< 23 August	25 August >

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 00:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six Hours Past Thursday[edit]

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

A non-notable novel written by a non-notable author, who wrote this article eight years ago. There hasn't been an improvement since. I searched for both the novel and the author but found none. George Ho (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @George Ho's rationale which nailed it. Blatant publicity also, IMO. Quis separabit? 00:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There doesn't appear to be any coverage for this book other than a few book blogging websites and even that's fairly slim. To be completely honest, it's amazing that this article has lasted for as long as it has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayako Hagiwara[edit]

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

This skater doesn't meet any notability criteria, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability and her results at http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00006440.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has said she "attends" Meiji University for 7 years. She placed 21st in A Japanese skating competition. To me that alone shouts "she is not notable". She is so unnotable that the fact that she has almost certainly gruaduated from university and gone on to some other activity has not gained any notice. She was not a major skater, and is even more below the radar now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and no coverage to pass GNG Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSKATE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Petraske[edit]

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

Delete: promotional advert for businessperson of questionable notability while alive. Quis separabit? 22:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was "one of the most influential figures in today's cocktail culture" according to Imbibe ([1]). He received staff written obituaries in The New York Times ([2]), Quartz ([3]), Daily Mail ([4]), and The Huffington Post ([5]). Antrocent (♫♬) 23:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep staff written New York Times obituary is almost a sure sign of passing the WP:GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that Petraske was of "questionable notability while alive" is false as any google search will show. In addition to all the NY news publications (NY Times, Gothamist, NY Daily News) and dozens of food and drink venues, even the Boston Globe and the UK Daily Mail published staff-written obits for Petraske. As all these pieces emphasize, the reason Sasha was so notable was not his success as a "businessperson" -- something he never cared to be -- but his internationally recognized cultivation of the craft of bartending. The vote to delete the entry because it is a "promotional advert" makes no sense -- he has no vested interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tati8284 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His significance, and notability, is stated explicitly in the sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His death was covered by the newspapers and television news here in NYC. His cocktail bats are famous here. BurienBomber (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Nathani[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO , WP:GNG and lacks reliable third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:notability, also seems to be work of PR Agency extensively edited on the subject matter and related Shrikanthv (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my searches found nothing notable. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:GNG -- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Ljgua124 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyzacases[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG and lacks Reliable third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very nicely formatted and good grammar. The issue is there's no notability. Reran and looked at the searches, including ((Friendly search suggestions)) and a ((Find sources:BeyzaCases)) orthographic variant. Ran a DuckDuckGo. No good sources. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm seeing coverage of their products in blogs and the like, but not in reliable sources as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest third-party sources and notability with my searches finding results such as this and here. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Ljgua124 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Dumoulin[edit]

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

A quick Google search displays this person to be a one-time hit, with most reliable sources gathering around April/May 2015 and then stopping. Very close to a BLPPROD but saved with a Twitter link in lede. Not notable. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 21:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even a Twitter link doesn't save a page from BLPPROD, as BLPPROD requires the presence of a reliable source in the article, which a Twitter link is not. But since we're here, we're here. The article makes no claim of notability that satisfies WP:NMUSIC — competing on a reality show doesn't get you a notability freebie unless you win the show, and even if that happens the article still has to be reliably sourced. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually accomplishes something noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rerun sources. Non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been working on editing the page with links & a reliable source in order to prevent this page from deletion. I have found other reality show competitors that haven't won a show on Wiki, so hopefully this will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismoouk (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Eeek, the issue here though is that Micky is a bit of a one-hit wonder. It's a common story, for X-Factor/BGT contestants, to end up living a life singing at holiday parks and on cruise ships -- common sense can tell that this isn't something notable. Thanks for your award, telling me that you've learnt a couple of things from this AfD, but I feel that you've missed the point unfortunately. It's not a case of who won but it's more a case of what they've done (take a look at Bars and Melody as an example). Thanks, ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, besides policy and whatnot, let's take a look at actual page hits. Its early days yet, but compare hits to this page in comparison to the starting days of the B&M page. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person who competed on a reality show but didn't win can still get over our notability criteria for things they did after being on the reality show; for instance, if a non-winning American Idol competitor gets signed to a label, records and releases an album and has a smash hit single, then the fact that they didn't win when they were on American Idol doesn't matter anymore — because those other things take over from American Idol as the crux of their notability. But if the notability is specifically tied to the fact of having been on a reality show, with no other substantive claim that they've achieved anything else noteworthy besides the fact of having been on a reality show, then they have to win the show to get an article just because of the show. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to userification and restoration if his career goes anywhere else after this. So far it's not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of free online bioinformatics courses[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), no matter how useful these links might be to prospective students. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. nothing to add. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - This list is not the purpose of WP and could be used as advertising. pschemp | talk 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above - I agree the list may be useful but WP not the place. Amkilpatrick (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY indeed, and the current page serves as nothing but a directory. No other material visible in the current version of the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete NOTDIR Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Jones[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actor with no significant roles in major films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although he won a Young Artist Award in 1988, there's not much aside from that and my searches found nothing good with this 2002 Spin article being the best. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safa Kabir[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, sources found in google search are just passing mentions or inclusion in list of actors Arr4 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable actress/model; possibly TOOSOON. Quis separabit? 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and is upcoming and a case of TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No meeting of the minds occurred over whether the subject had notability independent of the accusations. Since a no consensus close defaults to keep, care will have to be taken to avoid the BLP issues raised here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco D'Agostino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1. D’Agostino’s page was not notable before when it was first nominated for deletion, and it is still not notable. There are no articles on the internet exclusively about him, which is supposed to be a requirement for notability. 2. Rightousskills’ motives are questionable. It looks like he has a COI. He created a page about ProEnergy Services, which is also not notable, and which was involved in the investigation with Derwick. All the charges were dropped.^[1] He also created a page about Pedro Trebbau Lopez and was in an editing war on the Alejandro Betancourt Lopez page. 3. This article should be judged exclusively on its own merits. I don't believe that just because a sock puppet requested the deletion makes it automatically an invalid request. 4. The only thing that is/was notable about D'Agostino was the investigation he was involved in. There is nothing else notable about him, and now that the charges against him were dismissed, it seems he is not really worthy of a Wikipedia article. 5. It appears that Rightousskills has ulterior motives for editing all these related articles about non-wikiworthy people. 6. I am asking editors that come here to debate whether this article should stay in Wikipedia to please consider this article on its merits and compare it to the strict criteria Wikipedia upholds for articles and especially biographies. Please see Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Escapefromalcatraz (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ de Córdoba, José (19 August 2014). "Judge Dismisses Racketeering Claims Against Venezuelan Businessmen". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 9 August 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: influential member of Venezuela's "boliburguesía", in addition to the significant coverage of the lawsuit in many sources WSJ for example the Venezuelan press even writes articles about his houses. Vrac (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vrac. Significant coverage in at least 3 languages available. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an attack piece, and violates WP:BLP policy. Note that the alleged accusations of corruption/graft were dismissed by a judge, see Judge Dismisses Racketeering Claims Against Venezuelan Businessmen in WSJ. Pan caliente, a Venezuelan (opposition-leaning mews site of unclear authorship/editorial control/fact checking diligence), talks about his house in Aruba (see link by Vrac) to put him in a bad light, but Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That the article is in serious need of a copy edit is no reason for deletion. Yes, I agree with your WSJ assessment, but no matter the legal intricacies, he is notable due to the temporal scope and repercussions of his actions, per Vrac's argument. He has significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, evidently passing WP:GNG. That the article needs improvement is another issue. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the lawsuit being thrown out cancels the notability established by coverage in WP:RS, if the article is not neutral that's a good reason to rewrite it so that it gives proper weight to what happened, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. This is individual doesn't fit the description of "relatively unknown" in WP:BLPCRIME, he is prominent Venezuelan businessman who is married to one of Victor Vargas's daughters, so he gets mentioned in the press for things unrelated to this lawsuit: [6] [7] [8], [9] [10]. Without the lawsuit a Wiki article would be a stretch but he is a public figure.Vrac (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like trivial mentions to me. However I may change my vote if somebody rewrites the article to comply with BLP and NPOV. Otherwise, I prefer WP:TNT. Kraxler (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Vrac's right, just because a judge threw it out, doesn't mean it isn't a part of history, enough history at least for WSJ to report on it. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. I quote from WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he's not notable for the crimes, he's notable for his status as part of the "boliburguesía"! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single source for this notability, all four sources in the article are (in-depth) about the lawsuit, forbidden under BLPCRIME. All sources which mention his connection to the "boliburguesia" and French nobility are the most trivial mentions attending parties of his in-law extended family, without any info on the person. Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope its OK to add to my argument to Delete. It is impossible to find additional information about this man that does not relate to his corruption case. I think anyone trying to rewrite this article to make it 'neutral' would find very little to write about other than his dismissed charges. Just being a 'well-known' businessman, or married to the daughter of a famous person (a trivial mention, as stated above) does not make him 'notable' in the sense that Wikipedia seems to mean it. I would like to re-emphasize the points that Kraxler made: that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and there are strict rules about biographies here. WP:BLP I have seen much more neutral articles about more well-known people deleted speedily from Wikipedia because of lack of notability and lack of neutrality.WP:BIO. Escapefromalcatraz (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is very negatively skewed and the multiple sources mentioned above are all about the case, something which cannot be portrayed in a balanced fashion per BLPCRIME given the acquittal. For me this article should not exist in this form, and I don't believe in any form, as outside of the trial-related sources (which aren't as relevant given the acquittal) there isn't much left. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. I fail to see how thee text violates WP:BLP: the lawsuits are described in a neutral form. However I would suggest to strike them out, because D'Agostino is an occasional part of it, i.e, they are not against him directly (at least this is not seen from the article text). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The case was dismissed, no conviction, so the news of the case do not add to notability, and there's nothing else but the most trivial mentions. There's absolutely no in-depth source on this person, so that we don't even know his birth date or place. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Kraxler. Allegations and potentialities don't count. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect over to Derwick Associates since it looks like D'Agostino apparently isn't a notable person apart from his involvement with that company. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Who Stole Feminism?. Consensus that this shouldn't be its own article. Anything worthwhile can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equity and gender feminism[edit]

