observing green ghosts over the course of 20 years, we don't go and write a green ghost article. There are plenty of places to write about each notable green ghost sighting where they can be explained properly. The obvious choices for the instances measured in this piece of poorly curated tall tales are already listed as proposed redirects and instances of POV-forks. jps (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do tend to be considered content forks if the topic is already covered in general by another extant article and the content of the alleged fork can be seen as being a comparatively one-sided representation of one side of a debate. There, are, I'm guessing, articles on all the places where the hum has been reported. It would certainly be possible that some of the material might be included there. There is also at least a probability (I haven't actually checked) that there is grounds for an article on low-frequency noise distinct from infrasound. If there is, that would logically be the place for most of the content relating to low-frequency noises. This article can be seen, in a sense, as being more than anything else a Low frequency sound in popular culture article. Honestly, there are so far as I can tell solid reasons to believe we could have a lot more "(whatever) in popular culture" articles than we now have. But that is a separate issue, except for perhaps renaming. The question the above editor raises is whether this is effectively a POV fork, and I think the evidence indicates it may well be. The fact that there are proposals, of various levels of rationality, for any number of unusual possibilities does not mean that those proposals need to be presented separately in what might be an UNDUE weight way. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baguely says that it's low frequency noise 1/3 of the time. 2/3 of the time, he theorises, it's hyperacusis. The people who looked at the Taos hum theorise that it's an internally generated noise.[8] One local government-funded investigation where they isolated, and reduced, a low frequency noise didn't fix the problem.[9] So, whilst low frequency noise is an obvious cause (and indeed has been the cause of some reported hums[10]), it's not necessarily a correct one. The point is though that these are all lumped together by reliable sources precisely because no one knows, in the majority of cases which haven't been traced to a mechanical source, what's going on. Bromley86 (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no reliable source do any "lumping". For example, I haven't seen an peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Nor have I seen any sources which do not violate WP:FRIND or are simply news-of-the-weird compilations. jps (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a key point you raise. There are, to my knowledge, no sources that are both reliable and academic, peer-reviewed that examine all possible sources of the Hum. There was Deming,[11] but he chose to publish in the JSE, so that doesn't qualify. There are, however, a large number of reliable news outlets that have reported, and not as part of a news-of-the-weird compilation; the BBC one linked earlier is a good example. As the possible explanations are all theories, none of which have been proved (except in a few cases that were obviously mechanical or fish), these news sources often lump all the possibilities together. Again, referring to that BBC source,[12] we have tinnitus, hyperacusis & low frequency noise mentioned by experts, as is the fact that isolating the noise in Kokomo worked for some, but not all. Bromley86 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somehow not as impressed with the BBC magazine article as others are. It strikes me as one of those human interest stories that can be used in the tinnitus, hyperacusis or low frequency noise articles but doesn't lend itself to a justification of notability. jps (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but we have an article on fan death. Has anyone died because of being in a closed room with a fan? No. But there are sources that talk about the phenomenon of the belief regardless that it's a fallacy. There's a belief in "the Hum" like there's a belief in fan death or Santa Claus. I think the rational people think this article is validating the belief; I think this article is merely explaining what the belief is. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infrasound and merge some of this article's material there. The current article is just a list of places where people have been disturbed by infrasounds, together with some speculations of various quality. This could be covered more breifly and without undue weight to low notability material, in the article which actually was made for the topic, i.e. Infrasound. - Anonimski (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, sounds >20 Hz, as these are, are not infrasound. Bromley86 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Split The current Hum article has no clear definition. This is surprising because already 20 years ago the study of Mullins and Kelly gave the proof that Hum is an internal phenomenon. Nowadays two groups are actively impeding each other in The Hum article: The group working for an internal source and the group for an external source. Hum should be divided into these two groups. The internal source group can still be handed as “The Hum”, because Hum is not the common central tinnitus; the external group should be handed under the already existing Wikipedia-groups “Industrial noise” and “Environmental noise”. The group that wants to change “the Hum” into “Infrasound” in my opinion belongs to the new “The Hum” group of an internal sound. These Hearers are now looking for Infrasound as a realistically not existing source for their Hum: “It is “rubbish” to refer The Hum to an external noise, says Hazell, head of research at the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. 'Everybody who has tinnitus complains at first of environmental noise. 'Hummers' are a group of people who cannot accept that they have tinnitus. About 4 per cent of them may genuinely be hearing low-frequency noise, but this shouldn't be a problem. Low-frequency noise has always been with us. It's caused by the wind and the rain.” Brummfrosch (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title is still WP:OR and the content is still easily handled in infrasound and tinnitus. There is no third subject. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you prove to be correct about the article or it's pointing, the statement that the title is WP:OR is absolutely incorrect. Ignoring all the media reports that refer to "the hum", as opposed to "the xxx hum", you have this DEFRA report on it that has a section called "The Hum" (actually "The HUM", but I assume that's a typo).[13] So not OR. Also, as has repeatedly been said, your insistence that it is infrasound is entirely at odds with what experts have stated in reliable sources. Do you have a source for that? Bromley86 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, merging in whatever tiny bits of actually useful content might be found in this morass of non-notable fringery, non-reliable sources and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A so-called reliable source says nothing about the quality of the information published. The paper has to be scientifically sound. To judge that issue, a scientific knowledge is needed. This is the general problem for Wikipedia. As long as it is not accepted that Hum is a global phenomenon, some local phenomena like “Mechanical devices” and “Fish”, and nowadays “Infrasound” as possible explanations do expose the whole article to ridicule. If we are not able to make this clear definition, I recommend deleting the whole “The Hum”, because it is of no information to hum-sufferers. Brummfrosch (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the phenomenon has been widely reported. Granted, there is a lot of POV and pseudoscience mixed in, but if we delete articles over that, Wikipedia would only have a few Good Articles and otherwise be blank. A merge into infrasound would be erroneous, as by the very definition of infrasound, it's inaudible. One prior iteration of the article mentioned the source of one hum being located in an industrial air exchanger, which is gone now. A re-write of the article, with meticulous citations, from reliable sources would be worthy.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is horrific reasoning. Oh, Wikipedia is a shitpile, let's just pile on more shit. Horrific. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that the article would require a re-write, with meticulous citations, from reliable sources would be worthy. So, the only shitpile present is what you put forth as a response. The article as it currently stands is utter rubbish, with a few facts thrown in. It was previously of better quality (I'm thinking of around 2 years back or so), with not as much POV or pseudoscience assaulting one's intelligence. We don't delete such articles, we edit them and repair POV to NPOV, citations from reliable sources and check our opinions at the door.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive thinking[edit]

Inclusive thinking (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)

Unsourced essay/OR Jac16888 ^Talk 22:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; recreation of an article deleted last month. Blackguard 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons I tagged it earlier - it's an OR essay with no inline cites. —Swpb^talk 13:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sources are from Wikimedia, and it's an original essay, meaning it fails WP:NOTESSAY. Imitch5 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Creative thinking, also called inclusive thinking, does exist, and thousands of sources could be found. But this is not it. Please, put it out of its misery and delete it. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -per WP:NOR. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:BOLDly redirected. New target is Theresa Caputo; rationale is basically WP:BLP1E. (non-admin closure) ansh666 07:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Tebo[edit]

Ron Tebo (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 claim of notability. JDDJS (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: I've tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion A7 (no claim to significance). --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-man 17:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osaka University College of Bio-Medical Technology[edit]

Osaka University College of Bio-Medical Technology (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 can't find any evidence to suggest this place exists? The refs: Japanese Wiki, Japanese Wiki, A broken link for the school. It could be a mistranslation for the other schools (e.g Medical school or Biosciences) ツStacey (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The problem is that it doesn't exist anymore, since it ceased to exist in 1996. So there's not going to be a school site or that much on the web that is current. But there is plenty on the net that proves that it existed: lots of people who list themselves as graduating from or teaching there ([14], [15], [16], etc.), other institutional histories ([17], [18], etc.), and even its publications ([19], [20], [21], etc.). So it definitely existed. The question is simply whether there is enough to declare whether this institution that lasted for about 30 years passes notability criteria. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While there does not appear to be any doubt that the college actually existed, I'm not convinced that we have sufficient third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability or justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to the lead of the Japanese wiki page, the faculty was closed when a Health Sciences Department was opened within the faculty of medicine at Osaka University. So really it should be included as a paragraph in the history of the Faculty of Medicine, but that faculty doesn't even have its own page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mississippi in the American Civil War. Consensus is against deletion. Strongest argument is against a dedicated article for want of sources. czar ⨹ 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Mississippi[edit]

Republic of Mississippi (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 is, at most, an "informal" name. Little to no useful content for merging. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mississippi in the American Civil War. No sourced content besides the secession document but perhaps a plausible redirect. Deadbeef 09:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Secession of Mississippi and purge unsourced stuff. The secession of a US state seems notable, and not really part of what transpired on its territory during the subsequent war. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Deadbeef. There is nothing substantial in the article but the text of the declaration of secession, which sould be better Transwified to ?Wikisource. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete to Mississippi in the American Civil War. The one problem with a redirect is that it leaves dubious Republic of Mississippi links out there based on a "Republic" name lacking reliable secondary sources. The Declaration itself might merit discussion and a page, perhaps as part of an expansion article describing the Mississippi expansion process. However, that article does not exist at present, this existing page has no interpretation of the document, and the declaration can be readily found online. Red Harvest (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per Deadbeef. I agree with CarlosS that Secession of Mississippi would be an encyclopedic article, but all we have here is a primary document, not such an article. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Mississippi Secession, just as Republic of Louisiana was moved to Louisiana secession back in October. Yes, it will be a stub, but something to build on for what should be a complete series of articles on the succession of the Confederate states. Mojoworker (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mississippi in the American Civil War. The actual secession of states like MS was rapid, it wasn't holding back like Virginia and North Carolina, I don't believe a separate article on the act of secession would be the best organization of content for readers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Săhleanu[edit]

Victor Săhleanu (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 think the main issue here is that there are essentially no independent sources attesting notability. In fact, the article text is entirely unsourced, and almost the only citations we do have are to Google Books editions of Săhleanu's works. Furthermore, the text is written by his son, and you can tell. It verges on hagiography and is not an objective biography.

