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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Themistokleous[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." I did a notability search and couldn't turn up significant secondary coverage. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Generic top-level domain. No consensus to delete  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.CAMP[edit]

.CAMP (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)

Removal of NN+PROD tags without rationale, spam. Also see .BUILDERS, … –Be..anyone (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As above, keep it because this is the pinnacle of the internet browsing, self evident and requires no references as you can just DNS it from any computer in the world - how do you argue with that? IamM1rv (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Easy, WP:42. This is a business, the article is spam, and if Wikipedia starts to list every make money fast pyramid scheme or other objects in the $ 200,000 class I'll look for greener pastures elsewhere. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If not independently notable, merging to Generic top-level domain would be more functional than deletion in terms of providing comprehensive encyclopedic content about generic top-level domains for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to Generic top-level domain. Not sure this is truly notable. There are trivial mentions, such as this article at the Christian Science Monitor, but I don't see how that's enough for an article. Just because it's a top level domain doesn't mean that it's inherently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Generic top-level domain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Northamerica1000. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Generic top-level domain. No consensus to delete  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.BUILDERS[edit]

.BUILDERS (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)

Removal of NN+PROD tags without rationale, spam. Also see .CAMP, … –Be..anyone (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep on 3 grounds. First, if you're familiar with the internet make up - those references are all you need in the entire world. Unless there was a wikipedia reference guide specifically for handling domain registars, I can't see a reason why you would want or need more. DNSstuff it, but it's so obvious to anyone, this should not even need a reference. It's part of Template:Generic_top-level_domains navbar via stub already, suggest move to that stub? You have .net & .com on here, the most notable, also listings for the countries. A root level domain is something of a big deal. IamM1rv (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  There will be thousands of root level domains, and by definition anything in the root zone file can be found on the ICANN site. It's a primary self-published source. The times when all TLDs (about 200, mostly ccTLDs) were notable are gone. Not everything that costs roughly $ 200,000 is notable, it needs reliable third party references, cf. WP:42. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If not independently notable, merging to Generic top-level domain would be more functional than deletion in terms of providing comprehensive encyclopedic content about generic top-level domains for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to Generic top-level domain. Same deal as the previous nomination, except this one seems to have even less coverage in reliable sources. It's a bit difficult to search for "builders" and not get junk results, though. Just because it's a top level domain doesn't mean that it's inherently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Generic top-level domain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Northamerica1000. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCUK[edit]

NCUK (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)

Worthy, but I couldn't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: found a couple of sources which seem to confirm notability. PamD 22:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the ones you've found? I'm having difficulty finding non-trivial, independent sources. Googling, I've come across many references to NCUK on various universities' websites, but they're all member organisations so perhaps not independent. Apart from these, other Google results typically have just one or two sentences, and I can't find any in-depth pieces.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See article -I expanded it from sources. PamD 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Thanks to PamD's feat of resource finding. LaMona (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not breathtaking coverage, but then these workhorse programmes seldom get that.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kohandazh Institute of Higher Education[edit]

Kohandazh Institute of Higher Education (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 seem to meet the notability guidelines. No explanation of significance in the text, and few Google hits for either the English or Persian versions of the name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just needs to be overhauled. Considering that it's in a country as challenged as Afghanistan, it's not surprising it does not have a lot of coverage. Any university that offers higher education to women in Afghanistan makes it significant IMO. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Marginal Delete because it has no sources and appears to fail WP:ORG but I could change my opinion in an instant if someone who read Farsi had better luck finding sources. I could find a facebook page [1] and a google plus page [2] but that was it. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if true, it only alleges that this proprietary institution has been approved and established last year. There's no evidence it's a functioning college yet, much less has granted any degrees. Lack of reliible sources may indicate it is not yet up and running. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Contreras[edit]

Sergio Contreras (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 minor league baseball player, currently in the Mexican Leagues. Article has no references. Spanneraol (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator Didn't see the previous AFD... so lets consider this one a mistake and withdraw the nomination. Spanneraol (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Played in international competition, so he passes WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The notability problems aren't really being addressed by those advocating retention.  Sandstein  15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo Béti ou l’écriture d’un révolté en exile: anatomie, analyse et impact de ses critiques à travers ses articles dans « Peuples noirs, peuples africains » (1978 à 1991)[edit]

Mongo Béti ou l’écriture d’un révolté en exile: anatomie, analyse et impact de ses critiques à travers ses articles dans « Peuples noirs, peuples africains » (1978 à 1991) (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)

• @Nolanpowers: Queried proposed deletion Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have absolutely no idea how the AFD become messed up but I think I've fixed it ? ... I have no idea . –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely because of the extreme length of the page name and the funny characters in it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm beginning to wonder if it's the longest title here - Certainly looks it! :) –Davey2010^Talk 07:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the human rights significance of the content of this dissertation, which Nolanpowers has stressed, is undeniable, I haven't found it to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As I discussed with him, what little substantial discussion I've found on the dissertation or on its author have been routine coverage in publications at his own university. This is not to say that if this work's reputation isn't making its way around, but if it does so sufficiently to support notability at some future date, then it will be time to have an article. Also, it's important to bring up WP:NOTINHERITED at this point. If an author is notable, it doesn't mean that any of his books are individually notable as would be required to have a separate article for each of them. And technically, the notability of a book doesn't confer notability on the author, although it would be unusual for a book to achieve notability without the author doing so concurrently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(going on a sidetrack:)) WP:NOTINHERITED does not necessarily apply to some author's works. Point 5 of WP:NBOOK reads "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." Of course debate may arise as to which authors this would apply. ie. would a scribbled note written by Salmon Rushdie warrant an article? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding a comment that the article creator put on the article's talk page:

• Keep : this article is a notable book because of it's existence in regards to the author Kodjo Adabra; in other words, Adabra's life is a notable narrative of social and political activism, and this book is notable in regards to when it came about during Adabra's life. The content of this book are relevant to Adabra's life, and this article is intended to be an encyclopedic-style entry detailing most notably where Kodjo Adabra was in life (age, location, employment situation, etc.) when he wrote this book. This article, in short, is notable in light of the author. His works follow the development of his person, his disillusionment, and his role in society, and this book has important details around it (specifically when and where the author was when he wrote it) that illuminate the narrative of Kodjo's life.

— User:Nolanpowers
— article talk page 15:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

—me_and 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, the paragraph you placed here has the word "notable" five times. Unfortunately, it does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the work, taking into account what the word "notable" means on Wikipedia, which is unfortunately not its ordinary meaning in English. In most cases, notability here means something to the effect of "has achieved note", as demonstrated through outside, independent reliable sources. It isn't based on our own assessment, or the assessment of an article's creator, that the topic is worthy of note. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Just to be clear, since I'm not entirely sure whether you're addressing me or Nolanpowers: I'm pasting this here as a courtesy to Nolanpowers, since it's evident they intended it to be a comment on the deletion discussion. In no way should that be taken as me supporting or agreeing with their comment. Only reason I'm not adding a !vote supporting deletion myself is your comment at the top of the discussion covers everything I'd want to say anyway. —me_and 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete or gracious 'move to draft' Creating editor here, thanks to @Largoplazo: for bringing my noob attempts to contest this as notable to the rightplace... I have only been here a little over a week, and while I hate to face it, I don't think this article is currently suitable for Wiki, it has only been mentioned in 2 academic studies, and both were conducted at the same university, so there are simply not enough resources at the time... This work does not merit it's own article. I hope I won't be frowned upon at this point for mentioning the author Kodjo Adabra, @Me and: however his biographical article is not yet judged as either notable or not, and I would appreciate if this could be kept at least as draft (or something else) until then. Nolanpowers (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy (move to user's sandbox). Do not delete or we would have trouble re-creating it. The instructions for doing so are quite muddy, but if anybody knows how to do it, that would be a solution here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeenAroundAWhile: Why do you think this would be difficult to recreate? Which instructions are muddy? I'm pretty familiar with the processes here, so if I can clear things up I'd be glad to. And if there's something that could be clarified in Wikipedia's processes, we should look at doing that too. —me_and 09:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even for "waay known" people, our notability guidelines require substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which the "keep" opinions don't address.  Sandstein  15:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Brown (missionary)[edit]