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

Essentially this article is pointless. It is about ideas discussed in Christina Hoff Sommers's book Who Stole Feminism? Anything worthwhile in the article can be added there; it does not merit an independent article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article starts out: "Equity feminism and gender feminism are theorised types of feminism that were first defined by scholar Christina Hoff Sommers in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism?." We don't need duplicate articles, one on the book and one on what it says. The concept might merit a paragraph in Feminism. Borock (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some hits for the term "equity feminism" (the other term is so broad that there are a ton of false hits), but so far it's slim pickings. ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) I'm pretty much only looking in scholarly sources, to be honest, since those are really what the article would need in order to show that it'd merit its own entry outside of another target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add any other sources I find to the bit above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since moving to books, I've actually found equity feminism mentioned quite a bit and only one of the above sources would be considered a trivial, passing mention. It's enough to where the term equity feminism would likely merit an article, at the very least. I will say that this article would require a re-write in order to make it more up to snuff, which would be best done by someone familiar with the term. I'm just here to find sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More sources (again, these are all for equity feminism): ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For an apparent neologism, the term "equity feminism" seems to have some acceptance and some solid sources. That makes it notable enough. That the article needs improvement or rewriting is no reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and as such doesn't have articles about every term that might exist. In any case, the article is not "Equity feminism". It's "Equity and gender feminism". Why should there be an article discussing both these terms? Everything the article deals with can be better discussed at other articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep independent sources exist which discuss the concept, implying notability.~~ - üser:Altenmann >t 04:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the concept supposed to be? What does "Equity and gender feminism" mean, exactly? "Equity feminism" is not so much a concept as term used by Christina Hoff Sommers to refer to her views on feminism, "gender feminism" being a loose term for various different kinds of feminism she opposes. I doubt there are actually sources that define the precise expression "equity and gender feminism" as a concept and discuss it. Two terms, thrown together, does not a concept make. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion stricken out as uninformed. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Who Stole Feminism? - These are not novel concepts, just terms used to describe topics we already have articles about. Many people would argue that "equity feminism" is just Feminism, but it seems like she's primarily talking about first-wave feminism and second-wave feminism. "Gender feminism" is basically her way of separating, for the purpose of critique, social construction of gender and post-structuralist ideas (like those related to queer theory). So there would need to be sources talking about these terms apart from the book, but we would also need those sources to clearly distinguish them as topics we don't already have articles about. Hence delete. It's possible the terms are worth a mention (Selective Merge) at one or more of those other articles, but not a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although equity feminism is not mainstream feminism, it is discussed enough by other than Sommers to be not only weighty but notable. It discusses the concept and thus goes beyond what Wiktionary would offer. I have read books that attempted each to introduce a term into general discourse but where, as far as I know, no one but the author adopted the term; Sommers at least succeeded in coming up with a term that did enter general discourse and not merely as a synonym for an already distinct feminism, and how it was introduced is not a reason to shy away from it for the purpose of an article. We could even argue that she actually opposed any feminism outside the U.S. in her book (cf. its passage about a Russian visitor); nonetheless, the acceptance of the term in some discourse apart from her means it lives even if she is not herself an equity feminist if she is not a feminist. Unlike some terms in, say, engineering, the term gender feminism does not need an exact definition to be valid as an identifier for a concept; English has plenty of words without precise definitions (nice, for example); it is enough that it can be distinguished from other feminisms. The concept need not be novel, merely distinct, and, among various feminisms, while many feminisms overlap, equity feminism is distinct. An observer hearing of someone self-describing as an equity feminist would know that that person may not be an ecofeminist, for example, and is almost certainly not a radical feminist. While the book article can carry critiques of the book, critiques of equity feminism itself would not normally go into an article about a single book, an article on the subject being a better venue for the critiques. Perhaps some of what's in the book article should be moved into this article. A move of this article to equity feminism would be sensible but has already been rejected. Gender feminism is also a concept although one with less common acceptance as an identifier outside of proponents of equity feminism, but probably still enough support to warrant inclusion in this article as due weight. We cover radical feminism and other feminist ideologies that are not mainstream feminism and we do so in separate articles, and covering this one is appropriate for Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) (Mainly or only corrected format, deleted a redundancy, clarified, and linked: Nick Levinson (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