I do believe there's a slight chance Săhleanu may be notable, and I realize there isn't abundant information available online about second-tier Romanian scientists from the 1960s and '70s. Still, he shouldn't get a free pass because of that. If someone can show solid evidence of notability as expressed through independent sources, I'd be glad to revise my opinion, but if not, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete there is some possibility of notability, but no evidence of it, as stated by Biruitorul. A book search turns up some mentions of Săhleanu, with one source calling him a "prominent physician and anthropologist". However, there isn't anything indepth. Săhleanu's work doesn't have a lot of citations (but I'm not sure what to really expect from a non-English-speaking person who was active 50 years ago either). Certainly, I am open to change my opinion if good evidence is presented. Pinging @78.26: who accepted this at AfC for input.

As to the COI, it is not relevant for AfD purposes. However, if kept the article would need to be stubified per WP:V. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See upadted opinion below --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Thanks for the ping, ThaddeusB. I accepted this article because he meets WP:NACADEMICS under criteria #6, as the head of the Geriatrics Department (although the article does not make it clear if this is for a standalone institution, or a department within an institution.) The man appears more than marginally notable, particularly in the field of Romanian Education. Unfortunately, as I speak no Romanian whatsoever, I'm not a good candidate to search for Romanian sources. However, as this is not a BLP, inline citations are not required, and only controversial claims require direct citation. Despite the COI, I have no reason to doubt the claims presented, and as such it is indeed notable. So what should be removed are a)controversial claims b)hoaxes (if it be such) c)trivial, non-notable information not presenting useful information about the subject d)peacockery and the like. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • "He meets WP:NACADEMICS under criteria #6, as the head of the Geriatrics Department" - let me stop you right there, if I may, and ask for verifiable evidence that that was the case.
  • By the way, even if he was "Head of Department" within the Ana Aslan Institute, that would not necessarily mean he met criterion (the singular of criteria) number 6. Said institute has many departments with many heads, none of whom necessarily is notable. The institute's leadership, perhaps, but that's a different matter: we have not even a claim that he belonged to the management. In any event, this is all speculation: do come up with verifiable sources on this, and then we can discuss further.
  • "The man appears more than marginally notable, particularly in the field of Romanian Education." Based on what sources, exactly?
  • "As this is not a BLP, inline citations are not required, and only controversial claims require direct citation" - so WP:V doesn't apply in the case of deceased individuals, and we can write whatever we feel about them? That's news to me, and, I would imagine, to anyone who takes the concept of verifiability seriously.
  • "I have no reason to doubt the claims presented, and as such it is indeed notable" - interesting logic: write what you feel like, sources be damned, and voilà, we have notability!
  • "So what should be removed are ….." But unsourced, unverified and indeed unverifiable claims are just fine, am I right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To clear things up, best practice is to cite all material. However, citations are not strictly required for non-contentious material. That said, the existance of RS are required to prove notability, of course... It was a reasonable AfC acceptance, but now notability is challenged and must be demonstrated by reliable sources. The link I provided above can be one piece toward establishing notability, but I think we need more than that and department chairmanship (I believe criteria #6 is mostly for university leadership except for super prestigious colleges). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's approval/deletion process I was surprised to read the comments above. "I do believe there's a slight chance Săhleanu may be notable" is a strange comment about a person that has (verifiably) authored 32 books. As ThaddeusB rightly observed "I'm not sure what to really expect from a non-English-speaking person who was active 50 years ago" to which I would add "in a Communist country isolated from contacts with the Western scientific world". Nevertheless I understand the need for additional independent references to Victor Sahleanu. I did some more research for such sources and I found this recent one http://www.caleaeuropeana.ro/simpozionul-fr-i-rainer-2013-antropologie-si-mediu-dedicat-lui-victor-aurelian-sahleanu/ , which would satisfy, I believe, the criteria to include my father's entry in Wikipedia. The page has versions in three languages, Romanian, English and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3880:B70:217:F2FF:FE01:B6FE (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your reponse. The link provided is a symposium in honary of Săhleanu, which is a pretty good indication of notability. It states Săhleanu "was a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Honorary Member of the Association of Scientists, Physicians Society of Writers and publishers and other foreign scientific societies. In 1990 the French Academy awarded him a gold medal for national devotion." (rough Google translation). That, combined with the book reference ("prominent physician and anthropologist") above, is probably sufficient to establish notability, so I will change to keep... As should not be surprising, most English Wikipedians do not speak Romanian or have the slightest clue where to look for Romanian reliable sources. If at all possible, do you think you could find some more (likely offline) sources? A single newspaper obituary, for example, would go a long way to improving the article. Even US newspapers from 1997 are not generally found online, but I'd imagine you should be able to get access to Romanian newspapers from then at a local library (if you happen to still live in Romania). Scan or take a picture of any offline sources you find and I will be happy to help you incorporate them into the article. (I can be reached via email if desired.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this will clear up any remaining doubt about his notability. Perhaps Biruitorul would like to withdraw the nomination now so we can focus on fixing up the article instead of worrying about (now obvious) notability? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though very drasticcutting will be needed. I have my doubts about most of the individual awards, andabout the likely scientific merit, but he was a sufficiently importat figure. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Soul[edit]

Zoë Soul (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)

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources does not meet the inclusion criteria (even WP:ANYBIO), and qualifies for deletion.

It may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article on 'Zoe Soul'. Well, there are some coverage of her, but they are all commentary of the subject about themselves, i.e interviews, hence can't considered independent and contribute to establish notability of the subject.

Yahoo celebrity search engine doesn't produce even a single result for the subject ([22]). I'm not here saying that Yahoo determines notability on Wikipedia, but it at least gives us an idea about. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Comment: Would anyone looking at her career feel that WP:ENT is verifiable? if so, this may be less a matter of Too Soon and finally one of Just Soon Enough for a suitable stub to remain and be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there before I decided to bring the article to afd. I think, it is borderline (only #1 of WP:NACTOR?). Because if they've had the significant role in multiple films, tv shows, etc., why are they not independently written about the same in multiple reliable sources. They appear to be notable for The Purge: Anarchy film, but again, here all we got are interviews (not independent). The idea of 'hidden sources' does not look me that much promising for USA.

My actual concerns are, are we going to write an article entirely based on affiliated/unreliable sources? I have had mind make-up that if someone shows me here two or three secondary, independent and reliable sources that might help to write a stub, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that she owns the reliable sources that made the editorial decisions to interview her? Or that she owns the production companies that put her in her many projects? My thought here is that if independent sources asked the questions, then the attention was on her by them... oversight evidenced by their reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and such. In other words, if/when media interviews Obama and he responds, would media coverage of their interview also be considered non-independent? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you didn't intend so, but I feel like being misinterpreted. I wanted to say, Interviews are simply what subject say about themselves, and the publishers irrespective of the their reputation present the material word for word without having them checked for facts and accuracy. In this sense, it is a primary/non-independent source and could be considered "self-published". It can be reliable for what subject/interviewee claimed about themselves but not for what they said, is really true. So, coming to my first line of my previous comment, in diff. wordings, 'are we going to write a commentary of subject by the subject in their article and call it is an 'encyclopedia'?

And, answer to your question related to Obama, is 'Yes'. It could only be reliable for what Obama said, not what they said is true (similar to their personal website). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it was just the Purge role or the Reed Between the Lines role, I'd say that it should redirect to the cast page for that particular film. However in this case we have an actress that has performed a substantial role in a TV series and a major film. It's also worth noting that her getting a role in a pilot episode was considered to be noteworthy enough for an article in Deadline. (As did her addition to The Purge 2 and is highlighted in some reviews, I might add.) She's not the most overwhelmingly notable actress out there, but she does just barely squeak by notability guidelines. It's also worth noting that she did her early work (Reed Between the Lines) as "Zoe Borde", so that should be taken into consideration as well. This is a close squeak, but there's enough here to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as interviews go, I've never been a fan of the idea that they can't show notability in some aspect (since that usually appears to be a common argument against it) because in most normal situations someone has done something of note to merit winning an interview. There are people who are known for WP:ONEEVENT that gain interviews, but someone gaining an interview for a 15 minutes of fame type situation (owner of the IKEA monkey, longest toenails, winning a spelling bee at a very young age, etc) isn't really the same thing as an actor or actress getting interviewed for their work on a film or TV show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Substantial role in a TV series and a major film'? What kind of substantial role it was, that no reliable sources did bother to write about it? Seriously, getting a role in a TV episode really does make a person eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia? You've listed here four sources in your keep !vote for her, one, two, three and four, All these are having passing mention of the subject to the extent that neither one do mention the word 'Zoe' more than once. I'm really curious and interested to know what notability guideline according to your understanding does make the subject notable for Wikipedia? She has worked in few films, and sources had to mention the cast of the film when did write about the film. That's it. Here is the crackdown on all available sources about the subject,