Rebecca Brown (missionary) (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 real sources, or indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A google search indicates notability. I will comment that this lady seems to attract attention for the wrong reasons but nonetheless it does make her notable. Independent sources are also available. Aside from this her 3 books have been widely read and seem to give her further notability. Admittedly the article is pretty poor. In any case I intend to add sources and to expand it. For now my vote is keep as the subject reaches the notability threshold and I will be improving this article. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only find blogs and such that refer to this person, nothing of any substance such as news articles --Jac16888 ^Talk 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rebecca Brown is waay known in protestant community. She's widely known in many countries for her Spiritual Warfare books. At Amazon.com she's tagged as #1 Top Seller in Satanism and Demonology subject and have more than 400 customers reviews and this is just one of her books. At Skoob, a great social network for book readers, Rebecca Brown only retrieves Rebecca Brown (missionary) books, and no Rebecca Brown (author) books, which at least show that Rebecca (missionary) has more notability than the other Rebecca (author) (which has enough notability to have an article). Also I wonder why Jac16888 wants so much and puts so much effort to have this article deleted. His actions should be assessed as he is hindering growth and community development, flagging many articles to be deleted under "no notability" excuse. Also, according to WP:FAILN: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. So, even if this article had unclear notability, (which is not the case as Jac16888 not knowing the author does not indicate that she has not notabilit) tagging it for deletation should be a last resort. Czarverve (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2015 (GMT -3)

• Book reviews and social media listings are of zero value to demonstrate notability, what is needed and what this article does not have is the presence of multiple reliable 3rd party references, nor do any seem to be available. If you think this article should not be deleted, please provide some--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What about these sources: http://www.pfo.org/curse-th.htm

  http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbcsoc/v21n61/a06v2161.pdf
  http://answers.org/satan/brown.html
  http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1091 Czarverve (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (GMT -3)
  

• Those sources all seem really close to the source. not much in the way of secondary. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are even more entries: http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/2015-01/2015-01-023-asamoah-gyadu.pdf

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1998/1998october/october1998.htm http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/04-1/4-1-detzler.pdf http://www.pfo.org/VL25-NO3.PDF Czarverve (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2015 (GMT -3)

• Delete Rebecca Brown lacks notability to be included in an enyclapedia. Verifiable secondary sources came up short but I did take the liberty of creating an article at WikiPeeps which would be more appropriate given the lack of notability. I'm open minded if someone can find sources that I was unable to I can revisit my suggestion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had initially mistaken her for Rebecca Brown (author), but then realized the mistake and corrected that. A search for the books attributed to this specific brown does not bring up anything to show that she would pass notability guidelines. The problem here is that she's ultimately a WP:FRINGE author and while it's not impossible for a fringe author to gain notability, it does make it a lot harder for her to gain coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the places Brown would gain coverage would be considered fringe websites with little to no editorial oversight that would make them usable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now addressing the topic of reviews, some reviews are usable to show notability but they would have to be reviews in outlets that Wikipedia considers reliable like the Chicago Tribune. Reviews in social media outlets like Goodreads or Skoob will not count since anyone can write a review on that site and at best it only indicates popularity, which can make it more likely that there will be coverage but is not a guarantee that it will be out there. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) It also doesn't help that the original version of the article contained a WP:BLP violation by mentioning Brown's malpractice problems without backing it up with a RS or showing where it should be in the article. If there were sources out there that would pass WP:RS then I'd argue for a keep, but they just don't seem to exist in this instance, which is pretty common when you have AfDs for authors that don't write mainstream fare. It's a shame, but the standards for author notability on Wikipedia is very, very strict. There is a move to try to get bestseller lists recognized as a standard for author notability, but that would apply to bestseller lists like the New York Times' Bestseller List. The problem with merchant sites like Amazon is that it's already been shown that ranking numbers on merchant sites can be manipulated and that it's also fairly easy to get a top spot when the categories get increasingly more specific. I'm sorry, but Brown just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- She appears to have managed to keep her books in print for a signifciant period. Getting them translated inot other languages may again point to notability, but I am nevertheless dubious of her notability. the websites linked do not inspire me with confidence of her notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I'm protestant, and I've never heard of her or her books. There are no reliable sources such as reviews in the Times book Review or even ecclesiastical papers. The only reason I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt is her social media presence, but even that can be manipulated. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. The 'Biblical studies' .pdf could not open in my browser. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A quick spin on the Google isn't turning up anything pointing to a GNG keep. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrodite (musician)[edit]

Aphrodite (musician) (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)

Completely NN musician falling all 12 criterial of WP:MUSBIO. No notable record label, no WP:GNG qualifications... The Dissident Aggressor 20:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Please close as withdrawn. The Dissident Aggressor 22:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Oh my god, you're serious? Aphrodite is the king of the funky beats, he's as much a god to drum and bass as dieselboy. Btw, uh, did you realize you nominated a page for deletion when there was already a nice big fat curated Allmusic biography? 0_o I'll just assume you missed it. Earflaps (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Earflaps is correct. See WP:BEFORE. Here are samples of substantial coverage in The Washington Post [3], the BBC [4][5], Spin [6], Drum and Bass: The Rough Guide [7], Rolling Stone Album Guide [8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the above sources as well as the following: [9] [10] [11] And that's just for one album. Everymorning talk 23:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion G4. Wasn't notable then, still isn't notable now. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Soffa (designer)[edit]

Steve Soffa (designer) (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 see no evidence of significant notability. All the refs are from a very niche poker area. Wholly unstructured article with vanity phrasing. Currently has no encyclopaedic merit.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as recreation of previously deleted page - Thought this rang a bell. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Soffa. Doesn't really help that the article's pretty much of no enyclopaedic value or merit. Mabalu (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the person passes WP:GNG I am seeing reliable sources and coverage from the LVS. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete should have been speedied G4 as Mabalu points out correctly. Refs are promotional releases, blogs and dead links. Google turns up more promotional stuff and social media presence, nothing that passes GNG requirements. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all the reasons above, I've tried to speedy it as G4. Promo, fails WP:GNG and previously deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Shanks[edit]

Bill Shanks (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 seems to have had a level of success, but not enough for me to be sure he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years without resolution. A couple of the incoming links are potential redirect targets Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is tough. He is clearly a successful sports journalist. He is still on the air in Atlanta, is there an appropriate page to which we can Merge?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (see below) Merge to WPLA E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. The only accessible source is from a local paper saying he'd been let go from the local radio station but had found a job in Atlanta. That's not enough to show notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's still broadcasting [12]E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to WPLA, a reasonable WP:ATD that will enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC upon a review of sources below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ramati, Phillip (2005-06-05). "Georgia Author Shanks Rebuts 'Moneyball' Values In 'Scout's Honor'". The Telegraph. Macon, Georgia. p. D5.

     The article notes:

     When author Michael Lewis wrote "Moneyball" in 2003, showing the Oakland Athetics and their devotion to the numbers of baseball in building a ballclub, many die-hard stats aficionados jumped on that bandwagon.

     Bill Shanks wasn't one of them.

     The former local sports anchor, who produced a weekly TV show for three years on the Atlanta Braves and did play-by-play for two of its affiliates, had followed first-hand the intangibles that the organization used in acquiring players during its current run of 13 straight division crowns.

     Shanks, who also maintained his own Web site about the Braves, was contacted by a publishing executive in New York about writing a book after the editor read one of his articles about the team. Shanks, who was coming up with various ideas, knew what he wanted to do once "Moneyball" came out.

     "It stirred up the baseball world and had knocked traditional scouting," said Shanks, 35. "It said it was unimportant compared to the math whiz kids. I had done this TV show for three years and I knew what scouts did, the Braves' philosophy, and why it worked."

     The result was "Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way to Build a Winning Team," published by Sterling & Ross. Shanks' book details how the Braves' organization transformed over the past 15 years into the most successful in the majors. The book hit the stores last week.

     The book is a collection of anecdotes from the Braves' players, coaches, scouts and front-office personnel about how the organization was transformed from what was a laughingstock in the 1980s to a consistent winner from 1991 through the current season.