It's hard to respond to that, other than to note that you've provided no real evidence of any of your claims. Use of the term "equity feminism" does not indicate that the user believes there is a distinct subject or concept called "equity feminism." "Gender feminism" is a term not really used by anyone other than Sommers, who employs it as a synonym for Radical feminism, which has its own article. I am still not seeing any reason why these two terms need to be discussed in an article called Equity and gender feminism. How does it help Wikipedia to have a series of distinct articles on what are essentially the same topics? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To save time, I checked only half a dozen of the linked-to sources above. Both "gender feminism" and "equity feminism" are discussed by Kim A. Loudermilk, sr. lecturer, Emory College, in a literary critique, Fictional Feminism: How American Bestsellers Affect the Movement for Women's Equality (2013) (link 3 above) and by Barry X. Kuhle, prof. of evoutionary psychology, Univ. of Scranton, in Evolutionary Psychology (2011) (commentary) (link 1 above). "Equity feminists ... [are] sometimes called liberal feminists", according to then-prof. of philosophy, who discusses more about the subject in Equity Feminism and Academic Feminism, in Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science (2003) (link 4 above) and that claim of similarity could probably be added to this article based on this source. Equity-feminism is differently defined in a discussion of West Germany, by Peter J. Katzenstein, prof. of international studies, Cornell Univ., in Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic (1989) (link 5 above), antedating Sommers' book, which means the article probably should carry both definitions, separately sourced. Equity feminism is distinguished from difference feminism in Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender (whose names I recognize from feminist writing), Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge (probably tertiary) (2004 (four years later than the edition cited in the Wikipedia article)) (link 6 above). (At the moment I looked, I couldn't access JStor for link 2 above.) (Author biographical info herein is from university pages or Wikipedia.) I have not read enough of any of these sources to be confident in adding them myself to the article, but neither are they evidently unlikely to be reliable sources, most of them secondary and one tertiary, and someone else can go ahead and add them, if they wish. I did not sample the first half dozen because they were better or worse than the other dozen; they were just first. But they're enough to show that notability is not lacking. Sommers is easily not the only author to use either term nontrivially in secondary sourcing.
Whether Sommers equated gender feminism with just radical feminism or most feminism should be sourced to some page/s she wrote. I think she probably equated it with most feminism and not just the radical branch, but I'd have to source that before adding it. If you found she equated it with just radical feminism, cite the page and add it to the article. The Wikipedia article does not have the word "radical" anywhere in it now.
Above, it is asked why Wikipedia should "have a series of distinct articles on what are essentially the same topics". What series? I thought we were discussing just one article. The main proposal is to merge it into an article about a book, not into an article about another feminism. Is anyone proposing that more feminism articles be deleted even though sourced? If any two articles discuss the same subject (not feminism on the whole but the same specific branch of feminism), then the sameness should be sourced and be not much in debate and then it may be reasonable to combine them. But, so far, as far as I know, no claim that equity feminism is coincident with any other feminism is both sourced and settled.
I think there's enough material with which to substantially expand the article, which would make deletion counterproductive.
Nick Levinson (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main proposal is to merge it into an article about a book, not into an article about another feminism. As this is AfD, the main proposal is delete. However, the outcome of an AfD is not limited to what is originally proposed. The goal is to do what makes sense per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
By citing a bunch of sources that define these terms differently from one another, and several of which that do so without mentioning Sommers -- not to mention those which do cite her and define the terms the same way we define other topics -- you're making a case against keeping, as you're just finding instances of a term, not a concept. Wikipedia has articles about concepts, not words, so if multiple terms talk about more or less the same thing, they should be covered together. Neologisms require not just coverage but coverage which makes it clear the term is also a distinct concept and thus deserves a stand-alone article. Something can be notable without meriting a stand-alone article -- that's why we merge things. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as per nom and Rhododendrites. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The very article title ("two-in-one") shows that the terms are not very well recognized in their merits. The article Who Stole Feminism? discussed the topic in much more comprehensive way, i.e., this one is nothing but a POV fork. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to recent posts:

The notability guideline says notability generally "is a test ... [for] whether a given topic warrants its own article." If there's notability, generally an article can be kept.
On equity feminism, the definitional differences are not so unrelatedly diverse as to preclude the article's existence (and, if they were, that might require multiple articles on different subjects and disambiguation or crosslinks, not deletion). In the sources I described above for this article, the German case may be the main outlier. Other than that, equity feminism appears approximately to overlap liberal feminism but with less activism; more precision can be found in sources already cited. Were Sommers' the only source, then the book article would be the place to put the definition. But sources have gone beyond hers, and quite a number of sources, a number exceeding what many lasting articles cite.
Citing sources that define terms without mentioning Sommers is not my argument against keeping. On the contrary, the discussion within sources has come alive beyond Sommers. So far, the sources define based on inspirations from Sommers. The sources as glanced at appear to be mainly about feminism, society, and effects, roughly speaking, and not mainly about Sommers' biography. There's too much material that's likely important to shoehorn it into a section of the Sommers book article.
It may be that equity feminists are few in number or are many of the people who used to say that they support equal pay for equal work but are not themselves feminists. There may not be a national organization behind equity feminism. But it is still a concept, not just a Wiktionary candidate. It is also a term that is definable from sources, but whether it is in use mainly by opponents of feminism who want to look like they're feminists or observers whose work would be more controversial if they didn't support some kind of feminism (e.g., Steven Pinker for The Blank Slate, in my view) is less important than that it is a stream of thought with which some people identify themselves, as sources show. It need not be the mainstream of thought. It need not be widely agreed with. Consider Wikipedia's truthiness article, a featured article, showing that a word can also be a concept that is not in the mainstream of thought and that need not be subsumed into another article (in that case, into the Stephen Colbert article). Author Kirsten Powers may be a supporter of equity feminism, judging only from a Google news search, and it may be that a book she wrote can be cited in this article.
I'm not clear from the arguments above what more would be needed for this subject to be a concept and not just a term. I think conceptuality has been met. We don't have to agree with its substance for it to be a concept. Expansion of the article is within reach and is easier and faster than deleting or merging and then rebuilding.
It's not a POV fork since it includes criticism insofar as available from reliable sources, as far as I know, and thus fulfills the neutrality guideline. If more can be added, please do.
The book article has other content but is much less comprehensive than this one on this subject, not more. Besides the lead, which is merely supposed to summarize the rest of the article, the rest of the article is about the book's reception, thus not relevant here, and an overview, of which only one paragraph is about the feminisms themselves, and that paragraph has only one citation. That's much less than is already in the article we're discussing.
Most content about equity feminism or gender feminism other than what's in the book would not be due weight in the book article. That begs the question about where such content should go. It's already touched on, very briefly summarized or less, in the feminist movements and ideologies article, which is meant only to provide summaries of other articles on specific ideologies. Since equity feminism has become a subject in the non-Wikipedia world apart from the book (an editor listed 18 sources above) and coverage in Wikipedia would therefore not be limited to what belongs in the book article, a stand-alone article is needed and sources exist to adequately support the article, although more of them should be added into the article.
Moving the article to equity feminism is fine with me if the consensus is to overrule the article consensus against moving. Being a two-in-one article title does not show much other than that the title may be excessive, if the two feminisms should be treated in two separate articles. But, even with that move, gender feminism, which exists largely as having been critiqued from equity feminism, should be covered in the equity feminism article until enough sources (in addition to the Sommers book) are found so that gender feminism can become its own article, too.
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