1. Blackfilm.com Interview. The source appears to be more like a blog site, who in their 'About' section say, "The site provides a forum for filmmakers, scholars and organizations to present information and promote artistic expression."
2. Bet.com Four lines
3. Bet.com A video
4. hollywoodthewriteway.com blog. I don't think, it's worth to discuss them here. See their About me
5. The Birmingham Post (England) on Highbeam Passing mention. They have written an article about a film and they had mention the cast, so did they, when they were discussing the plot of the film, they did write, "Anna and the Birch's girl, Eliza (Zoe Soul), disappear to look for a missing whistle and never return."
6. -TvGuide Passing mention. They have written about the film, Zoe has again successfully secured a passing mention as they wrote, "[..]and Joy’s older sister Eliza (Zoe Soul) had seen parked on their street at the exact time the girls went missing."
7. Deadline.com It says, Subject has been cast in a Tv show. That's it. Passing mention -nothing else.
8. Blog.infiewire.com It says, subject has been cast in the sequel to the thriller The Purge. Again, passing mention -nothing else.
9. dreadcentral.com Passing mention. Listing of subject, in cast of a film
10. dallasnews Passing mention. One line, "[..]and relative newcomer Zoe Soul (Reed Between the Lines)."

It is indisputable that at this moment taking into consideration all available sources about the subject, they do not meet the WP:GNG. Only hope for them is, WP:NACTOR criteria #1 which says, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." My question is, what kind of substantial role has the subject played in into their films that no reliable sources mention them out of the cast listing? Please provide reliable sources to support your claim. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the simplest way to gauge notability, the GNG is not an absolute mandate. See WP:GNGACTOR. After analysis of the above arguments, we have a suitable stub on a topic finally ready for an article. BET is the pre-eminent source covering African Americans in entertainment. [23][24] And as BlackFilms reports on African American films and filmmakers, it does not appear quite as "bloggy" as the nom would disparage... and actually blogs are not all disallowed. More, What is ignored is that the required verifiability of information within a BLP does not itself have to be SIGCOV, and reliable sources Birmingham Post, TV Guide, Deadline.com, Indiewire, Dreadcentral, and Dallas News all act to give the policy-mandated mandated verification of facts within this stub. Also we need to accept that the major body of her work was done as a minor, and likely has a relationship to how reliable sources (outside of BET) may have chosen to cover her when she was younger. As for "significant roles", it seems reasonable that being cast as named character Kaci Reynolds (important to plot and story-line) in 25 episodes of notable series Reed Between the Lines is significant. It's not as if she were cast in a one-time and insignificant role of "girl-in-crowd". And major character Cali Sanchez in The Purge: Anarchy is also not an insignificant descriptive role. More, her role as Eliza Birch in the notable film Prisoners (2013 film) was significant enough to receive NBR Awards recognition... so we have enough to see that WP:ENT (prong #1) is met (all prongs need not be). This stub serves the project and its readers by remaining to grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree with above voters, her roles in Reed Between the Lines, The Purge: Anarchy and Prisoners look significant and WP:ENT is very likely met. Cavarrone 09:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And note: No need to relist a 3rd time, as we have policy and guideline based consensus for keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this per SNOW. That it's a hoax is well-established and there is no evidence for now that the subject is notable because of it. If that changes I'll be happy to restore the content. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Islam[edit]

Mohammed Islam (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)

Probable hoax, completely lacking RS, claiming highschool boy earned $79 million in stock market. Courtesy blanked for now. EEng (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: this page is not eligible to be courtesy blanked, because no harm will results from displaying the contents. I have unblanked it. -- Y not? 19:11, 15 December 2014 (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/2014 December 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A source familiar with the story told Business Insider that Islam is not worth $72 million. The source believes it's a rumor started by Islam's friends or partners that was perpetuated by the New York Magazine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie78 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I saw this at DYK but didn't really look into it. Random thought - maybe he's notable for the hoax rather than the article just being a hoax? Fuebaey (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait the full week. This story is changing by the hour. At this point the article has multiple reliable sources, more than sufficinet, but headlines are being changed and updates being added. This is either going to be a WP:BLP1E or the story is going to persist, in which case he will indeed be notable for the hoax. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if this was true (and apparently it's not) it's a case of WP:BLP1E unless he gains attention for something else as well. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 09:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. I had created the DYK hook thanks to my lack of knowledge about western news sources. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with User:Fauzan, that this is a one-off blip – and not an interesting one at that. One could (I suppose) argue he is notable for the hoax. But this is a one-off event that is not WP:Noteworthy. Who cares? Except for the fact that he is utterly unnotable, WP:Fart would seem to apply by analogy. WP:Bare notability augurs that this article is WP:Crap. I can't imagine that we would want this blatant falsity on the main page. See Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammed Islam 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6+7, surely you know BLP rules forbid us to refer to subjects as "farts" or "crap", nor is it our place to label them as "not worthy". EEng (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, Surely you know that I was referring to the article, the subject and the sourcing (as it presently exists in the article).

As to anything in the sources, at best the named subject of the article has committed chicanery and managed to dupe a couple of newswriters, newspapers, and magazines. There is no other proffered claim to fame or encyclopedic newsworthiness that I can see. Indeed, his imagined exploits were expurgated and exist only in the article's history. Kludt, Tom (December 16, 2014). "New York Mag says 'we were duped' by $72 million teen trader". CNN Money. Retrieved December 16, 2014. This is fodder for tabloids and daily newspapers, but not encyclopedic. The import of Mr. Mohammed Islam's exploits are as evanescent as expelled gas.

Nor were the comments directed at the wikipedia article writers, who were themselves innocently drawn into the tangled web of deceit. For them I feel sympathy, as we are no better than our sources. And a stream cannot rise higher than its source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, would it have made it clearer what I actually meant if, in addition, I'd said "I don't think we should be talking about whether someone's NOT ABLE. Nowadays we say 'DIS ABLED', or 'DIFFERENTLY ABLED'"? Or do I have to start putting little winky-smiley faces in my facetious posts? "Noteworthy", "not worthy" ;) ... "notable", "not able" ;) ... get it??? ;P EEng (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I took you serious. You need to put winking emoticons, so that the humor-impaired among us are not misled. <{:>{)> That's me smiling and wearing my Santa's hat. I naturally sport a grey beard and roof, but the hat is seasonal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I line up with the Wait-a-week folks. Wikipedia is filled (hyperbole) with One Hit Wonders and people who gained their 15 minutes of fame in all sorts of ways. No rush here. Other than we are contributing to his 15 minutes just a bit. Carptrash (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait a week per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Recreate if he ever becomes notable, be it in a week or a year or whatever. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I gave him 15 seconds and that was too long.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. We already have text on that. Surely we can add it there? It's a couple of sentences in a short paragraph in the New York (magazine) article, and yet it's longer than this two-line stub. (BTW, we could recreate the article when he actually does make some money and is not known as "the guy at Stuy who made a huge hoax about his earnings".) Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmaad Aspen[edit]

Ahmaad Aspen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The KP (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)

A vanity bio fabricated with citations to irrelevant sources, all of which are either non-reliable or dead links. Subject thoroughly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:–Subject of the article obviously fails WP:MUSICBIO. –Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin I'm including The KP in the AFD as well, given it would be eligible for A9 once the AFD closes. It's just more fabricated nonsense. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of fabricated baloney. Fails WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 06:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.264 Warrior Magnum[edit]

.264 Warrior Magnum (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's no claim of notability and there are no sources for verification. The article claims that a company called Warrior Arms was interested in producing this firearm ammunition, but there's no mention of it on the company website.[25] The article was PRODed after its creation, but recreated immediately by the same user, who promised there were many sources,[26] but no one has found any since 2011. Overall, this is a non-notable wildcat cartridge, belonging to a class of articles discussed in this worthwhile essay: User:DeusImperator/I've Got a Wildcat Cartridge for the Wiki So What Now. Rezin (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. There is nada about this round or its inventor out there. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rezin (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Rezin (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree with above...Also, no references, and only source of information appears to be Wikipedia and Wiki mirrors.--RAF910 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No reliable sources evidencing notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyvio and no indication of importance. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Leave you for the Time Om-Kalthoum Song[edit]

I'll Leave you for the Time Om-Kalthoum Song (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)

These are just lyrics of the song. Not encyclopedic content. Probably copyrighted also. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I think this falls under no content. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uładzimir Katkoŭski[edit]

Uładzimir Katkoŭski (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)

With all due respect to this now-deceased collegue of ours, what makes him notable? I am afraid this entry fails our policies (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a memorial and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Ego Hunter (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there are references in the article that say that he is a pioneer of Internet usage in the Belarusian language, and that makes him notable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, inadequate sourcing, and per WP:ANYBIO:

  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

  2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

  The award is not well known, he was recognized for his blogging, and the other language articles are useless AFA sourcing. Eddymason (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per Amire80. Eddymason is also completely correct the article's currently single source is totally insufficient. I don't know if other sources exist and it seems like we're going to need to have some input from Belarusian speakers to answer that question. Once that input appears, ping me and I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote.