     "My background was in TV," said Shanks, a Waycross native and graduate of the University of Georgia. "I had written some, but nothing of this magnitude.

     "The book was a happy fluke. In October of 2003, I wrote an article about the offseason of '82-'83. An editor saw it and asked me the big question. I think all TV folks think about writing a book to legitimize themselves journalistically."

     It took Shanks about nine months to conduct and transcribe interviews and another six months to write it.

  2. Kovac Jr., Joe (2008-09-13). "All-sports radio WIFN a hit with Middle Georgia listeners". The Telegraph. Macon, Georgia. p. B1.

     There's a copy of the article at http://www.staatalent.com/Headlines/08/0809/15wifn.htm^WebCite from the Sportscasters Talent Agency of America.

     The article notes:

     Then Bill Shanks, the host of the weekday 4-6 p.m. "Bill Shanks Show" on Macon's WIFN-FM, "the Fan," chimes in.

     "It's kind of saying the Falcon fan base - black, white, blue, Puerto Rican, whatever - is stupid enough to where they're gonna knock somebody or not cheer for someone because of the color of their skin," Shanks said.

     Shanks' style is anything but incendiary. His year-and-a-half-old show, which ranks third among male listeners in its time slot, doesn't get by on shock-jock shtick. It banks on water-cooler guy talk, offering a sounding board for sports fans of varying allegiances from Eastman to Eatonton. It is proof that people in the sticks want to talk sports - and listen to it being talked about - as much as anyone else.

     ...

     SHANKS KEEPS LISTENERS ENGAGED AND CALLING

     After college, Shanks covered sports at a Brunswick TV station in the middle '90s. Then he moved to the sports desk at WGXA-TV, Fox 24, in Macon for two years. He later went out on his own as a producer and host for regional cable shows that focused on Atlanta's professional teams. Earlier this year, he launched a successful rant-laced, on-air campaign to raise money - and the ire of locals - when the annual induction ceremony for the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame appeared bound for a permanent home in Atlanta.

     Shanks, a Waycross native, broke into radio with a weekly sports show there at age 16. He recalls listening to sports-talk out of Atlanta as a teen, thinking, "My god, they're sitting around talking sports. How fun is that?"

  3. Bradbury, JC (2005-06-16). "Scout's Honor: A Review". The Hardball Times. Archived from the original on 2015-04-21. Retrieved 2015-04-21.

     The article notes:

     Put Bill Shanks, author of Scout’s Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Ballteam, in the most extreme corner of the anti-Moneyball camp. Not only does he not agree with the Moneyball philosophy, but he doesn’t care for the book itself. And it’s a shame, because the bitter taste of Lewis’ book sours an excellent in-depth look at the recent history of the Braves. Personal stories become merely a prop for the flawed anti-Moneyball agenda of Shanks when jabs at sabermetrics seem to come out of nowhere. Although he doesn’t directly address Moneyball until the last chapter, it’s clear what the first 23 chapters are building up to.

     If you are a Braves fan, you need to buy this book. Though I disagree with Shanks about a lot—and we have aired our personal differences with each other over the past year—after reading this book I feel a strange kinship with Shanks that I think stems from our age. The time between our discovery of baseball and when we become adults is brief, but it’s amazing how a few years seem to shape our perceptions.

     ...

     What’s selling this book isn’t the story of the Braves. The anti-Moneyball marketing strategy makes this book sexy to the masses. The problem is that Shanks just didn’t get, or even read, Moneyball, and not because the message was a difficult one to grasp. Shanks’s relationships with scouts, which allowed him to provide such a good picture of what goes on within the Braves, unfortunately caused him to take what Lewis had to say personally. And in his blind rage to strike back he reveals that he is not all that familiar with the book that boils his blood. Take for example Shanks’s interpretation of Moneyball:

  4. Leonhardt, David (2005-08-29). "Science and art at odds on the field of dreams". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-04-22. Retrieved 2015-04-22.

     The article notes:

     The second traditionalist text, "Scout's Honor," by Bill Shanks, celebrates the Atlanta Braves' scouts, a profession that often serves as Beane's foil in "Moneyball." The Braves have won 13 straight division titles, Shanks writes, by letting their scouts find the players with the best "makeup," a baseball catch-all phrase for hustle, attitude and heart.

     Shanks is openly contemptuous of the Lewis book, writing, "The brash disregard for scouting in its truest sense as portrayed in 'Moneyball' was just as insulting to me as it was to so many scouts around the game."

  5. Conniff, John (2005-11-27). "From MadFrairs.com: Bravesball". Scout.com. Retrieved 2015-04-22.

     The article notes:

     In the book ‘Scout's Honor', author Bill Shanks attempts to not only provide an alternative to ‘Moneyball' on how to build a baseball organization, but to discredit the whole underlying philosophy of it as little more than a passing fad. While it is true that the Braves' approach is diametrically opposite of the A's, ‘Scout's Honor' fails to develop any type of coherent argument, structure, or evidence to support his contention or to more importantly explain the reasons for the Braves success.

  6. Berardino, Mike (2005-06-19). "Baseball books worthy of dad". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2015-04-22. Retrieved 2015-04-22.

     The article notes:

     As the editor of bravescenter.com, former Georgia TV sportscaster Bill Shanks doesn't exactly come to his new book without preconceived notions. But in Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way to Build a Winning Team, Shanks puts his biases aside to present a fascinating and long-overdue look at Atlanta's baseball dynasty.

     The book, a sometimes barbed answer to the best-selling Moneyball, sheds light on the decision-making brilliance of General Manager John Schuerholz, Manager Bobby Cox and visionary scouts such as Paul Snyder, Roy Clark and Dayton Moore. It also credits longtime Braves employee Bobby Dews with formulating an organizational manual called The Braves Way back in the 1980s.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bill Shanks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, AFD working beautifully in this case. Thank you User:Cunard for cruising up to the plate in time to save the day. The sources brought by Cunard are more than persuasive. User:Cunard, I hope you will add them to the page. Which ought to be keep(changed my opinion above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above. Alex (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are we really at the point where three local stories (Macon Telegraph) and a couple of two-paragraph passages elsewhere now counts as significant coverage for purposes of GNG? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a few local sources and a few passing mentions really shouldn't be considered enough for notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A subject that has received significant coverage in The Telegraph as well as multiple articles discussing his book Scout's Honor in publications including The New York Times and Sun-Sentinel easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He was mentioned briefly in a couple non-local stories, but there isn't anything close to substantial coverage of this subject outside his hometown. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not discount local stories. And that there are non-local sources such as The New York Times and Sun-Sentinel discussing him and his book push him over the bar. Cunard (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The local sources, combined with a few paragraphs of non-local coverage, aren't enough to pass GNG, which requires "significant" coverage. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

These sources cover the subject "directly and in detail" so amount to "significant coverage".

Cunard (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The sources that have been brought to this AFD have not been added to the page, which has few sources, however, the sources are sufficient to establish Shanks' notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded and added those sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I believe Cunard's sources and subsequent expansion of the article to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Tavix | Talk  04:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Cunard's sources demonstrating GNG. Rlendog (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am closing it as No Consensus as (a) I consider a number of the Delete arguments (notabilty Kingturtle and DGG) to be stronger than those for Keep, (b) many of the Keep votes are verging on WP:ITSNOTABLE, and (c) I am suspicious about a couple of the Delete votes, both of which are SPAs on this subject. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Stevik[edit]

Lyle Stevik (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)