With all respect, Nick, it seems to me that if you really had a valid point, you could sum it up simply, rather than argue with a wall of text such as the above. See WP:TLDR, which is a nice essay giving advice on this subject. You say that "equity feminism appears approximately to overlap liberal feminism but with less activism". Is that anything but your opinion? Even if it were more than just your opinion, it seems like a terribly weak basis for keeping the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When brevity does not address what was raised, depth is needed. Broadly sweeping claims were made that needed redress. Validity is based on content, not abbreviation. TLDR is about wasted length, not this.
Regarding the overlap with liberal feminism, that statement was my opinion and was not sourced but it gave context to what came next in the very same sentence: "more precision can be found in sources already cited." Equity and gender feminisms both deserve an article (or maybe two) and the availability of more definitional precision refutes the claim above that "a bunch of sources ... define these terms differently from one another" as a reason to delete. Variation of definition within a general range is consistent with keeping the article and expanding it.
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been so long as to be self-indulgent, giving the impression that you are trying to use length to compensate for lack of substance. How, for example, did Steven Pinker suddenly become relevant to this discussion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on substance, in this case, needs addressing and clarifying of multiple points explicitly or implicitly raised in the claims for deletion. Brevity would mean omitting necessary responses. Being helpful to other editors is opposite of self-indulgency. It's part of an effort at achieving consensus. AfD is not just for voting and disappearing. The AfD page says, "while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." and "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy."
Pinker became part of this discussion because he is already in the article, in the first section, where it says "[e]xperimental psychologist Steven Pinker expands on Sommers ..." and where he is cited as listing 16 other people who "identifie[d]" with equity feminism. Thus, just from the Pinker content, equity feminism is evidently not limited to Sommers alone. She may be the principle inspiration, but that does not deny the subject's notability apart from hers.
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - That there are such things as feminists that are individualists, egalitarians, classical liberals, and the like has been documented by all kinds of reliable sources. We have the feminist 'mainstream' and the minority feminist 'dissidents' who have clashed over the rights of trangender people, the feminist sex wars, and other disputes; a pretty clean line exists to separate the people that want measures such as increased government censorship over people's speech versus the people that put personal liberty first. The thing is, we already have an article for 'Individualist feminism', and it's one that needs a lot of work too. I don't see what is the difference is between being an equalist / individualist and being an 'equity feminist', and the sources that have been cited don't seem to either. The concepts are treated as being fundamentally similar if not the same. For the average person and the specialist alike, then, we have a tricky situation. Ideally, I'd like to have this whole article merged to 'Individualist feminism' with almost all of the material kept. Since that's not likely to happen, I guess keeping the current article more or less as-is (renaming a suppose to 'equity feminism') is a second best option. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Concept is relatively new, but exists independently of its originating source. Can expand on the concept and subsequent scholarship. No objection to possible renaming or retargeting, but the dab to the phrase as a term of art should remain. Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As already noted, there is no concept per se. The article is about two terms, which are both synonyms for things Wikipedia already has articles for. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just repeating, when someone has refuted that point and if the refutation is wrong, please respond in kind. I said above, "I'm not clear from the arguments above what more would be needed for this subject to be a concept and not just a term. I think conceptuality has been met. We don't have to agree with its substance for it to be a concept." If anyone disagrees, please be specific in the response.
If equity feminism is similar to another feminism and that similarity is sourced, please add that to the article. The same applies to gender feminism. Absent that, we don't have authority to merge.
If the contention is that equity and gender feminisms are covered in the book article, please respond to the point above that "[m]ost content about equity feminism or gender feminism other than what's in the book would not be due weight in the book article" and therefore the article here under discussion is the appropriate place for nonbook content (see above for more). If that is disagreed with, please explain why.
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nick, but I know what you said above. You don't have to repeat yourself. Other editors aren't stupid, and can easily see for themselves what you said. It can be difficult to respond to comments so grammatically confused as to border on the incomprehensible ("Instead of just repeating, when someone has refuted that point and if the refutation is wrong, please respond in kind", for example). I'm afraid that your past comments ("the definitional differences are not so unrelatedly diverse as to preclude the article's existence") seem more and more like babble to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you knew what I said above, and if you believed it was wrong, I asked that you please refute it. You didn't.
What you said was grammatically confused is correct as is, but I'll gladly clarify it. If a point has been responded to so as to make a showing that it is incorrect as it is, but it is believed that the response is itself wrong, please respond by showing how it is wrong.
What repetition I wrote was clearly and specifically for the purpose of asking that disagreements be made specific or explained or that content be added to the article. So far, content has not been added to the article and the specificity and explanation have not been forthcoming.
It was claimed that the meanings of the terms that are the article's subjects are too diverse to contain the terms in one article. But in my review of the article and some of the sources cited on this page, I found that most of the definitions are close enough to each other to support inclusion in one article. However, insofar as definitional diversity is a problem for this article, it would be an even more difficult problem if all the subject content were merged into the book article, since definitions or definitional differences not based on the book would probably not belong (not be due weight) in the book article, and then where would they go? That's one reason for the subject article's continuing existence.
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC) (Expanded per original intention with this post, added, and reformatted: 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Who Stole Feminism? or delete. The ideas of Sommers are adequately covered in the Who Stole Feminism? article. Otherwise, the concepts are covered in appropriate Wikipedia articles such as Gender equality, Women's rights, and Individualist feminism. --Bejnar (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are no longer only Sommers' ideas, thus the need for a separate article. She may have started them, but other writers have written on them, too.
The gender equality and women's rights articles are too wide for the more specific subjects of this article.
The individualist feminism article says, "Sommers define[s] individualist feminism in opposition to what ... [she] call[s] political or gender feminism." But a search at amazon.com reveals that that statement is sourced to the index in Sommers' book and I don't know what index entry is meant. We don't usually cite to an index, so I've raised the issue on that article's talk page. Maybe there's more than one edition but based on the Amazon search the statement is probably unsupported.
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Who Stole Feminism?, per Rhododendrites. I fail to see how this subject is notable outside of the book used to desribe it in, on which all subsequent mention is based. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like merging the second-wave feminism article into the Betty Friedan Feminine Mystique book article. We don't do that, because notability of the concepts is due to sources available being in addition to Sommers. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nonsensical comparison. The terms equity and gender feminism are associated almost entirely with Sommers herself; the situation with second-wave feminism and The Feminine Mystique doesn't even begin to be comparable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the comparison is that both are about whether a subject is notable although inspired by an author whose on-topic book is accepted as notable. While second-wave feminism is far larger than equity feminism, the principle of the notability guideline is the same. But if the scale is too different, the same is nonetheless true of many articles where the subject's scale is smaller. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book. This is basically just a rehash of the book, and that has its own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to either Who Stole Feminism? or Christina Hoff Sommers. It's true that there are sources which use the term, but they often define and use it in different ways. I'm particularly struck by the fact that this source (one of the ones Tokyogirl linked above) uses "equity feminism" to talk about a concept that is many ways the polar opposite of Sommers' "equity feminism." There simply aren't enough sources to hang an article on here - not one that would define and treat "equity feminism" as single, coherent concept, anyway. So what we're left with is Sommers' "equity feminism." And I think it is clearly more appropriate to discuss that within the article on her, or the article on her book, than to have a separate article on it. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google wouldn't let me verify that, but, in general, a conflict between sources is reportable as a debate over a factual claim. We'd report both sides. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC) (Corrected by copying missing sig block for this list item: 00:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)) (Corrected this post's format: 00:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to Who Stole Feminism?. As pointed out above, many sources use these terms in different ways. That suggests this neologism hasn't really caught on, but rather was independently defined by different people at different times. This concept is tied heavily with the book and has little acceptance outside of that. In this case, there is more encyclopedic value in discussing the ideas of the book in its own article over having an independent article for a term that is hovering around the line of notability. I think it falls just under that line. ~ Rob^Talk 13:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - Avoid merge. No content worth saving, as it's all "Sommers said in Who Stole Feminism?..." and should already be in there as basic concepts in the book. Two lines on spread are potentially arbitrary, given the range of interpretation shown. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:V is policy and this content is completely unsourced. Besides, the original creator wrote a new and apparently better article, so I suppose nobody is sorry to wave this stub goodbye? Any redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 19:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (cognitive)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC. Merges a number of definitions together: context, reference, value system, and to a lesser extent: paradigm, point of view, reality tunnel, umwelt, world view. Previously deprodded Curb Chain (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close Re-nominated by an abusive user (prev nominator was his sock: User:Algircal). While it is unreferenced, it is an article about an important concept, not about a word, i.e., NOTDIC is irrelevant. The text does not "merge" any definitions together: it defines one concept using references to other concepts. And "to the lesser extent" accusation holds no water: the text clearly says they are different. Of course, the article sucks per wikipedia standards (an unreferenced blurb), but this has never been a reason for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be frank, the article currently appears to be a mishmash of concepts without coherency. This is the sort of postmodern word salad that Orwell railed against in Politics and the English Language, and I agree with him. Beyond that, we have no sources included here now, and I don't see how you can even add one for something so haphazard in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot find anything to back up what that stub says anywhere. We do have an article called World_view that seems to be about something similar and is written to a much higher standard. I think this should be deleted for seemingly having some type of POV even though I'm not sure what it is (cynicism maybe) and being nearly incoherent but it could be redirected.--Savonneux (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to correspond to the following meaning of the word: "perspective: the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:~~Keep~~ A search on "cognitive perspective" brings up the concept within the field of cognitive psychology. See as examples [29], [30], [31]. There is some argument to be made that the stub could be expanded into cognitive psychology, but if so then a redirect should remain. Montanabw^(talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Follow up: Per discussion below, moved my text to new article, and as this one does appear to be gibberish and unclear what, if anything it is discussing other than cognitive perspective, I guess we probably do need to delete. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to revert, but it seems that your text is about something different: cognitive perspective - i.e, a point of view onto something based on the theory of cognition. I.e., yours is a particular kind of perspective, Whereas the current "gibberish" is an attempt to define a very generic philosophical concept of "perspective". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS. I was trying to look into the history where this mess originated from. The creator says he copied it from a disambig page. Since then the source page appears to be renamed a couple times and eventually [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspective (viewpoint)|deleted]. So I guess maybe it made some sense back then, in 2004. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - - So why is it called "cognitive"? I guess if you'd prefer, I can copy my changes to a new article. But I'd encourage a redirect after... Montanabw ^(talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not called "cognitive" It is a disambig qualifier, just like in Line (text file) does not mean that line is a kind of text file; it means "line" in the topics related to text files. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        OK< I can live with that. Created new article and changed !vote. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        P.S. Funny that you mentioned a redirect. After quickly looking into a couple of dictionaries, I was about to suggest to redirect tis page to point of view, only to find that it already redirects here :-) I guess we have a small "walled garden" :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced since 2004. If someone adds just two in-depth references to this topic from reliable sources, I'll review this opinion, so please do ping me if that happens. --Dweller (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on! I find it fairly clear that, as User:Staszek Lem has said, the article was created (back in 2004) by User:Altenmann to handle a generic philosophical/psychological meaning of perspective - fairly close in meaning to "point of view" as used in "neutral point of view". The article is classified by Wikiproject Philosophy as high-importance, and has over a hundred inward links from other articles (a number of them, admittedly, piped). Unfortunately, despite this, the article has scarcely changed since 2004, even though I suspect that User:Altenmann was creating it as a placeholder to be improved later by others. In practice, though, I suspect that philosophers tend to use the word "perspective" in passing but, in detailed discussion, prefer more precise synonyms, several of which are given in the article. Under the circumstances, straight deletion of the article would probably create at least as many problems as it solves - there is actually a fairly high chance that a Wikipedia reader currently arriving at it through one of the inward links, while not finding the article itself much use, then finds that one or other of the outward links is what they actually want. Redirection might work if a suitable target can be found (World view looks possible but far from ideal). A WP:HEYMANN rewrite would be best, but I don't think I could do it so I am not expecting it of others. PWilkinson (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Got pinged here. Never kept it on my watchlist, so didn't see the discussion._ PWilkinson is right: Back in todler days of wikipedia I created placeholders for important philosophical concepts: perspective and POV. I expected someone to fill it in. I find it ridiculous that wikipedians use the terms POV/NPOV on a daily basis, yet the article is missing, and even more ridiculous claim of this AfD that there is no such thing. As I see the text of the article almost untouched. At the same time I am baffled that some think it is gibberish. When I saw this text, it made perfect sense to me (and still does), so I cut and pasted it unchanged. (and I claim no authorship credits). World view is close, but different concept. I vaguely remember I was looking for redirect targets, but I found none good. That said, my vote is "keep" because I made a quick google search and found several deeply philosophical texts treating specifically these concepts (i.e., not just mention them in passing). Of course all this philosophy sounds babble to me (philosophers have their own worldview and slang, even worse than lawyers :-), but I will try to rescue the article tomorrow, if no one beats me to that; I am used to writing articles on topics nobody cares (and I never heard before myself), such as 'animal latrine', 'Crimean journey of Catherine the Great', 'rubber soldiers', 'Hymylä', or 'Jewish nose' (well, the last one I sort of always heard around :-) So I guess this one will be an easy job as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Well, if you "cut and pasted it unchanged" then we have a WP:COPYVIO problem too. In short, this needs a rewrite and some footnotes to have any hope of staying here. And it does need a plain language rewrite before going into the philosophical depths. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why the heck it is copyvio? The attribution is clearly indicated in edit summary. As for "plain language", which part of the phrase "Perspective in theory of cognition is the choice of a context or a reference (or the result of this choice) from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience" you don't understand? - üser:Altenmann >t 17:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Point of view (philosophy)". As I promised, here you have a brand fresh new off-the-shelf undercooked but WP:RS-compliant ready to go article. Feel free to expand and destroy. (4 hours of my life. what a waste.) - üser:Altenmann >t 08:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, almost forgot: <ping-ping-ping> User:Montanabw, User:PWilkinson, User:Staszek Lem, User:Dweller, User:Savonneux. - üser:Altenmann >t 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.P.S. Does anybody care to nominate it for DYK. Suggested hook: "Did you know that you have a point of view regardless whether you know it or not?" :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's good. I only commented though, didn't vote :P --Savonneux (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larger Girl[edit]