Until then, I'm going to give this article and its authors the benefit of the doubt. In large part, I do because this nomination was made by an acknowledged WP:SOCK WP:SPA created to nominate biographies of Wikipedians and Wikimedians for deletion. I've detailed some reasons for concern on the nominator's talk page and, after their pattern of editing was recognized, the nominator has defended their campaign and use of a WP:SOCK on their user page. So far, every closed AfDs by this nom have been decisions to keep and several have trivially uncovered reliable sources, major awards, etc. Because I've seen no evidence that this nominator is following WP:BEFORE, this smells me to like WP:POINTy behavior.

Bottom line, this AFD is premature and this this article should have been tagged with ((notability)) or similar before it was brought here. —mako๛ 01:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's disappointing to see Mako stoop to casting aspersions on the nominator, instead of addressing the valid points in the nomination. Wikipedians are free to make controversial edits, such as these nominations, using a sock, this is a legitimate case for using a sock. Another example would be to add material to a pornstar bio, or adding material to a bio of a criminal who may soon be freed. Simply because Mr Ego Hunter's other nominations have failed does not mean that this one is not valid, these are considered on a case by case basis, and this case is especially tragic, which makes Hill's arguing for the article even more ghoulish, calling the AFD "premature". From where I stand the nomination is long overdue. I see that I've omitted a rationale above, I will add it now... thanks a lot, Mako. >:( Eddymason (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Update — Eddymason pointed out on his talk page that the article has been tagged with ((refimprove)) since 2011 so I've removed my claim about the AfD being premature. Apologies about that.

I also want to clarify that that I didn't intend to imply either that the nominator's use of a sock was illegitimate. Good faith/bad faith aside, I do think the nominators behavior is WP:POINTy and previous noms have revealed little evidence of WP:BEFORE. That's not meant as an ad-hominem argument for keeping (mine is only a weak keep!) but rather a description for why we might give the article it the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry that this wasn't communicated clearly. I'm keeping my !vote the same for now. —mako๛ 04:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 18:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabur Khan[edit]

Sabur Khan (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)

Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. His association with the university is not sufficient for qualification under WP:PROF. Does not appear to have recieved any awards Wikipedia would consider significant or contributed anything that could reasonably be said to form part of "the enduring historical record". Along with Daffodil International University this article is little more than a building block of a walled garden for an individual desperately in need of validation. Which is exactly what was said the last time we deleted this in 2012. Oh, did I mention the page creator works for his company? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Do not pass WP:GNG. NOTE: This article was AfDed before with a decision of delete (closed on Aug 18, 2012). Immediately after that, this article was recreated on Aug 22, 2012 by the same original author (Alam5131). On Mar 23, 2013 a history indicates it was moved from AfC to article space with a strange note: "Well reference and I personally know this person." by Alam5131. Alam5131's contribution record indicates that his only contribution is about Sabur Khan and his company Daffodil Group (owner of Daffodil International University). @Dougweller: could be able provide some insight on this article. – nafSadh did say 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was deleted again in May 2013 as a recreation of a page deleted at AfD, but in July this year User:CT Cooper restored it. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting. Several facts are strange: (1) AfD decided delete on Aug 2012 and it took affect 9 months later on May 2013!. (2) an AfC was there on Mar 2013. (3) There are couple of major contributors Alam5131 and Wikiwebsbd -- both of which edits on Wikipedia exclusively about Daffodil group and Sabur Khan. There is a suspicion of sock or meat puppet.

If there was a AfC discussion and/or there was rationale for restoring it would be helpful if we could find those. – nafSadh did say 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

correction: "exclusively" – nafSadh did say 09:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the logs and the title in question has twice been deleted and twice salted before CT Cooper restored it. Deletion review was requested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May 11 and the decision to delete was upheld. I am at a loss to understand why it was restored. No rationale was given in the log. Looking at the page history, numerous spin-off titles have been used to try and shoehorn this thing back into article space. As far as AfC goes, the only moves from AfC space have been conducted by Alam5131. Indeed, User:Alam5131 has invested considerable effort in circumventing process or otherwise gaming the system to keep the article alive; so much so that his actions strike me as unambiguously disingenuous. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus it is evident that, this article is wrongfully restored and this AfD can be closed delete. I am not here to judge but admins are human too, thus are not free from err; it could have been a mistake from the admin restoring it. – nafSadh did say 08:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posit actions of Alam5131 and Wikiwebsbd (possible ?puppet?) should be reviewed. – nafSadh did say 08:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither account has edited in over a year, so an AN/I discussion would likely be a waste of time. I haven't looked into the accounts closely enough to see if there is enough for checkuser action. Although, there are some interesting edits to another user page [27]. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 12:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny! He awarded himself a barnstar. Siddikweb is probably another related user. – nafSadh did say 03:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Firstly I've never undeleted, unprotected, or re-created this article. All I did was restore the deleted history behind the re-created article. This is a neutral action and is permissible if the history is free of copyright violations and biographies of living persons violations, which this page history was. This was too long ago for me to remember why I didn't just delete the re-created article at the time, but it was probably just an oversight. I don't know what happened to the create protection, but the page history and logs suggest I didn't remove it. As for the substance of the AfD, I'm leaving it open for further input, but I agree that this person is probably not notable. Daffodil International University is for another discussion, and in my view it probably does meet WP:N, but has also been subject to a lot of problematic editing, which I have been keeping an eye on. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With that information now known, it would appear the page was restored by way of page move carried out by an admin in this edit. Quite clearly performed in good faith to resolve a WP:COMMONNAME problem. In so doing, the create protection was circumvented rather than removed. Thanks for helping to clear that one up. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some admins have been deceived! – nafSadh did say 03:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and re-salt. Notability (per WP:GNG) still not evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, winner of some significant awards, [28], [29], [30]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Quality Congress, Global Award for Outstanding Contribution to Quality & Leadership, Asia’s Most Inspiring Nation Builder Award. Hmmm, yeah, really noteworthy awards... Or perhaps, the kind of new-agey businessman slap-on-the-back awards that confer precisely nothing in the way of notability. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy and Learning[edit]

Literacy and Learning (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOKS. Article is completely a summary of the content of the book (and a very long one -- more than 40,000 characters). Uses references only from the book. User:Dannyparker0206 has edited only this article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can find substantive academic reviews. The book appears well used in academic work, but not sure about it as notable in and of itself, Sadads (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to author's page. I initially found one source right off the bat and was optimistic enough to stubbify the article and add it, but I can't really find anything that is specifically about this book. The individual essays do appear to be fairly notable since they are frequently used in various classrooms, academic papers, and the like, but I can't see anything that specifically mentions the book and the book isn't automatically notable because it collects notable works, so a redirect is best in this case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per NBOOKS. I think the article name is too general to be made into a redirect, unless it were to be 'Literacy and Learning (book)'. The title of the AFD attracted my attention because I thought it might be related to Literacy. Vrac (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: A Champion Will Be Crowned. Clearly arguments to keep this based on non policy based reasons are not valid. This leaves a majority to delete and an argument to redirect. As the consensus is that we do not retain the article I see no harm in the lesser outcome of a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randa Markos[edit]

Randa Markos (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 MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight (a loss). It's been a long standing agreement that TUF fights that are not part of the finale are exhibitions that don't count towards notability. I would really prefer to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: A Champion Will Be Crowned, but I didn't want to just make the move by myself.Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the above reasons. Since Randa did appear on the Finale, although it was between the two losing semi-finalists, I could live with a Redirect. Redirects for participants in TUF should not be automatic.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect She definitely fails to meet WP:NMMA and the article could reasonably be deleted. I agree with Peter's reasoning about the redirect and that appearing on TUF shouldn't merit an automatic redirect. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NMMA provides a rule of thumb, not a mandate. We don't count TUF fights toward notability in part because the contestants normally consist of regional talent only competing for a spot on the UFC roster. Many of these contestants will not eventually either join or stay on the UFC roster for long. In contrast, almost all of TUF 20's contestants were notable prior to the show. They were also competing for the championship belt of a new UFC division. Markos competed against three high-profile fighters on the show, and fought in a high-profile match in her UFC debut. She is now a top 10 UFC ranked fighter who will surely remain on the roster. • aifanp 10:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her ranking is somewhat immaterial, certainly her UFC ranking is. She's not even in the top 15 in the world rankings and WP:NMMA is the generally accepted standard for showing notability as an MMA fighter. She may well get her 3 top tier fights, but that falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Of course I have no objection to the article being saved in userspace for when/if she becomes notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have these requirements (WP:NOTABILITY) to make sure that there is "significant coverage" on the article and "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph." Her life before, during, and after TUF 20 has been well-documented. And her page, while not extensive, is certainly longer than a stub. • aifanp 07:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a bit of latitude should be extended to female sportsfigures in general given institutional advantages of male sports, and aifanp's rationale acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - placing 4th in TUF 20 makes her a top fighter in her weight division. She's made 4 fights in the UFC now (even if 3 of them are exhibition fights) and that should be taken into account. It's not like she's just a fighter who happened to participate in a reality show, she was one fight away of fighting for the title.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being ranked 7th in the UFC, not in the top 15 worldwide, is not an indicator of notability. Why are people so determined to ignore the existing notability criteria? She may well become notable, but right now is WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link for me the three fights in UFC she's participated in please? SQL^{Query me!} 08:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I misread that. She's fought one UFC fight. SQL^{Query me!} 08:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Beat many top fighters, bonus awards, I think she has earned herself a WP:GNG pass. LiberatorLX (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. I don't see where she has beaten any ranked righters so that claim is bogus. Exhibition fights (which is most of TUF) never count as top tier. There are nearly 200 female MMA fighters so I don't see why some editors believe that the existing rules are discriminatory. Saying that all fighters at TUF 20 were fighting for a title so they all automatically meet WP:NMMA is to abuse the concept. It would be like saying all fighters are trying to become a world champion so they're all automatically notable. Jakejr (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA, which is the accepted guideline for MMA fighters at WP:NSPORT. All of the keep voters are ignoring the existing standards and making up their own.Astudent0 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks good. Passes WP:GNG with numerous references in the article already. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass the prevailing notability guidelines for MMA at this time. One UFC fight, and has not fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. SQL^{Query me!} 08:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per consensus and withdrawn nomination. No prejudice against combining this into a larger article. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of John Crawford III[edit]