Third nomination, early relisting permitted by DRV. The subject has had no independent coverage in reliable sources. The deceased subject is featured only in databases of deceased subjects. Complete notability failure, fails WP:N, WP:BIO (WP:CRIME). - hahnchen 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete--The only coverage I could find in a reliable source was [13]. This, even when taking into account the databases that make up all 4 of the article's current sources, does not appear to be enough to establish notability. Keep rationales offered in previous two AFDs were not compelling at all. Everymorning talk 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once again, the subject meets criteria per ONEEVENT. As for WP:Crime, the event is still notable because it is unusual, as the victim remains unidentified for over a decade. See arguments for the past unanimously kept AFDs: [14] and [15]. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On 3/6/15 Lyle was on the front of Reddit's /r/Wikipedia page at #14. Sites like Reddit & Wiki could play a huge role in helping to solve our greatest national disaster of inidentified persons like Lyle. Greensville County John Doe AKA Grateful Dead Fan; may soon be identified due to Imgur & Reddit. A gal named greymetal uploaded GDFs flier to Imgur & also Reddit when the right people saw it. GDF has been on many sites; yet none of them were successful in helping to identify him. The same could be true of Wiki --AdvocateNJ (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep my prev !vote - Still passes ONEEVENT & CRIME & GNG, The constant renominations are also disruptive. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone care to explain how it passes these guidelines? It doesn't meet GNG because of the paucity of reliable source coverage. Saying something is "unusual" and that this confers notability, without sources that say the same, is WP:OR. The keep arguments at this AFD and both the previous ones basically amount to "WP:ITSNOTABLE" without specifying what sources make him notable. For instance, one voter said that sources indicate national attention without specifying which sources indicated such attention. Everymorning talk 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Besides the reasons given above and in the two previous lopsided AfD discussions, the unsolved nature of this case adds to its notability. What's the point of re-nominating if you're only going to repeat the same failed arguments from the previous two AfDs? That's what WP:SNOW is saying not to do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dennis Bratland: There is a reason an early renomination was allowed. No matter how notable Wikipedians like yourself assert the case to be, you have no reliable sources. - hahnchen 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes the cited sources unreliable? Your complaint against them seems to be that they're not news media. So what? The Grays Harbor coroner's office and sheriff's office are reliable. The identifyus.org site is part of the US DOJ. How is that unreliable? The http://missingyou7.blogspot.com site doesn't add anything, but the others are trustworthy enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? So WP:OR, or more specifically WP:PRIMARY. - hahnchen 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources not only need to be reliable, they also need to be notable. My band might get all sorts of press and awards from some underground zines and my local paper, but they are not notable sources. missingyou7.blogspot.com, doenetwork.org are *not* notable whatsoever. Sources not only need to be reliable, but they also need to be secondary. The Grays Harbor coroner's office and sheriff's office are primary sources. co.grays-harbor.wa.us and dentifyus.org are *not* valid sources. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This was ALREADY discussed and already determined that Lyle Stevik fits Wikipedia's criteria, due to the circumstances surrounding this case. For those who are wondering about Lyle's media coverage - yes, he has been covered a few small times in passing and mentioned extensively in a book. -- Transylvanian Thunderbolt (talk) 2:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The only reason both deletion discussions came up with the same answer is because the author pinged every keep !voter. The only new comment from the second nomination came from a single purpose account. Let me try the ping, @DGG:, @Stifle:, @S Marshall:, @Kingturtle:, I'd welcome your opinion. - hahnchen 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hahnchen: Isn't the reason you reopened the debate/were granted permission to do so because you wanted different opinions? Since the debate reopened I haven't asked anyone to come forward - those who returned came on their own, most likely since they watch the page. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff here. Hahnchen, I really wasn't planning to get involved here, but I felt your complaint about canvassing at DRV at least justified reconsidering. For you to then go and similarly canvass for delete !voters in the reopened AfD (and honestly I think you could have given GW a bit more time to look for some sources (of which more below)) is nothing short of disingenuous and two-faced. Since I took your DRV nomination seriously (even though I did !vote endorse) only because of this canvassing issue I feel personally played. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without pinging other users, this discussion would have had the same paucity of critical thought as the previous nominations. And then the next time it gets nominated, you'd have the same "procedural keep" responses just going by trust that the other AFDs were competent. - hahnchen 14:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter why you pinged other users; it is still canvassing unless you pinged all the interested parties regardless of how you believed they were likely to !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnchen, this action completely defeats the purpose of reopening the debate. If you want to prove the others wrong, you should use a different strategy than the opposing viewpoint.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 16:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that it passes WP:N means nothing. Showing that it passes WP:N by means of reliable sources would be convincing, but that hasn't happened. The problem here is that the Coroner's website, findagrave.com, the unidentified persons database and the Doe Network are primary sources, usable to build articles in conjunction with secondary sources, but of no value towards the WP:GNG without those secondary sources; and they all repeat the same photos and provide the same information. And the fourth source is a blog. Incidentally, the fact that the article includes a "signature" from someone known to be operating under a pseudonym is a symptom of the horrible lack of encyclopaedic judgment that's been shown in drafting this "article".—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe Dennis Bratland did further up in the post on his opinion on the sources.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 17:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He said they were trustworthy, and I'm sure he's right about that. I wouldn't doubt a coroner's website. But my comment isn't about trustworthiness, is it?—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the NamUs and coroner websites could be primary and there are uses of secondary sources, such as the blog and a book mentioned above. They've given their own interpretations on the subject. I can see the issue with the blog not being reliable, yet the book would be considered to be one. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree that the book looks like a tolerable secondary source. The general notability guideline requires secondary sources, plural ---- we're still short one. Do you intend to reply to every single "delete" !vote?—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no reason why an editor with something on point to say isn't free to reply as much as they wish to whomever they wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dennis; I wish the people who keep pulling out WP:BLUDGEON to keep people from saying things they don't want to hear would keep that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather unfair accusation, Daniel. Far from "not wanting to hear", I've acknowledged and engaged with everything said to me during this discussion. I'm simply noting how many edits to this discussion and other previous ones have been made by the same people. I feel that on balance, the thing that people "don't want to hear" is that this article needs secondary sources if it's to survive.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No different from any other unidentified person, No evidence of a crime. No evidence of anything at all. No news stories. Primary sources only, and no different from any other person mentioned in them. I'm willing to include an article despite failing WP:GNG when there's a good reason for inclusion in an encycopedia , but here there is no reason for inclusion. The reason the debate was relisted so soon was because the original listing was totally irrational. It was argued at previous AfDs that "the case is unusual, as the victim is unidentified, ", but there is no evidence or reason to think that a suicide by an unknown person is at all unusual. It was argued at previous AfDs that " this article serves as importance in helping to secure an identification." but that is totally unrelated to the function of an encycopedia. It might be the the function of news media, except no news media seem to have thought so in this case. If WP were paper, we'd be stuck with this. But we're not paper. We can correct our mistakes. It does not pass GNG because there are no reliable secondary sources. (The very book being claimed as a source includes this in a very minor way; even if it were to be taken as significant coverage, there's a reason why GNG says sources in the plural--to deal with erratic mentions suchas this.) It does not pass ONEVENT because there is no continuing coverage. It does not pass CRIME because even if suicide is considered a crime, it is a purely routine one. If I had to construct an example of what does not belong in WP, this would be a model. We have problems deciding when something intrinsically unimportant gets major press coverage for a long time; we have problems when something intrinsically very important gets no press or other RS coverage;. We shoulkd not have problems when something intrinsically unimportant gets no RS coverage.