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

I could find no evidence that this series exists at all. WP:CRYSTAL may alternatively apply Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Liev "Schrieber," Marion Cotillard and Aaron Paul are all starring in a "silent" television series with no lines? —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as HOAX. Good catch. Quis separabit? 18:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Japan national football team[edit]

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

As tagged, I found nothing at all (apart from mirrors) to confirm it existed and it has not been significantly changed since existing in March 2011 (and the author has made no other edits aside from a few changes at other football articles). I'm inviting taggers @Calamondin12, Smileguy91, Shirt58, and Jetstreamer: and I'm also letting GiantSnowman who always comments at football AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if sources can be found then the information should be added to Japan national football team#History, no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 17:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Japan national football team. Clearly this does not merit a standalone article, but it seems a plausible search term. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be a hoax. A few notes:
- The RSSSF includes an archive [32] of Japan's international results, which nowhere mentions these matches.
- The Japan Football Association, according to its own website,[33] did not exist until 1921.
- Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and New Granada (Colombia) did not exist in those forms during the years specified. Similarly, Ukraine was not an independent nation in 1917.
- Records for the German Football Association (DFB) list only two matches against Japan, in 2004 and 2006 [34]. The DFB's archive includes every match played by Germany during its imperial, Nazi and divided periods, so clearly Germany did not meet Japan in 1911 or 1913.
- RSSSF's Brazilian archive [35] mentions only three opponents for Brazil in 1916: Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. The list never mentions any 1916 match against Japan.
- RSSSF records for the Catalan [36] and Basque [37] regional selections do not include matches against Japan from this time period.