Shooting of John Crawford III (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 event. Brief bursts of coverage when it happened and when the guy wasn't indicted, but Wikipedia is not a news site. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn: see note below. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep clearly notable and the subject of ongoing media debate regarding police violence. Artw (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some structure and expanded the article out from a stub. while there is still much work to be done I believe it shows this is a viable article with potential for growth. Artw (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The "ongoing debate of police violence" is a reason to delete per WP:SENSATION. On the other hand, this did indeed make the news circuit pretty thoroughly. Is there any indication of lasting importance as discussed at WP:NEVENT? VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brief sampling of recent news articles placing the death in a greater context: [31][32][33][34][35] Artw (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should have an article on the 2014 protests in general (I would imagine we do already). Those sources would be a better fit for there, since they only say a sentence or two about the shooting of Crawford. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the WaPo article:

The father of another victim, John Crawford III, who was shot dead in a Wal-Mart store by police officers in a Dayton, Ohio, suburb, said the same criminal justice system he works for “is the same system I’m receiving injustice from.”

Police said they thought a BB gun the younger Crawford carried was lethal. A video of the shooting shows that he was on a cellphone before he was shot. A grand jury decided not to indict the officers who fired the shots.

“My son was murdered in the biggest retail store in the world,” Crawford said. “These cases should be open and shut. Let’s stay focused on that. Don’t forget my son’s name. They will all be vindicated.”

This seems sufficient depth. Artw (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty trivial to me, actually. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article in no way fits the description of WP:SENSATION. It is not tabloid nor yellow journalism. Contrary to WP:SENSATION this article does include extensive (exhaustive) fact checking. It does not bear the remotest resemblance to sensationalism or scandal mongering or gossip WP:NOTSCANDAL. It is neither 'infotainment' nor 'churnalism'. It is not the least bit related to 'frivolous "silly season" reporting. To suggest that this article fits the description of WP:SENSATION is a misobservation. Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. We have to ask: Is it notable by itself, or is this just coming on the heels of a dozen similar cases? While this is notable, on the other hand, it seems like an incident being covered just now, after all the other protests (Brown, Garner, etc.) attracted attention to this. We should create a general 2014 police protests article like VQuakr stated just above. Epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that sounds like a good plan. We would be able to give a brief overview of the sort of event that people are protesting, without creating a bunch of similar newsy articles that basically lack potential to grow. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this event is notable by itself. It is not just one of dozen(s) of similar events. It has created lasting effects. It is patently false to suggest that it is 'an incident being covered just now, after all the other protests attracted attention to this' -- as proven in the dates of reliable sources referenced in the article itself, already, including: 7-Aug, 8-Aug, 9-Aug, 11-Aug, 15-Aug, 21-Aug, 7-Sep, 21-Sep, 24-Sep, 25-Sep, 26-Sep, 29-Sep, 14-Oct, 25-Oct, 24-Nov, 26-Nov, 4-Dec, 5-Dec, 13-Dec, 14-Dec, and 16-Dec. (This makes one wonder if editors are even reading the references before proposing the article be deleted. A Google News search of <"John Crawford iii"> sorted by Date reveals articles in reliable sources on most dates since the shooting. Given the extensive press coverage of this case, from the day it took place until now, to suggest that it be deleted raises questions of WP:BIAS.) Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep, continued): It would not be appropriate nor encylopedic to try and combine this and similar cases into just one article. Such an article would be too long and clunky. Not every case needs a separate article, but the most significant ones do, and this event qualifies. The separate topics already have been expanded into longer standalone articles. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even if some might be short. The standalone articles are not duplicates, they do not overlap in enough ways to warrant merging, they each have significant independent text, and they do not need to be presented together to have sufficient context (as with characters from a novel, per WP:MERGE). Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is currently labeled as a "stub". From WP:STUB... "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion." Key words being "capable of expansion". I don't see how this article could be expanded. Apart from it being a bit of a viral story due to the video clip and other black men shot by cops, I don't see how it might expand into anything greater than a news story. – JBarta (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a stab at that right now, and the answer to how it can be expanded from a stub appears to be "really easily" - the timeline needs to be filled in, the grand jury investigation isn't covered, the media reactions are basically a big pile of sources and new aspects of the case are still coming to light, as well as continued activism in reaction to the case. I am really not seeing a dead, impossible to improve article at all. Artw (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider WP:RECENTISM. – JBarta (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the article will no doubt change over time to reflect new sources and the outcome of any legal cases I believe the basic bones of it are pretty fixed and unlikely to change too much, meaning that recentism shouldn't be too much of a problem. Artw (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I shop at that WalMart location, and assure you that here at ground zero, it's going to be a notable event for a long time to come. More broadly, it's been reported multiple times in international news outlets. I also fear that race might be a factor in attempts to downplay this event, to include squelching this Wikipedia article. Marc W. Abel (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Race a factor? I see no reason for you to besmirch black folks by suggesting they are trying to "squelch" the article. Black folks are rather appalled and saddened at this event just like white folks are. – JBarta (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a joking matter, TBH. You should probably take your comedy routine elsewhere. Artw (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and if I had reversed the words black and white, my comment would have been ok with you? Unless you're willing to also address the absurdity of the original comment you are welcome to blow your admonition in some other direction. – JBarta (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is neutral but not racially color blind. Editing guidelines acknowledge that e.g., "editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability." There are extensive Wikipedia articles on Racism in general and Racism in the United States. It is disingenuous to imply that insight comes from merely reversing racial roles, while ignoring e.g. history, current statistics, Police brutality in the United States, and broader social contexts. Also, keep it civil WP:CIVIL. Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just returned from over a year in Livingston Parish where I was involuntarily shown how Mr. James Crowe, esq. goes about the business of pretending institutionalized racism doesn't exist - I can see why there would be a group campaigning to make it harder for the average person to see good documentation on how pervasive and numerous killings like this one are. This article looks to be well supported by documentation and I believe that's what this site is supposed to be about. Signed, Rodger Asai, Remembrance Rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.210.127 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, it's a clear case of WP:Just Trying To Hide The Truth. Gotcha. – JBarta (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Editors will please note the Edit Summary by Roger Asai/71.220.210.127, regarding his comment above, which states: "My vote [is] to keep articles like this. Sorry I don't have the skills to make the bullet - hopefully someone can fix that part."[36] Benefac (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is entitled to his opinion but that's not a policy-based reason for keeping this article. In fact, there are very few policy-based arguments in this discussion at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a first-time editor, with one edit. Others on this page have made more than 10,000 edits. We might look for the policy-based reasons which support his opinion, per WP:NEWBIES, rather than dismissing his comment because he doesn't yet know the WP:BUREAUCRACY. Using WP:SARCASM ("Gotcha") is obviously so very helpful and especially appropriate with newbies. ;-) Benefac (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're responding to my comment with notes about another. The "gotcha" comment wasn't mine. My point was that as well-intentioned as his comment might have been ("newbie" or not) he's effectively shouting in space by arriving here and giving his opinion without any regard for whether or not that is an effective way of contributing to this discussion. Nonetheless, it is his opinion and he's entitled to it. The latest comments in this discussion suggest this should be kept because the victim was black and screw WP:EVENT, cops killing black people is a thing right now. The newbie's comments aren't half as dumb as that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I combined my replies to two comments into my one comment, good observation. This sometimes maintains the flow of discussion better than replying separately to each comment. Yes, the 'gotcha' sarcasm was not yours. I do not see the newbie's comment as shouting. Your characterization of recent comments strikes me as a straw man argument, that no-one made. Suggesting that these comments (or the newbie's) are 'dumb' or half-dumb strikes me as WP:INSULTING. Please keep it WP:CIVIL, tks. Benefac (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge At minimum, this event could be put in a larger article about police vs citizen incidents, such as Eric Garner, Levar Jones, Tamir Rice. In any case, outright deletion would be the wrong decision. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States which is divided by year and further divided by month. All these killings are in the list, but the question is... which deserve their own article? I'm not sure another article layer would be a good idea. Killings too big for the list yet not big enough for an article to be put in some sort of quasi-article-list thing? Not liking that. – JBarta (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The topic of the article is notable, worthy of notice; significant and interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in General Notability WP:GNG and Events WP:EVENTS. It has received extensive coverage in highly reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There are many informed avenues for developing this article, e.g. about the Dayton area police, their treatment of other individuals in this case (including John's girlfriend), contrasts by reliable sources with other cases of individuals openly carrying guns in public, and the explanations by reliable sources as to why these events were treatred differently, the Federal US investigation, the lawsuit filed by his family, the broader contexts that illuminated this case and are informed by it, etc. This event has demonstrated lasting effect, has already had widespread national impact and has been very widely covered in diverse sources (WP:DIVERSE). It has frequently been re-analyzed afterwards. It has already shown WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE/WP:PERSISTENCE. "If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred." WP:N/CA. The event shows lasting effects, geographical scope (featured in major protests across the USA), and depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. Maintaining a general article on 2014 police-violence protests and separate articles on notable instances of police violence is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out you voted four times. Five if you count "Keep, continued". Interesting way of influencing a deletion discussion. – JBarta (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE. "Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." "Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion." It was more clear to label my points and insert them in the appropriate places as replies, where they furthered the conversation, rather than to not label them or combine them into one comment. See also WP:Votestacking. Benefac (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been advised to strike your multiple "keeps". I've left the first one. I've also been advised to tell you that bolded AfD recommendation should be left only once. – JBarta (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, news to me, but I see that WP:AfD says: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Thanks for pointing it out. WP:GOODFAITH will be appreciated. Benefac (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I'm not convinced this currently meets the requirements of WP:EVENT. Passing mentions in the context of other events is not the same as "continued coverage" - had they not occurred this would (sadly) be "just another policy shooting". Nothing changes that and unless there are significant policy or legislative changes (more than just "I might introduce a bill") as a result of this event then there isn't much to go on. Its all coverage immediately following the event. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep These amount of citations verifies the notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not - we have WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. We don't just re-print everything that appears in multiple newspapers on any given day. Multiple newspapers might give coverage to That cat in the tree but that doesn't make it notable. Beyond that, there's no way this meets the any "speedy keep" criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the sources are sufficient to establish notability. James500 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This police shooting of this innocent Wal-Mart customer lawfully carrying Wal-Mart merchandise has received widespread national news coverage. This is not a routine local event. The New York Times has published an article placing this incident into the context of national debates about open carry laws and police shootings of unarmed young African-American males. Coverage has been widespread and ongoing. These incidents will clearly be the subject of long-term historical analysis, and one of Wikipedia's functions is to document this type of thing, and to collect and catalogue the full range of reliable sources covering the incident, for the benefit of future researchers. This is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Police shooting unarmed civilians, especially those of color, is a critical issue in 2014. In most instances, authorities have not charged any of the police officers. Questions linger. In a number of cases, the unarmed victim has had a non-lethal weapon, e.g., a toy, a souvenir, etc. How people perceive events has as much impact as the actual facts in a case. Retain this and similar pages. A body of work is developing. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those are valid policy-based reasons for keeping this article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I am not seeing all that much that's solidly grounded in policy on the deletion side of the argument, just a bunch of vague fears and concerns. Artw (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're missing WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP just for starters. – JBarta (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The initial claim that the article only had "Brief bursts of coverage when it happened and when the guy wasn't indicted" proved to be false. Likewise claims that the sources are trivial. Given that this is not going away WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS are not applicable. The claim that it is WP:SCANDAL is just ridiculous and insulting. WP:ADVOCACY is either not applicable or likewise ridiculous. Basically what you've got is a big heap of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thanks for taking the time to rebut. WP:scandal and WP:sensation simply don't fit this case and coverage of it. I see WP:ADVOCACY from the 'delete' side, and using rule-mongering (what's the WP: shortcut for that?) to cover it, but the consensus emerging seems to be 'keep' in any case. Benefac (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well sourced, covered over time, issue doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. Alternately, it could be merged to a larger article about police killings in 2014, as mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could be merged in the future, but notable enough for its own article at present. Roches (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as argued above. This, along with the Ferguson and Staten Island shootings, have had more than just a single news cycle's effects this year. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- The article is problematic (noted elsewhere), but it somewhat passes WP:GNG. However, I'm bothered by the effort (overtly or not) to turn Wikipedia into an advocacy outlet for some group or social concern or whatever. There is a pervasive attitude that exists in these sorts of cases that there is an effort to somehow "hide the truth" and we must counter that by "getting out the truth" and editors are sometimes far too eager to weigh into discussions with that in mind. This is no way to create a encyclopedia. – JBarta (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep US residents may view police killing innocent people as normal, people from other countries reading about it find it notable. I suggest it be kept until the killings stop, then it will no longer be important. Dougmcdonell (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This event started getting a lot of coverage again very soon after I nominated it. While I still think a combined article on a lot of these killings, or a section in an article on the ongoing protests, is the best way to go, I'm withdrawing my nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know what news channels reported this incident, but I am following several and I can't recall any of them even reporting this shooting, not even once. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time in Bolivia[edit]