There may however after all be a place for this in WP, as the most foolish article to have ever been on DYK outside of April Fools Day. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the argument of the case being no different from other unidentified body cases, there is plenty that makes it unique. Few are witnessed to seen alive, use an alias and leave a trail of clues, such as records from traveling around other places in the country. Suicide is a routine crime, yet the aspect that the victim is unidentified makes it unusual. It doesn't say in the guidelines if the cause of death was to be unusual. Suicide occurs occasionally with UID cases, yet most die from murder or undetermined causes. Still notable, in my eyes.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources, there is always the option to tag the article with a RefImprove tag or some sort. Plenty of articles with the same predicament aren't deleted and get tagged as such.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The book source IMO pushes it just past the threshold. It needs to be used in the article. As I have said I believe this is notable because, unlike so many other unidentified decedents, this one used a pseudonym (I think there is one other such case—Edna Buchanan mentions in her book The Corpse Had a Familiar Face another suicide who checked into a Miami hotel under a name that later seemed to have been purposely chosen, but that one hasn't gotten any coverage beyond that. I agree it would be nice if we had an RS pointing that out, but even without it the reader can probably draw the conclusion on their own. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - still passes ONEEVENT & CRIME and GNG. These kind of opinionated disruptive noms fills no other purpose than disruption of everyones time. Now when this third AfD will close as Keep, could please the involved users that puts this article up for deletion please get the message. A fourth nom will most likely at this time end in the same result. It passes by the fact that it is plenty of sources and coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I'm not convinced that a small mention in what looks like a pulpy true crime text is really that notable. Neither am I convinced that Stevik deciding to use a pseudonym before taking their own life is particularly notable. Dolescum (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stevik has gotten coverage from two news articles (both of which were published half a decade after his death) and a book. While the sourcing isn't the strongest, I think the article meets notability requirements. (Note: I was the closer for the last AfD). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 100% Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for unsolved mysteries. Nor is it a place to help secure the identity of missing persons. Wikipedia is not to be used as a tool to identify these people with its exposure. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if he was a nice guy or if his family is suffering because of his death. What matters is whether or not someone is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, notability hinges on significant coverage in notable, reliable sources. As to whether something is notable or not, we as Wikipedians don't even have to make this judgment; the media makes that judgment for us. Penguin Books, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, BBC News and the like decide if something is notable. We turn to these notable, reliable sources (and the like); if there is coverage in notable, reliable sources, then there is enough notability for Wikipedia. Lyle Stevik doesn't meet that simple criteria. co.grays-harbor.wa.us, missingyou7.blogspot.com, doenetwork.org, and dentifyus.org are the only sources. None of them are significant. He is not (and has not been) talked about in mainstream media, no major books, not a headline in national or international news. His death did not garner widespread coverage. Being ranked #14 on Reddit's /r/Wikipedia page doesn't matter; even if it was #1 for a month, it doesn't matter. Reddit is not a valid source. Simply non-notable. And simply *not* unusual; great numbers of individuals remain unidentified and/or unsolved for over a decade. Being non-notable doesn't mean he's insignificant, it just means that he isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently requesting additional sources from newspapers such as The Daily World which apparently did cover the story. On the Doe Network, the paper is listed as a source for information. Such information would count as a a second secondary source for the article and the article would meet the guidelines for secondary sources. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 18:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, although you'll need a subscription to newsbank.com to view it:[16]. The article discusses three cases of unidentified descendants, including Stevik's case, and contains a bit of information that was not in the article. Most notably, a detective states that he is most intrigued by Stevik's case, and discusses several aspects of the case that he considers to be unusual such as the nature of the suicide. The article was published in 2006, about five years after Stevik's death. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the title, author, date, etc? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the information the page provided:

• Title: Cold cases haunt detective
• Wenatchee World, The (WA) - February 24, 2006
• Author/Byline: Lisa Patterson; The Aberdeen Daily World
• Section: Northwest News
• Page: B04

Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: "The article discusses three cases of unidentified descendants ..." You do mean "unidentified decedents, right? (Just blame it on AutoCorrect ... everyone will understand, even if you aren't using an iOS device). Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I did in fact mean unidentified decedent. That would have been a very strange news article if my initial spelling had been accurate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have just incorporated the information from the news article into the page. I believe this settles the arguments made by the opposing side with complaints about needing another source.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And I found another source from the Native American Times: [17]. It was published in 2007 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and describes how Lamar Associates, a law enforcement advising firm in DC, had launched a “Missing from the Circle” campaign to try and identify missing or unidentified Native Americans. Stevik was listed as the April 2007 “Missing from the Circle” profile, and the article gives some background information on him. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we shouldn't trust the "find sources" part of the AfD nomination. Thank you for all of your hard work in finding articles for the page. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, does not need to pass WP:CRIME as this is an unknown identity case of a suicide which has garnered lasting attention from multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stay out of this one and remain neutral, it appears mobbing affected me a little bit and I jumped the gun. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lasting attention from multiple reliable sources" ??? Kingturtle = (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingturtle = I've already struck my vote, before you said anything. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stevik got coverage in two news articles and a book (in addition to some more specialty sources). Stevik's death occurred in 2001, but the news articles were published in 2006 and 2007, while the book was published in 2010. I think this qualifies as lasting coverage. Also, Stevik died in Washington, while one of the articles was published in an Oklahoma newspaper while Pinnacle Books seems to be a national publisher, so there is a wide geographical range of sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, This is among the weakest of keeps but two reason pushes me to favor keep. Generally, when an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion over a short period of time the nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I do not think this is the case here. I am very vocal of defending articles subject to repeated nominations, a lack of consensus is a sign of notability. I was unable to access 5 of those sources, Gourami Watcher is an excellent editor whose work in unidentified decedent is an unprecedented contribution to Wikipedia. I was surprise the subject was not there sooner. I trusted given the history of snow keep this article I jumped to conclusion.

I am going with a weak keep because this source (Scott, Robert (1 November 2010). Blood Frenzy. Mass Market Paperback) is a reliable secondary source giving the subject two to three paragraphs of coverage. This source ('Missing from the Circle' service launched to find missing Natives" (22). Native American Times. June 1, 2007) appears reliable as well.

While I am I an inclusionist, I think this article does have some issues particularly with WP:UNDUE. I think some details give the reader the impression there was lasting continual coverage, almost a "who was this man" intrigue. This is not true in fact most sources suggest this is rather common. Some news sources regarding the event as it happened would improve this article. But the fact is it appears the public is interested in this subject and so are it's participating editors hence weak keep. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Draper[edit]

Brian Draper (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)

Well for obvious reasons I had to type in Brian Draper musicians. Having a hard time finding any reliable sources. The most reliable I found was a blog even and I'm not even sure if this is the same guy: http://briandraper.blogspot.com/ Wgolf (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete. I tried "brian draper" + musician and found nothing relevant. He fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - Nothing found on google. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aster Gayavi[edit]

Aster Gayavi (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 bio fails WP:BLP as well as the significant coverage criteria for WP:BIO. The sources appear to be self-published blogs -- two of them [18] [19] were written by a "mr imam", which is the registered name of the Wikipedia editor who created this article. This kind of circular referencing is not legitimate. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per OP -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and lacks significant coverage and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kushiel's Legacy. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Begotten[edit]

Earth Begotten (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 short story. Only 50 copies distributed, no reviews available. Mikeblas (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. I did find some mentions like this one, but the mentions are all in relation to the series as a whole. I don't see where there's any standalone notability for this work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kushiel's Legacy. looks like an interesting little book but doesn't warrant standalone article. As stated by Tokyogirl79 a search reveals nothing for this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaberita[edit]

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

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

It is hard to find sources in the native language, but I couldn't establish that it was WP:NOTABLE. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can find a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - defunct website with no assertion of notability per WP:WEB, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS in English or Indonesian. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Peter Pan Effect[edit]

The Peter Pan Effect (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)

Album I'm not sure if it qualifies for here or not-it even says it was shelved for 15 years. Wgolf (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pinging Richard3120 who tagged this for notability. I've added some reviews; unsure if they meet WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to Robert Marlow. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NMUSIC states that reviews are relevant in determining notability of songs. By analogy, reviews are relevant in determining the notability of albums. There are multiple reviews now in the article, therefore the rules suggest that the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a good idea to create a section in the article that tells what the reviews say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Robert Marlow. Discogs is not a reliable source, and there's no staff review at Allmusic. That leaves two reviews, and electricity-club.co.uk looks like it may be a group blog. One good source and one questionable source is not really enough for an article, and I can't find anything better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FlixFlux[edit]

FlixFlux (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 outwith my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Xandrewx. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. One would expect the majority of coverage for a torrent website to exist online, so I don't think it's unfair to judge its notability by Google results. This seems like just some random website that never really achieved any prominence outside of an article in TorrentFreak, which I'm not convinced is a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate 13:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Never achieved notability in the first place, and they're defunct now. Pax 00:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jossar[edit]

Jossar (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)

Singer with no reliable refs at all. Seems like even the Spanish wiki has a tag for this (wouldn't surprise me if it gets deleted there even!) No notability to be found either. Wgolf (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question where have you checked for sources? DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's actually not that hard to see that there aren't any sources, simply social links by Jossar. Multiple searches (not that there's much to go on) found nothing. Article doesn't provide much information aside from the albums but I think it's plain to see there's no notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unreferenced BLP. No claim for meeting WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley Magpies[edit]