Finally, the results simply do not seem plausible (a 28-0 Japanese victory over Brazil in any year?). The evidence in this case appears substantial. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@SwisterTwister: Thanks for pinging us.
Delete No sources have ben provided for just a collection of doubtful match results. This is not encyclopedic, as no context has been provided. I stay firm in my position of deleting the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete: created and maintained of multiple socks of a hoaxer who was also messing with other articles. Needs detailed investigation and removal of damage. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fiction. Doesn't even qualify as a hoax, given the farcical match-ups with nations that didn't exist until years later, or hadn't existed for decades. Nfitz (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - patent nonsense, as evidenced by content such as "Catalonia has a strong rivalry with the Empire of Japan" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined the speedy deletion of this article. The rationale I gave was that "there is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article", which I thought was good enough at the time. I don't think that was a bad decision on my part: there was an Empire of Japan, and it is plausible that there was a football team from that part of the history of Japan that played international football against other national football teams. But that assertion lacks anything in the way of on-line or off-line find-able reliable sources. From what I can see, this article fails WP:VER and should be deleted, but no prejudice to be re-created with reliable sources.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I totally agree with the users suggesting that this is a hoax. Spiderone 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This may start classifying as snow delete. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear hoax (the Soviet Union did not exist in 1913). Someone with knowledge of the subject should go over this user's edits. Some, such as the ones on the Japanese national football team on past results, are still standing.Michitaro (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Gavrielides[edit]

(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 an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can recreate if and when he plays professionally Spiderone 08:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etuwe Bright Junior[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Though a number of sources are provided, these are either routine or primary sources ineligible for GNG support. Fenix down (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made a professional appearance Spiderone 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. No hits, seems to be a very obvious hoax given the evidence presented here, no reason to drag this out longer than necessary. Given that this appears to be one of several hoax articles or additions by the same user, I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE/vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious 4.0: Just a Little More Music from the Hit TV Show[edit]

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

PROD deleted. Fairly sure this is a hoax. Nothing found with web searches that shows this album exists. Image is from a DeviantArt site here and labeled as a fan create image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and as the PROD endorser, I found nothing to confirm this particular album. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube-hosted fanmix; even with all Nick has done wrong lately they wouldn't release a soundtrack for a defunct TV show unless they wanted to be the fan reaction to be uncontrolled rage. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was Keep - nomination withdrawn by nominator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Hobson[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY (only 3rd tier). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The football/soccer-specific notability guideline WP:NFOOTY says

"Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football."

If we look at that page, we see that the top four levels of English football are fully professional: it would perhaps be helpful if the list included previous as well as curent names, for clarity. This player has more than 200 appearances in fully professional leagues, so passes WP:NFOOTY quite comfortably. Incidentally, I'm surprised this article was AfD'd within 10 minutes of its creation: a bit trigger-happy...? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A minimal amount of research would have shown up his 212 league appearances - Google is your friend!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 200 apperances in the Football League confirmed by Neil Brown. Giant Snowman 09:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IGN. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Vejvoda[edit]

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

A film critic. The article was speedily deleted for lack of asserted notability. A discussion about this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8 did not reach consensus, so this AfD is to determine the subject's actual notability. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Sandstein 07:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was speedy deleted earlier, I suggest a delete and salt. Anyways, there is not enough coverage of this person in 3rd party sources. Just mentioning his name isn't notable; and even then there isn't much of that going on. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a film critic at a notable website, IGN, and he's not just a film critic there, mind you, he's also the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division. So, he holds a pretty significant job at IGN, not just that of a mere film critic. Which is why he is notable enough for his own article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ~~don't~~ think salt isn't really appropriate as the speedy deletion (by me) was reversed for a DRV discussion that led to the article arriving here. Had the author given me time to reply to his post, I would have happily userfied it or moved it to Draft space for improvement. As Undead warrior says, there doesn't seem to be much coverage outside IGN and places Vejvoda's written at. I'd like to see some in depth coverage in something reliable, but in the 159 Google hits I didn't see anything. Being 'Executive Editor' can mean head of a large department, or a one man band operation. There isn't much in the article to give us a clue. I looked at the IGN article, and can't see a 'movies' channel (apart from "IGN Movies Middle East") mentioned there. There is still time to add to the article. Many articles have been improved while at AfD. Peridon (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spotted an odd double negative at the start of my post above which I've now struck. Salt is not appropriate. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the total lack of sources independent of both the article subject and his employer. (The directory listing at muckrack.com shouldn't need to be mentioned, since, well, it's a directory listing. But here I am, mentioning it anyway.) "[Person] holds a pretty significant job" may be enough to invalidate a speedy deletion, but is in no manner a valid argument at AFD absent sourcing. —Cryptic 00:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources to sustain a BLP article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my Comment above. No improvement has been made. Peridon (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ This is not a policy violation, and being unimproved or being a stubby is not a fault (sorry Peridon) nor a reason to delete. I contend that in being extremely prolific[38][39] and widely cited,[40][41][42][43][44][45] he can be seen as meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:JOURNALIST#1 even if weak on WP:GNG. I note that guideline instructs in many SNGs that determining notability is not a contest to see who is most "popular" in the media, and even our basic and underlying WP:N instructs that even though such may enhance the acceptability of a subject, "determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. My reasoning is below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for

The article as it stands still does not meet the GNG after being under threat of deletion during the DRV and the AfD.
The article as it stands, still does not meet BLP guidelines as the references presented are 3 links to IGN (his employer or his own writings), and a newswriter version of Linked-In (which falls under the WP:SPS failure conditions).
The argument that "Executive Editor of Movies Division" does not hold weight, nor does being a film critic. How many executive editors are for the movie divison? How many divisons? Furthermore does being an executive editor of the movie division on a site that focuses primarily on Video Games confer a level of notability? Does reviewing a single film qualify you to be a film critic?
The "notable event" of compiling a list of top 10 movies for a website property is not not notable.
Co-hosting a podcast talking about film news does not confer notability. It can support a marginal claim of notability, but it cannot stand on it's own for a notability claim.

In short, since the speedy deletion was overturned on technical grounds (which I disagree with) no substantial improvement has developed with respect to this submission which indicates in my mind that this BLP is still not notable and therefore should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that MichaelQSchmidt's "citing" is only in passing and rises, at best, to cherry picked quotes that a journalist chose to fulfill their narrative pre-conceptions for the stories they are mentioned in. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt makes no claims that WP:GNG is met (LOL), and Hasteur may "contend" whatever he wishes, but

Guideline specifically tells us that while nice, the GNG is not the sole determinant of notability.
Showing that a person is widely cited and has multiple reviews to meet WP:JOURNALIST is not "cherry-picking", specially as it would make no sense to pick reviews by someone else or someone else's expertise being cited. A film reviewer is expected to share their opinions. How far and wide is just how WP:JOURNALIST can be seen as met even with the GNG being very weak.
Policy WP:BLP instructs on neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research... not notability. That'd be WP:BIO and its various SNGs.
And while I do contend WP:JOURNALIST is just met through the man's works, even under WP:ENTERTAINER co-hosting a popular podcast or web series can be a sign of notability,[46] but that is not the contention.