Once Upon a Time in Bolivia (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 discussion was closed as "no consensus" although there were no "keep" votes. The previous discussion showed a lack of any significant awards and the only one added since then was a local "Golden Egg" award which appears to be based on online voting since the website says "click here to vote". The article seems to have been created by the film's director/producer/writer/cast member Patrick Cordova. I don't see evidence of significant coverage or of winning any major awards.Mdtemp (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The No Consensus despite the lack of Keep votes the last time around surprised me although there was no strong support for delete either. The arguments given in the first nomination are still valid - there were no arguments for Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a couple of references that seem to be valid secondary sources. Borock (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Always difficult to search for the English title of a non-English film. That said:

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

• Keep per just meeting WP:NF. I note that sources are available, even if not being used as citations. No need to WP:KEEPLISTING something per WP:NOEFFORT. And while not as earth-stopping as an Academy Award, winning Best International Feature at London Independent Film Festival is not exactly minor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does winning an award in a category where there were just 2 entries really show notability? Apparently the category was discontinued in 2014. I understand this is a competition only for micro-budget films and it doesn't seem very notable to me. I'm not a film expert, but I'll admit to being unimpressed by the film equivalent of an autobiography and I don't see that it meets any of the notability criteria. For the record, I commented but didn't vote at the first AfD discussion. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pity you did not look further in that earlier AFD, as you might have !voted a keep back then under WP:NRVE. As for notability, coverage for winning that award shows it... and one of the reasons my own WP:BEFORE looked beyond English. La Prensa,Correo del Sur, Los Tiempos, Bolivia, et al. None being press releases, WP:NF is met. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - would like to check with User:Lugnuts on this, but looks notable in the context of Bolivian film.

Machicado, Giannina. "Filme boliviano gana premio en Londres". La Prensa. Retrieved 2 April 2014.

Salazar, Francisco. "'Once Upon a Time in Bolivia' Hailed as Best Movie From Bolivia in the Last Decade". Latino Post. Retrieved 2 April 2014.

"Película boliviana gana en festival inglés". Los Tiempos. Retrieved 2 April 2014.

"London Independent Film Festival". Retrieved 11 January 2014.

"Filme boliviano triunfa en festival de Londres". El Sol (Santa Cruz). Retrieved 2 April 2014.

Jolynn Carpenter. "Golden Egg Film Festival Announces Winners of the 2014 New York City Branch | PRLog". prlog.org. Retrieved 28 June 2014.

And these seem sufficient references In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that some of these are press releases or just lists of awards. In addition, the original source for "best movie from Bolivia in a decade" appears to the the movie's own poster. Papaursa (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep winning the top award at the London Independent Film Festival and the WP:GNG from the Latino Post should be enough to keep this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the top award was the "Grand Prize", not winning an award in a category with so few entries it was discontinued the next year. As I said, films are not my area of expertise. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: You may stop returning to the award. The point here is that the film has the required coverage to meet WP:NF. The award may have brought some, but it is not the key issue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, qualifies underWP:N.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Centre for Excellence[edit]

National Centre for Excellence (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 indication of notability, or what makes it stand out from other educational institutions. Yes, I know that all high schools can be notable, but this article as it stands does not demonstrate that. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The consensus is not that high schools (more properly secondary education institutions) "can" be notable, but rather that they almost always are. This school is pre-school to XII standard, which would make it the equivalent of an American K-12 school. The level of coverage easily found in national media should be sufficient to prove notability, but keep in mind the vast majority of Indian media is not readily available online, and often is not in English. Local and regional (likely non-English) sources are near certain to exist in addition to what can be found online with little effort. Such sources are the core to the idea that American high schools are notable, so to delete an Indian school because such sources can not be found in 2 minutes of Googling would smack of systematic bias. Pinging @Cutest Penguin: who accepted this at AfC for further input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that I recklessly throw out AfD's without first considering things like WP:INDAFD is not warranted. I actually discussed this with CutestPenguin earlier today (though I believe her exact words regarding this AfD were "good luck"). However, during that discussion she was unable to convince me that the school was notable (and I was unable to convince myself).

As a side note, the top stories in your link above do not talk about this National Centre for Excellence (except for one name drop), something I noticed when I did my own search for more sources and is probably one of the unfortunate side-effects of having a relatively common name. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are intended as a discussion of the subject's notability, not a judgement of you. (I always ping AfC acceptors if they are active.) Sorry if you took them otherwise... Thanks for pointing out INDAFD, which I was actually unaware of. Using one of the suggested links there gives a much clearer picture of notability. I do not believe we have deleted a single US high school is a long time, so my comments about systematic bias remain valid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, INDAFD states "Schools offering Nursery— Class XII are almost certainly notable", which is what this subject is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Primefac: At what ground you are saying that this school is not notable? Well, according to Wikipedia all high schools can be notable and this article can be kept as per NSCHOOL and NSH which say, Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability. If the verifiability is the reason behind your nomination then there are several reliable resources on the internet that can tell you that it is notable as well as exist physically; please have a look at this TOI article, CBSE Affiliation confirmation and another TOI article published in the newspaper that proves that this school is notable. I'm not sure if it can be considered to reliable but the facts and information can be verified from here. Cheers! — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -The Google search results coming up with school name as keyword are not really related to the school anyway. They are talking some other thing about. If we are here to establish GNG or ORG standard, then the subject beyond any doubt falls flat on those grounds. The school can only be proved to be exist by few passing mentions in independent, reliable sources.