Thames Valley Magpies (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)

Last AfD ended in no consensus. As this has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for seven years, it's about time it was resolved. I can't see that it meets WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG; there are sources but they are not necessarily reliable. There are 2 incoming links which would be potential redirect targets - I would favour AFL Britain rather than Australian rules football in England#London. Pinging those who have examined its notability before: Grahamec, Jenks24, Abcmaxx. Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable Australian rules football team, now defunct, formerly located in England, for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Long overdue for a house-cleaning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's mentions of them, but no significant coverage. Paulbrock (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to AFL Britain. No significant coverage, but could be a search term. The-Pope (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subunit (military)[edit]

Subunit (military) (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)

WP:DICDEF: my suggestion is actually not to delete this page, but to redirect to Military organization#Commands, formations, and units. Also seems to be copied verbatim (or translated) from a paper source, so a potential copyright violation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• what about Sub-subunit? Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that one is even a valid term! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's supposedly a translation of de:Teileinheit, but neither text nor title match up. Teileinheit just means subunit, and the German article defines a subunit as a unit whose leader has no permission to impose non-judicial punishment. I found one military-themed "sub-subunit" GBooks hit, but it might be neologism. Frietjes, Necrothesp, care to take that one to AfD? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Das is eine part of a U-boat, nein? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete per WP:DICTDEF. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough for a stand alone article or list. Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge integration map[edit]

Knowledge integration map (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 number of reasons:

• Created by Bschwendimann, who is also the inventor of this concept and the only significant contributor to the page. This does not seem to give much indication of notability, if no-one else has felt the need to edit it in 2 years; it seems to be entirely self-promotion.

• Likewise, as far as I can make out, the sources on the article are written by Schwendimann or by their supervisor Marcia Linn - or are about concept maps, not "knowledge integration maps". Significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject? No.

• There's a certain amount of what may be copyvio - [20] and [21] both contain sentences from the article.

• It's a mass of incomprehensible jargon. If we were going to have an article on the subject, "can't get there from here". Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The entry is supported by references from peer-reviewed journals, book chapters, and conference presentations. I disagree with the reviewer. Concept maps appear in many different forms (as shown by the links on the 'concept map' site). It is important to cover the range of different concept maps, not just the generic entry on 'concept maps'. I consider the entry on 'Knowledge Integration Maps' an interesting contribution. Knowledge Integration Maps are a form of concept map that combine elements of traditional concept maps with Venn diagrams. The Wikipedia article has been rewritten based on existing publications on Knowledge Integration Maps. All the used publications are referenced in the article. The reviewer should be more specific what jargon he/she doesn't understand. With more specific (and constructive feedback), the article could be revised accordingly to improve readability. (Response added by Bschwendimann originally, mangling the deletion rationale).

• Disintegrate as a WP:NEOLOGISM that hasn't caught on. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-> Reply: Knowledge Integration Maps are tools in the Knowledge Integration framework which has been extensively been published. Additionally, Knowledge Integration Maps have been mentioned by other people as a form of concept mapping, e.g. http://kairos.laetusinpraesens.org/callosum_m_h_4

-> From reading the article, Knowledge Integration Maps are a specific form of concept map. To distinguish this form from other forms, it seems justified to use a specific term.

As the author of the article, I'd like to clarify that Knowledge Integration Maps have been presented to the research community as well as teacher communities. Both researches and teachers considered Knowledge Integration Maps a valuable new form of concept map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschwendimann (talk • contribs) 13:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is a good amount of scholarly literature on "knowledge maps", but that appears to be about something else. The only research hits I see on "Knowledge integration map" invariably says something along the lines of "introducing a novel kind of concept map", which would suggest the idea has not (yet) caught on. At most, it could warrant a couple sentence mention at concept map, but I am doubtful even on that. Pinging @DanS76: who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alex Blumberg. MBisanz ^talk 12:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimlet Media[edit]

Gimlet Media (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)

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill startup with no real notability. Slashme (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Investors have raised over $1.5 million dollars for this venture (which seems like an impressive fundraising effort) and their podcasts have been popular.--The lorax (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it might be the next big thing, but it isn't yet. One of their two shows is, er, about themselves. No real indication of notability. (I notice each show has a stub page, as well, which seems excessive). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Alex Blumberg is notable, this business is not. both the New York times and the Wall Street Journal stories focus more so on the person than the company. I suggest merging this content into the page on Alex. If the company is huge and out grows its home at Alex Blumberg's article we can spin it out then. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - I might just Be Bold and do the merge soon. --Slashme (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done the merge, updated the text a bit, and added a reference to the second season. I've also redirected StartUp (podcast) to Alex Blumberg. --Slashme (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cleaned up & cites added since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University at Buffalo Rugby Football Club[edit]

University at Buffalo Rugby Football Club (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 establishment of notability. Primary sources are the only references in the article. US university club sports are not typically notable on Wikipedia.

PROD of the article was contested. X96lee15 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. The reference added today was for a press release published by the club. It's getting clearer that the club does not meet the notability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC) (amended 21:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep. Under the WikiProject Rugby Union notability guidelines, college rugby teams playing in Division 1-A are presumed notable. UB Rugby is covered in several national rugby media: Rugby Today, This Is American Rugby, and Goff Rugby Report. I've just added several relevant cites to the article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Barryjjoyce, thank you for adding the references and adding that the club is playing Division 1-A Rugby. (Side note: That article needs its member table updated to list Buffalo.) I agree with the presumptive notability since the club is playing D1-A; in light of that, the best outcome for the article is to continue to add independent sources and build an article, maintaining neutral point of view, that covers the team. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Barryjjoyce -MacRùsgail (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given the comments by the subject at the bottom of the discussion, I don't think this can be closed any other way. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew West (linguist)[edit]

Andrew West (linguist) (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)

Page does not clearly demonstrate notability. – Fayenatic London 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The self-declared account of the subject of this article has said on several occasions that he would like this article deleted. Most recently:

I would be even happier if the article disappeared but I cannot take it to AfD myself, and no-one else seems willing to do so. BabelStone (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2015