So and again, as apparently not understood, I make no assertion that the the GNG is met, only that we have a guideline supported assertion of notability in its lack. Even with the article being stubby, it is within policy. This clarified and with its content being so brief, I would not be opposed to its 69-sourced-words being merged and redirected to IGN to better serve our readers, as we're here for them, not ourselves. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So glad that you know how misrepresent policy. For notability it's either GNG or a SNG. Your claim that he passes JOURNALIST by having being cited a few times does not hold water. Think about all the movie reviewing sites, think about all the critics that write movie reviews, think about all the movies, then think about the passing mentions that you put forward to justify inclusion. A movie critic that is widely syndicated across multiple newspapers, or one that writes for a major newspaper outlet or media market, one that is widely known as a film critic (Robert Ebert for example) can be mentioned in passing and it's clear that they are notable. While I aplaud your attempt to twist policy about what a BLP must contain, you seem to have missed the very first sentence of WP:V In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. And finally popularity is not a measure of notability, also taking into account that the claim of podcast notability depends on his film critic notability which has already been proven to be lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I do know and I do not misrepresent is that policy is policy and guideline is guideline... and while policy is usually immutable, I also know and accept that each guideline has the (often ignored) hat-note "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". As that SNG does not state any specific quantity, I shared a few representative samples... not realizing that "you" would wish this discussion to be blocked up by my providing links to every single one of his hundreds or thousands of reviews. Whew. But as that SNG does not state any specific quantity, just how many instances of the man's reviews and how many times being cited by others would you personally demand to be able to even grudgingly admit that WP:JOURNALIST might be met?? And do you also disagree with the meaning and intent of WP:RSOPINION?? And how is you are able to convince yourself that the many sources offered to support my contention fail policies requirement for the WP:V of the assertion? I've already granted that a merge and redirect would serve our readers (even if not you personally, as I realize you will never be convinced, and that's fine)... But DO NOT EVER state that I misrepresent policy. Such blatant WP:ADHOM is suitable for WP:ANI if repeated. Buh bye. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person does not appear to meet the basic BLP criteria or the journalist criteria. #1 in the latter criteria does not apply; his name has not been referenced in reliable sources outside IGN. The only exception I can find is him being quoted in the book Inhabited by Stories: Critical Essays on Tales Retold. Ultimately, not seeing why a stand-alone article is warranted; mention at IGN of his role seems sufficient. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that his expertise has been cited outside of IGN many times:[47][48][49][50][51][52][53] enough so that a mention and redirect does serve our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is what "widely cited" means, though? The way #1 is worded, "widely cited" being after "regarded as an important figure", seems to me to mean that when people widely cite you, they explicitly highlight your work or commentary, not just doing due diligence of including footnotes referencing articles that happened to be written by a journalist. Being quoted in that book is one such example, but I think we need more like that, not just footnote examples, to meet the "widely cited" criteria. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IGN or delete. Wikipedia has too many articles on non-notable film critics. Merely being prolific or getting a few trivial mentions scattered throughout Google results doesn't really do anything to establish notability. Someone like Roger Ebert or Kim Newman, who we can actually write a biography about, deserve to have articles. If all we can say is "he writes reviews for a website", then I don't think there's any hope of establishing notability, and you might as well just redirect his article to the website in question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention at IGN is acceptable per thoughts of NinjaRobotPirate and reasonable response of Erik II. Sense is always appreciated, thank you. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to IGN, with something like a few sentences or so about him added over there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Arthur[edit]

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

Good faith, but unsourced WP:OR. Unencyclopaedic tone, eg worth noting... she would have caught the eye Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, terrible article, but Keep, and with thanks to Greasybiker1 for writing her up--the editor is obviously a first-time Wikipedian and this is reflected in the style and formatting. But as a subject, she is clearly notable, as a quick Google Book search shows (I added one). And with that, I'd like to turn this over to Rosiestep, the program's Senior Women's Article Rescue Mission Executive Director. Next up, DYK. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Looks rescued; the added book cite has a solid write-up about her. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, please look at the article again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I thought this might be salvageable, but it's not an area I have any knowledge of. Thanks to all those who have transformed the page. I'm happy for this AFD to be withdrawn or closed as a keep, not sure which is the approved procedure Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Arr4 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Short Film Forum[edit]

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

Unsourced and non notable, fully promotional article Arr4 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Enough mainstream coverage - Zakir Hossain Raju, Bangladesh Cinema and National Identity: In Search of the Modern?, Routledge, 2014; Kathryn Bowser, AIVF guide to international film & video festivals (suppl.), Foundation for Independent Video and Film, 1996; Andrew N. Weintraub (ed.), Islam and Popular Culture in Indonesia and Malaysia, Routledge, 2011; Festival of South Asian Documentaries: Film South Asia, 1999-11-30; Cinemaya, Issue 23; Cahiers du cinéma, Issue 498. There also are dozens of newspaper articles on the festival it organizes, and its membership. The article is written poorly, though. A re-write with refs needed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Strong Keep Seems to me to be clearly notable. I wonder if nom followed criteria at WP:BEFORE which states "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" and then "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects", as reliable sources have been found. The fact an article is poorly or promotionally written does not justify deletion, it justifies improvement and re-writing. Also think this is a case of WP:GEOBIAS, the systemic lack of coverage and lack of a desire for coverage for primarily non-English speaking countries. AusLondonder (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best Western Plus Flathead Lake Inn and Suites[edit]

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

Per WP:CHAIN, this franchise location is virtually interchangeable with any other one. This individual location does not have enough notability on its own to merit its own page. If there is something that make this location notable, the page must be completely redone. Upjav (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very run of the mill, just a small (under 60 rooms) chain hotel. Many hostels, inns, and camps are not-for-profit, so that's nothing notable either. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ORG. In-depth coverage is local and from one source. The Fox News reference is mainly about biblical entrepreneurship with a brief mention of the hotel. Not finding RS coverage in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good at all and WP is not a travel guide. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Colles[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NGEO.~~. WP:NASTRO Existence does not confer notability. I have no objections to a Geography of Pluto article but having an article for each recently discovered geographic feature is absurd unless they have some other notability. Savonneux cites. (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic features of astronomical objects is not covered in WP:GEO, my bad. My reasoning still stands per "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works."--Savonneux (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable feature visible from space. Additional notability conferred by the name, in recognition of the tragic death of the astronauts of the destroyed Space Shuttle. Jus da fax 04:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being visible from space is not a criteria, The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye (from Earth) is though. Being named does not confer notability the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named does not guarantee notability--Savonneux (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User DN-boards is in a campaign creating useless articles with complete disregard to Wikipedia's spirit and editors' feedback. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - this doesn't have enough notability to merit its own article, but it could certainly be included in the page for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in, say, the "memorials" section, or, as Savonneux mentioned, an article on the geography of Pluto. Upjav (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many other articles on the geography of Pluto of similar notability, such as Challenger Colles and Hayabusa Terra (look e.g. to ((Pluto)) for more of them). It would make more sense to treat them all under the same discussion. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nommed a bunch of them but they do have varying levels of notability so I didn't bundle them.--Savonneux (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would they have varying levels of notability? --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, some editors are comparing the notability of features mapped for the first time a month ago to places like The Alps--Savonneux (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Samuels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim to passing Wikipedia's notability rules. As a politician, he's resting on the leadership of a political party that was never actually registered with Elections Canada and never verifiably had any significant membership beyond him alone, and as a writer he's tied entirely to self-published print on demand titles. The coverage is all either WP:ROUTINE coverage of his non-winning candidacies for office as the sole candidate of his unregistered party or bad primary sourcing, with not a whit of substantive coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. This was created in 2005, so it's a holdover from a very different time in Wikipedia's evolution: all leaders of political parties were permitted inclusion regardless of the party's fringiness, and you could get away with sourcing stuff to press releases and student newspapers and primary sources and routine coverage that just namechecked his existence. But WP:BLP, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:RS have all been tightened up considerably in the past ten years, so many things that were considered okay in 2005 just aren't acceptable anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion at this time, but just reading that old AFD -- wow. Things have changed. I started in 2006 and I guess I didn't take part in AFDs right away. Some of the arguments are so weak, so much "it's good for Wikipedia to have this", "not paper", and at least one from an administrator. Sorry. A bit off topic but I'm amazed. freshacconci talk to me 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete an amazing work of puffery. Funny thing, all independent sources seem to speak of nonnotability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: puffery indeed, as per @Staszek Lem. Quis separabit? 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Calderon[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor of a city with a population of just 27K, which is not large enough to confer automatic inclusion rights on a mayor under WP:NPOL — and he can't claim a WP:GNG pass either, because all two of the sources provided here are of the primary variety with no indication of reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of a small city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Goodrich[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, in a city not large enough to confer automatic inclusion rights on its city councillors under WP:NPOL (only major metropolitan global cities on the order of Los Angeles, New York City, Toronto or London get that) — and the only two sources cited here are both primary ones (his own website and the city's) rather than reliable source coverage, which means he can't claim a WP:GNG pass either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Councillor in a medium-sized city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolTipline[edit]