Make it straight. If we go by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, #2, -then it should be kept and if ORG, -then deleted. What are we on? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my second link which turns up articles such "School shuts shop" that are clearly about the school itself, as opposed to the many about students and such? This coverage would certainly to sufficient to "keep" an article about an American high school. To enforce higher standards on an Indian school (whose best sources probably can't be found online) would be systematic bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I just had a glance. I have earlier tried the search engine to find sources and one that I got, cited in the article. I'm not a fan of WP:OSE and at this time still would like to maintain my neutral stand on this one. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey those articles are of another school called National Center for Excellence in sarjapur road and not in Malleshpalaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same organization, as should be clear from the fact that people at that location were told to go to this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Rahulmdinesh above. There is a serious lack of independent coverage here. The first ref is entirely trivial. The second is simply a rote registration and per WP:MILL it's not encyclopedic for an organisation to simply exist and no more than that. Also see WP:NOTDIR. The third ref was a bit more substantial, a comment on a very small school that appears to have closed suddenly and disappeared with the money. However that's two years old (if it were really notable I'd expect to see later coverage too) and Rahulmdinesh points out that it's not even the same school. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Pick a random high school in the United States and do a similar search (Here is one in my city [37]) and you will see the coverage for National Centre for Excellence is quite similiar... and most local Indian sources are not online, unlike most US local sources. Why then is the US high school notable, while the Indian secondary school is not? (And don't bother to say the US school isn't notable, consensus is quite clear that US high schools are all notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "consensus is quite clear that US high schools are all notable" Firstly it's not always clear, secondly that is never an excuse for failing GNG. WP:NHS is quite clear on that. It's a generalisation that so few US high schools will be unable to pass GNG that there's little point in nominating them for deletion (There will be some arguing, someone will be pressured into searching, they will find something, it closes as keep). However that's not at all the same thing as saying, "Non-notable organisations with no sourcing skip around GNG because they just happen to be schools". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, OUTCOMES couldn't be more clear "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." This is because we "know" secondary sources exist, even if we can't find them immediately. And you conveniently dodged my question about how the RS coverage of this Indian school is materially different than the RS coverage of the random US high school I search for. Here is the answer - there isn't any. Both have "routine" coverage and nothing super in depth. If National Centre for Excellence is non-notable, then most US high schools are non-notable because the coverage is the same. However, consensus is that this level of coverage is sufficient for schools. (That is, it is sufficiently "significant" to meet the GNG.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about other schools in Bangalore like Jyothy Kendriya Vidyalaya, Little Flower Public School,Insight Academy School Bangalore and many more..... Why delete only National Centre for Excellence¿¿¿ if this case is true then there over 10,000 to be deleted which is a loss for Wikipedia and These schools i gave as examples don't even have proper referencing. This school at least has 3 to 4 references. So there is no need to delete this article. And the examples I gave are just 3 out of 100s of schools in Bangalore. There are over 10,000 CBSE schools in India. So stop debating on the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per essay all high schools can be notable and NSCHOOL. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Can I remove the delete stuff from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as for all verified secondary schools. This is a standard convention to avoid the tens of thousands of inconclusive debates about the degree to which the sources are significant--the other part of the convention is that we normally do not accept primary schools--if the convention were ended, we'd be arguing about these also. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the debate over? Rahulmdinesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh1234 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

• No, the debate is not over yet. An AfD discussion typically lasts for 7 days. And please stop using multiple accounts. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OH, OK ALRIGHT FOR THE INFORMATION!Rahulmdinesh1234 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep but remove the promotional stuff. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hodge (American football)[edit]

Stephen Hodge (American football) (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:NGRIDIRON. Never played in the NFL and not notable college player. ...William 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has not achieved notability at this time, at least not at the level we require here. WP:TRYANOTHER Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable football player. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable high school football assistant coach and former college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline applicable to college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), or to professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL, etc.). There is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Tilth Association[edit]

Washington Tilth Association (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 indication of notability, no references other than guides to sustainable farming. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporary weak keep This seems to be a body established in 1974, which places it quite early on in the history of organic farming as a post-intensive farming reaction. Similar to the Soil Association and others. If there are sources around to support this, I would expect that the association does have a history worth describing here. If searching (and I mean searching, not just bleating OMG BURDEN!!!!) can't show anything, then maybe delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong snow keep This has been produced in recent weeks as part of material for Education Program:University of Washington/Interpersonal Media (Fall 2014) As such, we should not be deleting articles under such a program before the course has even finished. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here seems to be because the article has had most of its content blanked and revdeled as copyvio. This is a regular problem, especially with student work, and indicates the need for better training and mentoring in editorship, it's not an indication of non-notability in the subject itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of interest, the article has been there as a stub since 2012. The reverted copyvio material didn't really affect my decision to send this to AfD. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Andy Dingley: I am the instructor for the class. All of the content added for the class was removed per WP:COPYVIO and the student working on this issue is no longer enrolled the class or working on this article. The deletion/retention of this article won't affect the class and, more importantly, work as part of the class will not improve this article. I'll update the tags appropriately. —mako๛ 19:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - This is the original Tilth Association formed in 1974 which gave rise to various other Tilth organizations in the Northwest including Oregon Tilth. It is historically significant, the granddaddy of urban agriculture organizations. There is certainly plenty of historical information that could be added in the Seattle Public Library, though perhaps no so much online. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The organization name was originally just "Tilth", so searching only for sources matching "Washington Tilth Association" will miss the early works and history. Skyerise (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - cursory check shows at least four articles with substantial coverage of the organization just in the 2014 Seattle Times: [38], [39], [40], [41], plus plentiful book sources like Washington Curiosities and The Cheap Bastard's Guide to Seattle — Brianhe (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Brianhe and Skyerise. Thanks for finding those sources. Seems clearly on the right side of the WP:GNG. —mako๛ 01:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary productions of medieval theatre[edit]

Contemporary productions of medieval theatre (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)

Undersourced; essay. PROD removed without explanation. —Swpb^talk 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Borock (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There might be an article to be written on contemporary productions of medieval plays, but this is not it; it's unclear how much, if any, of the discussion of modern productions is actually sourced to anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hum Jharkhandi Hai (film)[edit]

The result was Delete. Consensus was that an article on this topic fails WP:NFF. Recreation may be considered once inclusion criteria can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Jharkhandi Hai (film) (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)

Two-sentence article about an "upcoming" film. PROD removed without comment or explanation. No references supplied, no reliable sources found, only Facebookery. Fails WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability and per WP:NFF. Harsh (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -I see 'no sign of significance' of the said film. Perhaps, creator Manojnmims, may want to add few words on here about the film? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What I see here is borderline A1/A3. There's literally no meat on the skeleton here, and the author's request at REFUND doesn't give me much hope that any good sources will be found anytime soon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm usually lenient on upcoming films but this has no info at all - No plot, No cast and No sources .... Clearly no evidence of notability!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Pollock[edit]

Brett Pollock (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)

Has never played above major junior hockey. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. The only coverage about him is routine coverage of the draft which isn't enough for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, reliance on blog stories doesn't argue much for GNG either. Resolute 01:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he ever manages to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Levi[edit]

Austin Levi (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)

Has only played 10 AHL games. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he ever manages to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Alderson[edit]

Brandon Alderson (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)

Only played a handful of AHL games. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gregoire[edit]

Jeremy Gregoire (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)

He's an NHL prospect but he has yet to play in any league above major junior and fails WP:NHOCKEY. No prejudice against recreation if he ever plays in the NHL but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards ... and, as in this article, was particularly intent on defying the consensus standard that players in youth tournaments weren't inherently notable. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he ever manages to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Tkachuk[edit]

Grant Tkachuk (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)

Ninth round draft pick who never played in the NHL and only played 64 games in the AHL. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require." That's what I said in January, when I AfDed it. No surprise that Dolovis defied that and just went ahead and recreated it. Ravenswing 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the first AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was a first team all star in the WHL which meets WP:NHOCKEY #4. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I would support keeping the article in light of this. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Djsasso. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of DJSasso's comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep votes have no policy basis. The argument that this article fails the Gng or any other SNG has not been refuted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Yadav[edit]

Anita Yadav (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)

Biography of the daughter of the President of Nepal. Notability is not inherited, and I am not able to find significant coverage of Anita Yadav herself in reliable third-party sources. All references are mentions of her name in articles about her father. The article seems to indicate that she is also a politician but I find no sources for this. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try also:

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

• Keep. Seems notable among Category:Nepalese women covered in Wikipedia, for not being among the Category:Nepalese beauty pageant winners, Category:Nepalese actresses, Category:Nepalese female models, or Category:Nepalese female prostitutes!!!! Seriously there appears to be an issue in Wikipedia coverage in this area. --doncram 22:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further:

• There is a woman of same name elected as a politician in India's Rewari district in the Indian state of Haryana, per this myneta.info page, who appears to be a different person. Haryana is in India's north, not bordering but not too far from Nepal.
• In Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. president's daughters, we apparently don't allow there to be a separate article about either Malia Obama or Natasha Obama, but rather cover them in a section in Family of Barack Obama. Wikipedia does allow significant coverage of them, however. Note we do allow there to be separate articles about Bo (dog) and about another Obama family pet. I didn't participate but I expect there was lots of debate about Malia and Sasha. I tend to think we oughta acknowledge that coverage is coverage. Anyhow redirecting, rather than deleting, would be preferable in this case too, like for the Obama daughters.
• TelegraphNepal.Com calls Anita "illustrious", in passing (complete sentence is: "We have so far failed to understand his gluttony to make free junkets abroad albeit along with his illustrious daughter Anita Yadav-the new princess who has replaced Sujata Koirala-the German national who tentatively drained the nation when his [sic] late father Girija Prasad Koirala was alive.")  :) Sujata Koirala, daughter of a president, later became Foreign Minister. Maybe Anita Yadav is automatically a political candidate, too, as notability is often quite literally inherited....
• I rather expect there is more coverage in Nepali and other languages of Nepal. Trying Google search on "अनिता यादव" brings up a number of hits, and then one can chose "translate this page", but this one turns out to be a translation from Hindi, perhaps about the Indian woman politician instead? There are many like this one that I cannot evaluate. I am not going through them all; we need perspective of some South Asian language speakers I think.
• Confusingly, Anita Yadav of Nepal travels to India, too, and gets coverage in English and no doubt also in Hindu language in India, at least with her father, e.g. as in this Hindustan Times photo and caption.
• What does Anita Yadav herself prefer, about having a Wikipedia article or not? That has relevance apparently.

I stay with "Keep" vote but would defer to a local language(s) speaker who can evaluate better. --doncram 00:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sujata Koirala was not the first lady of Nepal. she was daughter if prime minister of Nepal. Dr Ram Baran yadav is the first President of Nepal and His wife died back in 1983 and he was never married again. Nepal presents Ms anita yadav as first lady since president does not have wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damauli (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on available info and official website ( http://presidentofnepal.gov.np/Contents/president.html) of President of Nepal listed Anita yadav is is a daughter of president and social worker. --damauli (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, not a valid reason. Notability is not inherited. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a new page discussing activities of the family members of her father president Ram Baran Yadav, or else Delete this article as she and her other family members have no significant and independent coverage in the media of Nepal or elsewhere. The article seems to be created by herself, more as an advertisement and garner more weightage.49.244.210.41 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all I am not related to Anita yadav who is daughter of president of Nepal. There are are so many corrupt politicians and social worker in Nepal. I came to know that she has master degree from UK and also bring daughter if president she maintain very simple lie and spend more time to uplift the poor communities in Nepal developing country like Nepal needs leader like her. I originally from Nepal and I do care about that country and want to give expose to the media. This is all I am doing. People like her need some exposer. Instead of having pages for corrupt politicians we need to encourage young people like her to uplift community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.244.59 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The quality of the sources does not justify having a seperate article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If being "First Daughter" gives her a formal role in public life (such as helping host state banquets) we should keep this. If not, then not. While within Wikipedia notability cannot be inherited from article to article (it's not because a notable author wrote about a topic that the topic itself is notable), in the real world notability often is literally inherited. We can't pretend not just because we have a policy about the "heritability" of notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I know facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anita-Yadav/676721165769148) is not the reliable source for wikipedia but if some one is contributing to the society to uplift the community and empower women to have better world then she should have page. wikipedia should encourage people like her not discourage. As far as notability goes i do see some sort of (Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject ,Presumed )on the page we are discussing. if Jenna Bush Hager and other first daughter can have page then why some one who is educated working for poor people to uplift their life directly and indirectly can't have her own wikipedia page. Media in nepal is bias. they do not cover unless some one as some political motive. Ms anita does not belong to any party she does social work.--damauli 13:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of independent notability. I agree wholeheartedly with doncram that coverage of Nepalese women needs expansion; however this is not an appropriate choice for that. Pick people who clearly meet one of the non-GNG specific criteria and write about them. --Bejnar (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Several comments above by Damauli and 2 different IP addresses suggest local Nepali view that Anita Yadav is significant and notable. Damauli's comment that "Nepal presents Ms anita yadav as first lady since president does not have wife." seems very important to me. That is entirely consistent with the Hindustan Times coverage of her accompanying her father on a state visit to India ( photo and caption ). I believe it. It would be great if these Nepal-informed editors could provide references here, whether in English or non-English languages, whether linkable on-line or only available in print somewhere, that support her importance. Any source supporting the assertion that Anita Yadav serves as first lady, in effect, should suffice to convince everyone here save this article, in my view (though others could still disagree). Really, please try! However these Nepal-associated editors might not be able to do so, maybe not within the timeframe of this AFD, and maybe they are not yet capable of doing this in English and meeting Wikipedia requirements. I think it would be poor to have this article deleted when there seems to be sincere Nepal-associated view that the person is clearly notable. I think we should assume good faith wp:AGF and believe that a) the person really is important and b) that will be shown eventually by reliable sources that eventually will be provided. I think Keeping this article will be more likely to further contributions and development by these Nepal editors and friends, than deleting it on basis that it doesn't meet some high standard that is not properly understood or immediately achievable by these editors. I "voted" Keep above already. --doncram 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Landis (public relations executive)[edit]

David Landis (public relations executive) (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)

Despite having 28 citations, I do not see any that are actually acceptable/verify notability. Sources include award sites, interviews, brief mentions, large lists, etc., but nothing that suggests this professional is of historical significance. Founder of the 113th largest private PR firm. A vanity page with linkbait sprinkled in. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coutesy ping to @Hasteur: who accepted this at AfC. Undecided on notability at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we (AFC volunteers) have been instructed to lower our standards in what we pass to mainspace because "Creating a article is too hard for newbies", I note that being the president of the PR firm for many significant companies, in addition to being involved with several different other organizations suggests in my mind of a reasonable chance at BLP notability. I also note that CorporateM hasn't tried contacting the author of the article, nor tagged the article with maintenance templates, nor attempted to clean up the article themselves. AfD is not cleanup, as I strongly suspect that this article will pass if given some polish. As I did a simple search on the source Continually named “one of the Bay Area’s top firms” by the San Francisco Business Times, PR Source Code, and PR Week, San Francisco-based Landis Communications Inc. (LCI) this year is entering nearly 25 years of doing business in the Bay Area. I can only surmise that CorporateM failed to do their due diligence (WP:BEFORE) prior to nominating. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases/markets winning awards can impart notability, but this is not the case within the PR field, where awards are especially abundant. I don't think the sources mentioned above about the firm he founded winning awards qualify this BLP for a page. CorporateM (Talk) 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the David Landis article qualifies for publication for the following reasons, which I will take to the AFD page:

• Landis is the senior executive of a well-established company or organization. His company’s national ranking (#113 per CorporateM’s linked reference) among ALL PR firms, not just “independent” (per CorporateM) PR firms, is notable. According to the PR industry research firm IBISWorld, more than 30,000 PR firms operate in the U.S., which places Landis’ company’s ranking in the top 1 percent.
• Landis is the current co-president of a large joint venture.
• Landis was the first openly gay president of a large international consortium of PR firms.
• Landis led numerous notable PR initiatives including Match.com and Old Navy retail store launches. Many of his most notable achievements pre-date or occurred during the nascent years of the Internet and linkable references are scant. Hence, verification of his early achievements must be considered as the sum of parts, rather than a single, convenient and recent linkable reference.
• Landis is regionally notable for his, and his company’s, philanthropic activities. He has served on the boards of numerous large non-profit organizations in the SF Bay Area.
• CorporateM comments that all of the references are unacceptable, but in fact they all support statements in the articles. CorporateM notes that references do not support Landis being “of historical significance.” While a counter argument can easily be made that his activism on behalf of the LGTB community in the SF Bay Area is historically important (his industry achievements notwithstanding), the more germane argument is not whether Landis is of “historical significance,” but if he is a senior business executive whose inclusion in a Wikipedia article therefore qualifies by rule.
• The article is not a “vanity page.” It details notable substantiated events in Landis’ long career. Hence the “vanity” interpretation is subjective, not objective. In the course of researching the article, I found no scandals, criticism or controversy pertaining to Landis, which, if I had discovered such information, I would have included. I only incorporated what information I was able to find online, and endeavored to create an article that was thorough and “encyclopedic” in scope.
• I hold CorporateM’s comment that “awards are especially abundant” in the PR field to the same verifiability standards that s/he applies to the Landis articles. What is her or his source for this claim? This is another subjective assertion. Awards programs for exceptional individual and organizational achievement are commonplace across all industries.

I hope that CorporateM and other interested parties will work toward creating a better article, rather than summarily deleting this and the Landis Communications article. (Please excuse any formatting errors. I'm not a power user - yet!) Thank you. --User:Sfntv94 — Preceding undated comment added 00:14, December 9, 2014‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @Sfntv94. I see that the LCI and David Landis articles have been a significant focus of your contributions to Wikipedia and wanted to give you a heads up that if you work at LCI, you should really disclose a potential conflict of interest in this discussion. A couple links for additional information can be found here and at WP:COI. If this doesn't apply to you, then naturally just ignore me. CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references do not support notability. The article has lots of name dropping - an AIDS documentary here, a Vice President of Romance there - but nothing in the sources actually connects Landis to those things. Maybe, like a good PR person, he has promoted his clients while staying invisible himself - but invisible people don't get Wikipedia articles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regardless of notability, the article itslef is hopelessly promotional, consisting essentially of name dropping. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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