The article has attracted conflict, including Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Andrew_West_.28linguist.29. Although West may or may not be a notable academic on account of a significant contribution to his field, I believe that because he is a low profile individual, it would be prudent and polite to honor this request. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honor the article subject here (that is, delete) I think notability would be more than sufficient if an editor did a diligent search for sources, but if the article subject is not seeking to have an article here, and notability is the tiniest bit in doubt, then there is no harm in deleting, especially if deleting avoids edit wars. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, guys, there doesn't seem to be notable controversy about the actual CONTENT of the article, like the subject editing to remove controversial material, or whatever. This guy doesn't really meet notability in my opinion, so why not delete it? It's not providing a ton of substance to the wikipedia, and there isn't a ton of content that anyone NEEDS to see. In a journalistic or referential sense. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is difficult because the category of minor intellectuals, people well-known enough to merit pages, but not well-known enough to have hordes of Wikipedia defenders is large. Many, many intellectuals have rivals with grudges, or ideological opponents, who attack their Wikipedia pages. It's a problem. If every minor-but-notable intellectual is allowed to ask that his page be deleted, Wikipedia becomes less valuable as a resource. Is there a policy on this? Can anyone just ask to be deleted?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which includes: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." 1bandsaw (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep probably over the borderline for notability. The way I personally understand it, the option for accepting a request for deletion by the subject of an article only applies if the discussion is otherwise undecided, and then only as an option. The proper time to use it is when the article would necessarily cause undue harm to the subject. Otherwise such requests inevitably lead to our having articles on relatively minor figures only if they like what is being said-- and that's nearer to Who's Who in America than I think we should be going. (That is not the reason here, this aritcule does no harm to the subject in any manner.(It might be, rather. an on-wiki conflict between individuals, and that above all things should not affect what subjects we cover. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We delete articles on people who request it, unless they are so clearly notable that deleting the article would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. While Andrew West is a modest man, his scholarly work is important and notable (even if within a highly-specialized field of linguistics and history), and merits a Wikipedia article. -- Evertype·✆ 11:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we instead have article(s) about West's scholarly work, while omitting his bio? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the point. There's a biography of him on the Chinese Wikipedia. His chief area of study, Tangutology is highly specialized, as indeed are his other interests. Access to information about scholars interested in specialized areas of study is not easy to get, and Andrew is one of the scholars listed in Category:Tangutologists. It would make no sense to delete his bio from the Wikipedia when he stands with the others. The results of Andrew's and other Tangutologists' work can be found in numerous articles here (all edited in part by Andrew). -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It may apply here per that guideline. It also may not. I have written to my friend Andrew to ask what he really wants. -- Evertype·✆ 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I did not intend to get involved in this discussion, but since Evertype excplicitly asked me it would be discourteous to him not to say anything. I am conflicted over this AfD: on the one hand, the article on me has caused me some trouble on-wiki and some embarrassment in real life, so I would be happy to see it deleted if it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria; but on the other hand, as a Wikipedian I strongly disagree that subjects of Wikipedia articles should have a veto over the contents or existence of Wikipedia articles. Until this AfD I was not aware of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and if I was I would perhaps have been somewhat more circumspect over what I said in the heat of a COIN discussion. I would really much rather this discussion focus on the notability of the subject of the article (Andrew West) rather than try to interpret the words of me as a Wikipedian. BabelStone (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I'm grateful to Andrew for weighing in here. At the end of the day, Tangutologists are notable and Andrew is notable as one of them. If this article is deleted, eventually someone will write another one. Keep please, and let's move on. -- Evertype·✆ 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if we look at the "votes" on this page (and I know, it's not a vote), we have 3 for Keep based on notability (even if two are weak, perhaps based on the obscurity of Tangutology), we have 4 for Delete, 3 of which are based only on BLPREQUESTDELETE, which Andrew has just said oughtn't apply. So I'd say it's 3 to 1 for Keep. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 12:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Back (actor)[edit]

George Back (actor) (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)

Oops meant to do a xfd well this is what I put: Actor with no reliable sources at all as well as really no notable roles-outside of Horrible Bosses if that really counts here. Wgolf (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- He's got 3 nontrival movies, IMDB does count as a reference. -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @IamM1rv: The IMDb is not a reliable source, and it is specifically called out out in WP:RS as an example of a user-generated source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I'm going to have to go back and have words with someone who misrepresented this after reading that again! -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Still, I was also told for common knowledge things that aren't disputed references weren't needed - like example - three major movies. Look at it this way ... are all actors notable, no. Are actors who made it into a major budget movie ... probably. What about 3 major budget movies? IamM1rv (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice-sorry. Also his other roles are pretty minor. Wgolf (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply being in three non-trivial, big-budget movies does not satisfy WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles. If we're being really, really charitable, he has maybe a fraction of one, plus the TV series. Not enough, as shown by the lack of press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly-might as well as include Peter Jacksons kids on Wikipedia if you would do that-they were in all the Lord of the Rings films and all the Hobbit films. Wgolf (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've created an article for George Back at WikiPeeps So any editors interested in working on this content could go there. As far as notability in the Encyclopedic sense I think George is just another actor, talented at plying their trade but not notable. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Agrawal[edit]

Akshay Agrawal (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 person in not notable to be included in Wikipedia. This article is extremely subjective, does not have sufficient references, and appears to be written by Akshay Agrawal himself. Gave6no (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At this time he has done nothing to set him apart and not yet received adequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article has notability issues. Neither the reference links in the article are from significant new sources, nor does the subject satisfies claims of significance. See WP:SIGNIF ★Saurabh P.  |  ☎ talk 01:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Television Awards[edit]

BIG Television Awards (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)

Award show that I'm having problems finding notability for at all! Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are your sources:
  1. https://in.movies.yahoo.com/news/reliance-broadcast-announces-big-television-awards-131439042.html
  2. http://www.bollywoodtrade.com/trade-news/reliance-broadcast-network-limited-announces-big-television-awards/3FB10636-1825-44F7-9A02-06EDEB67DE78/index.htm
  3. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/Big-stars-entering-awards-race/articleshow/17613518.cms
  4. http://www.eventfaqs.com/news/ef-01179/Cineyug-and-Reliance-manage-th-1310927903804.html#.VTfOz_bcjF0

There are probably more in Hindi/Telugu/Urdu/etc. sources. 103.7.250.251 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Another source search below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Now the article meets WP:GNG. Before Wgolf had nominated the article for deletion, the article was meeting deletion policy. But now after nomination, someone has added sources to the article, and I've also checked that the sources are reliable. So, now the article can exist on Wikipedia. ARegards, KunalForYou^📝☎️ 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Note that the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Apparently, a WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn-and for the record I actually did look up before I even asked a user from India about this and they couldn't even find anything about it! (I was getting tons of other stuff for big award show) Wgolf (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fireman Sam & Friends IN ACTION ![edit]

Fireman Sam & Friends IN ACTION ! (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)

"Fireman Sam" is apparently a real thing (a toyline I guess?), but this "series" does not exist at all. A search using the article title results in nothing, confirming that this is a hoax. Not blatant enough for G3, but still a hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- it's a hoax. Fireman Sam exists, but this does not. Note the infobox links to a list of Fireman Sam episodes. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G3 hoax by new drive-by vandal account, and probable sockpuppet: all that account's edits so far have been deliberate errors and hoaxes. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dakoda Rollins[edit]

Dakoda Rollins (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources are the subjects tweets or youtube videos. The others are a blog and a newspaper article not really about the subject but rather about a benefit corcert in which he participated. ubiquity (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tweets are not proper source --C E (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Essentially a WP:BLP that can barely be sourced. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Global Education Consultancy[edit]

Santa Monica Global Education Consultancy (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 search results in only non-independent sources (such as the links given in the article), press releases, or online job offering announcements. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: promotional, doesn't appear to be notable. ubiquity (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Looks promotional --C E (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Overly promotional and several searches done to help salvage the article turned up no independent sources or mentions. Commonlaw99 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by DGG as unambiguous advertising/promotion. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 15:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Sivasailam[edit]

A Sivasailam (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)

Unreferenced, unable to establish notability, contested prod WWGB (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Shuffle[edit]

Beat Shuffle (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 web content, lacks any reliable independent sources to establish notability, fails WP:NWEB WWGB (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single source till now --C E (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Redirect to Beat Communication,Inc.Ltd., the parent company is also possible, but that article has notability issues as well. A search turned up 1 piece of English-language PR from 2013, and some unrelated pages for a 'Beat Shuffle' Japanese FM radio program, but no further singnificant RS coverage. It is possible sourcing exists in Japanese.Dialectric (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- One source, in Japanese, was posted on the article talk page. That source is Enterprizine: http://enterprisezine.jp/article/detail/6202. This appears to be a fairly brief article and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. I can't read it, so not sure what it actually says.Dialectric (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carine Lewis[edit]

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

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

No evidence that subject satisfies WP:NACADEMIC, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are so many Carine Lewis on internet. Which one is Notable. --C E (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete while there are mentions of the work of this young academic psychologist [22] (Psychology Today) and her work is being cited, it appears to be a case of far WP:TOOSOON, possibly/apparently linked to an effort to promote a website called Psychreg on WP.. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too soon. The article omits giving her position. According to her page at Psychweb, she was formerly a Psychology lecturer, and left to become a "Senior analyst" at Asthma UK". It also omit the date of her thesis. A/c WorldCat it was in 2012. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis and Critique[edit]

Crisis and Critique (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)

Nominating per PROD criteria submitted by Randykitty which does not seem resolved; "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG" 331dot (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per original PROD reason given above. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needed references and some adjustments. As it is not yet indexed it can not be considered an academic journal, but there are several independent sources referencing it as a journal. Most notably this link. The article still needs improvement, but it should NOT be deleted. --Anna Comnena (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to ask if you are the one who started the page under the username Crisis and Critique and if you are associated with this publication. Regarding the page, the changes made do not seem to address the notability criteria concerns, and the sources added do little more than establish that this publication exists. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not in any way related or associated with this journal. And, also I have not started this page. But as leftist myself I have read articles on this journal and find it relevant for the article to exist on WP. I am also dedicated to make improvements so it will meet all the necessary criteria. ——Anna Comnena (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This method of deletion is not speedy so you are welcome to continue to make changes but please review the notability criteria linked to above if you have not already. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really care whether an author has a connection with a subject or not, as our notability criteria are quite objective and don't leave much room for gaming the system. That this journal "can not be considered an academic journal", because "it is not yet indexed" is a weird notion. This is obviously an academic journal. As for the "not yet" part, many journals get started and fail after a while, never becoming notable. As this point, it is impossible to say what will happen with Crisis and Critique. Perhaps it will develop into one of the most influential journals in its field ever. But WP is not a crystal ball. If ever this journal becomes notable, the article can be recreated, but at this point it is way too early to know what the future will bring. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with randykitty. If it becomes popular, the page can be recreated.C E (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But the journal has around 3000 readers (journal data). I do not think there is a threshold for a journal to be classified as popular. But on the other hand, Wikipedia does not count the number of readers a journal should have for it to be on Wikipedia. WP is an encyclopedia, and every relevant information would be good to be in it. The publishing of Crisis and Critique journal is relevant information. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My blog has about 1 million readers (blog data). I think that C E meant "notable" when they wrote "popular". Number of readers/subscribers is indeed not a criterion for notability, although one would expect that a huge readership (for an academic journal) like 3000 would have generated some coverage in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that is a good point. I did some more digging, these are some other links where authors used C&C on their list of publications for their universities and other institutions Johnston, Livingston, Boer, Ruda, Ruda Bard Link, Ruda again, a blog. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - @Anna Comnena: Unfortunately journal notability is a tricky thing since their importance tends to be based on the extent to which their contents are cited/referenced rather than how often people write about the journal. That's part of why we have the indexing possibility for establishing notability. But that's not to say indexing is the only way. The general notability guideline can apply to any article. That requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The first link you shared above is from a school where the editor works (and says as much), so we can't consider that one. Nor where people claim credit for publications there because these aren't neutral/objective sources -- they have a professional interest in mentioning it. Sometimes a large collection of high profile citations of a journal in top tier publications has been enough to establish notability here, but if those aren't there, if the indexing requirement isn't met, and if there aren't enough sources about the subject, it's going to be too soon for an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL, mainly because it's too soon for them to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG and as per Randykitty.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. My reading of the consensus is that the person might be notable, but the article in its current state is blatantlty promotive, and per WP:COI should not be there. No prejudice against recreation provided the new article has been written by a person without COI and adheres to the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Pavlyuk[edit]

Ihor Pavlyuk (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)

As this article has been around for several years, therefore not subject to speedy deletion, I'm renominating it as a bio for a writer who fails WP:NOTEBLP.

Sources provided are essentially from the amateur blogosphere, and publications by the subject of the bio are self-published.

The creator of the page has already been asked to provide 3rd party RS in order to demonstrated the notability of the subject, who is most certainly himself.

While the editor has done some further editing since the CSD earlier in April (both via his own account and via his IP), no responses have been forthcoming to DGG, My very best wishes, or myself in order to establish that he meets any of the WP:CREATIVE criteria.

Considering that the user's own page is a mini-replica of the article in question, it seems that this article is purely WP:PROMOTION.

Note, also, that while other language Wikipedia articles exist, they were all created by the same user as created and maintains this one. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I said on the user's talk p. "As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the page, because the number of publications indicates some degree of significance. However, there are some major problems, and the article is likely to be deleted unless immediately improved in the way I've indicated on the article talk page." It has not been improved, and in my opinion it would be impossible to improve it to the degree that it shows notability. Normally I would inclien to accept the verdict of their national WP for a national author, but not in this case. After we delete it here, I hope people with the ability to write in the other languages will mention the fact on the other WPs. Each WP uses its own standards, but I find it difficult to believe that it would meet the standards of any one of them,. I want to thank Iryna Harpy for following up on this, because I had forgotten. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Comment. I think he meets "any biography" criteria [23] as a recipient of seven national awards and one international (PEN) award and author of many books which were not self-published (I also checked his page on ruwiki - ru:Павлюк, Игорь Зиновьевич). There are 3RD party reliable sources about him on Russian, such as this. Speaking about other wikipedias, yes, it has been already discussed on ruwiki and decided to keep [24]. Yes, I do not like the way someone has created these pages. That was probably "paid editing". But this is all irrelevant, as far as this page satisfies our notability criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that you are an inclusionist, My very best wishes, I don't adhere to any particular predisposition for Wikipedia articles other than on a case-by-case basis. Having read through the specific deletion discussion on Russian Wikipedia, the 'keep' was based on regional significance, not global significance. Even overlooking the WP:COI aspects of the writing of the article in the original instance, I still fail to see how this article is relevant to English Wikipedia. Primarily, it is a promotional article reiterated on the user's page. I see nothing of any global substance for English Wikipedia other than using Wikipedia as an promotional venue, i.e. it blatantly flaunts COI in the face of the premise behind the Wikipedia project. The subject is not notable for the purpose of English Wikipedia. To retain it is to deliberately encourage spurious pretensions to notability based on lack of knowledge of the subject in the Anglosphere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policy, there is no requirement for a person to be notable internationally or in the English-speaking world. It is enough to be recognized nationally. This is someone who is mostly notable nationally, although his work has been also recognized by PEN International. I simply made my best policy-based judgement - as someone previously involved in discussion and because you pinged me.My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully comprehend your policy-based support for the article being kept. Personally, I would be less inclined to take a hard-line stance if the user were to remove the hard-sell from their own page. It's a pity that the user who developed the article, who is no doubt one and the same as the subject of the article, hasn't been prepared to engage in discussions in order to demonstrate that they're WP:HERE. I'm certainly not beyond listening to his arguments, particularly as, between the two of us, he could state his case in Ukrainian or Russian and use us as proxies for translations into English. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong here. This is a borderline notability page, and I do not really care if it will be deleted or not. And creating an article about him on Cantonese was definitely an overkill - this is a kind of things only bad editors for hire normally do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I find myself wondering when the Malay, Fijian and Burmese versions will be created in order to entrench the article. In principle, this is a cynical use of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic resource at best. There's nothing to establish that the author is actually particularly notable (he's certainly not the only person to have 'distinguished' himself with a couple of prizes), and all of the user and IP editor developments hail from Lviv (the subject of the article's place of birth and home). Coupled with no indication with being HERE in any sense, the existence of the article is an affront to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Linked-in, or any other form of advertising space. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I know that a nebulous terrain exists in the hearts and minds of every person, a terrain that cannot be adequately characterized in simple terms of right and wrong or good and bad. I see this ambiguity in Ihor Pavlyuk’s works and I am happy in the knowledge that there is a very good poet in Ukraine."

—Mo Yan, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, 2012[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondya (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Flight over the Black Sea (London, Waterloo Press), (Політ над Чорним морем), 2014 (poems by Ihor Pavlyuk in English. Translated from Ukrainian by Stephen Komarnyckyj, foreword to a book written recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature Mo Yan and Naomi Foyle, Steve Komarnyckyj, Dmytro Drozdovskyi), ISBN 978-1-906742-70-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondya (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but permutations of Mo Yan's eloquent "copy" "nebulous terrain exists in the hearts and minds of every person" is proving to be lucrative for him: see how many times this has been used in various venues across the web. Again, I'd like to point out how Waterloo Press functions. It is a pay-for press subsidised by a grant. More to the point, the publication is described here, and this apparent 'endorsement' is noted here by the same Naomi Foyle who recommends it on the Waterloo Press page... Naomi Foyle is, herself, an aspiring poet who teaches creative writing. There's more literary nepotism than authenticity pervading all of these tenuous links. Was Mo Yan paid for his 'brand'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, after looking at this, the quotation above looks suspicious (to tell this politely). My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, leaning toward delete per WP:COI. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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