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

I simply can't find anything to suggest even minimal improvement with my most fruitful searches here and here (zero results at News, browser and thefreelibrary). The current sources aren't satisfying enough to suggest further improvement or better notability. As the tagger, I'm inviting C.Fred to comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this over four years ago noting that sources need improved. They haven't been, so I endorse the nomination for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and promotional. They claim to have worked in 50 schools (without any 3rd party evidence) but even if they have, this is a very minor effort. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic osteology[edit]

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

The information stated in forensic osteology describes the role of forensic anthropology. The two disciplines are one in the same. In addition, the stub is unlikely to be further expanded upon and has existed in its current state for years. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator After thinking about it for awhile it would probably be better if the article was merged and a redirect was left instead of a flat out deletion. The article has 3 out of the 4 reasons for a merger (overlap, text, and context) so that is probably the best option. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve[edit]

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

The alleged existence of ‘CJTF-OIR’ is unclear, undefined, and vaguely attested only by one source.
The only source now mentioned in the article as (vaguely) ‘defining’ the CJTF-OIR, is (present reference source 3) a bulletin of the U.S. Department of Defense, 21 April 2015, saying: “CJTF-OIR is the US-led Coalition’s response to ISIL” – which phrase is ambiguous:

Is that phrase meant literally, like an answer(response) in a conversation? But then the bulletin doesn’t tell us who exactly that ‘Coalition’ is, nor what ISIL said before this “response”. What is the meaning or encyclopedicalness of this response – consisting only of one, unknown noun: ‘CJTF-OIR’?
Or is the phrase meant metaphorically, meaning that some coalition is reacting on the existence of ISIL by saying (or doing or creating) ‘CJTF-OIR’? But then again: the bulletin doesn’t tell us who that ‘Coalition’ is. And: just saying that “CJTF-OIR” was said (or done or created) in “response” gives us no information about what that CJTF-OIR really is.
Wikipedia however seems to transform that (incomprehensible) ‘message’ of the U.S. Government into sheer fantasy in the current opening sentence of the article: “CJTF-OIR is the US-led Coalition”, which surely is not being said in ref source 3, as is falsely alleged now in the article (nor is that opening sentence corroborated with any other given source).

So: whether we’d take the above-given, allowed, interpretation (1) or (2), the phrase in ref source 3 does not give a clear definition of CJTF-OIR; and resort to fantasy, as in interpretation (3), is not what Wikipedia should do.
Having a Wiki article about a term (‘CJTF-OIR’) only because that term appears in some (vague) communiqués of the U.S. Department of Defense that don’t even succeed to clearly define and describe what CJTF-OIR is, and then, for lack of a clear and sourced defintion, fantasizing what we think CJTF-OIR is or might be or should be or can be, is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
The relevant information now in this article about 'BPC program' and '450 civilians killed' has been replaced by me into article Military intervention against ISIL. -- Corriebertus (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a bit confused by the deletion rationale to be honest, is there some policy that you feel it doesn't meet / breeches? A very brief Google search yields thousands of results which attest to its existence, some of which are of course US Defense Department publications and but many others are to various news reports and other sources independent of the DoD, there are also a couple of mentions in books already [54] so I'd say it probably meets WP:GNG. As far as I can tell this is indeed the forward headquarters of the US and countries that are allied to it that are currently involved in the conflict in Iraq and Syria (and I added a ref which provided some details of the HQ and its make up) that co-ordinates the military aspects of their actions so it would seem to be a significant command (commanded by a Lieutenant General no less) in an ongoing major conflict involving most Western nations and as such looks like quite a viable topic to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simple misunderstanding. --Sammy1339 (talk) :04:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countering the reasonings for 'keep' given by Anotherclown: Colleague Anotherclown is of the opinion, 25 August, that CJTF-OIR exists and is being reported about in (also) many non-US-Defense sources. Perhaps that is so but it is not recognizable in our article. I have ofcourse tried to find ‘good’ non-US-Government sources myself but could not find them.
And Anotherclown suggests, now here in this discussion. a new definition of CJTF-OIR. But still today, the definition in the article has not been ‘corrected’. I’d recommend him to repair the article – it is not my job to change an (up until now obviously false) article by copying opinions or rationales or arguments of other editors.
Anotherclown also asks me: is any Wikipedia policy being breeched or being not met? Well, as I clearly wrote, 17 August: the article is misleading the reader with a false reference, on the most vital point in the article. I really shouldn’t have to look up which policy is being breeched with false references to sources, should I? I've notified Mr Anotherclown of this reply. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The possible existence of errors of fact in the article isn't a valid reason to delete it (pls see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). As for it not being your job to fix them (to quote your response above), its not mine either though is it? We are all volunteers after all. You seem to have identified a problem with the definition of the subject which maybe others have not so perhaps you "fixing it" would indeed be the quickest solution and the one which would best serve the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Dis)qualifying the posting of Sammy1339 on this page(27Aug):
I propose to ~~strike out~~ (strike out) his posting completely, for the reason that he gives no argument for nor against deletion of the article in question, therefore his posting is to be considered off-topic on this page. His reaction: “Simple misunderstanding”, is only a noun coupled with an adjective. It is not a statement, not a recognizable argument for or against anything. Who is misunderstanding what or whom, Sammy1339? How do you know? What has that to do with the issue under debate, here?
We should avoid the misunderstanding that a deletion discussion is only a matter of counting how many people jot down ‘keep’ or ‘not keep’. This here is not like a general election in your home country, where you are free to just vote for the man/woman whose promises (or lies) (or haircut) you like best, without having to account for your vote to anybody. This here is an encyclopedia, and we decide only on the basis of rational arguments. (Therefore, such off-topic postings should best be either removed, or struck.)
I've notified Sammy1339 of my questions here to him. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the talk page guidelines, "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." So please do not strike out his comment. CarnivorousBunny^talk 17:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Srinivasan[edit]

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

(Auto)biography of a business executive. The article reads like a CV and does not show notability, and a search for sources doesn't find anything. There are quite a few newspaper sources about two other persons by the same name, but nothing about this guy. Being deputy general manager for one division of a large multinational company does not automatically confer notability, and the only thing written about him in independent sources is the fact that he is part of a mentorship programme within the company. bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near being a notable figure in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable-- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Gosselin (APD-126). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward W. Gosselin[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Maybe worthy of a small mention at USS Gosselin but does not warrant a whole article. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was speedy deleted as A7, but I undeleted it, because the article's derived from Gosselin's appearance in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. People with biographies in definitive reference works shouldn't have their biographies speedy-deleted for lack of importance. Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tragedy but not notable per se. Quis separabit? 16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quis separabit?: Will the purple heart award change any thing here? Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the Purple Heart article: The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after April 5, 1917, has been wounded or killed. It definitely doesn't change anything. I'm leaning toward keeping, but solely because the Navy historians deemed him worthy of inclusion in what's functionally a naval encyclopedia (why should we tell the professional historians that he doesn't belong in an encyclopedia?), not because of the Purple Heart or because he was a ship's namesake. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Heart is kind of a big deal. Why wouldn't the article creator include it from the start? Quis separabit? 19:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everyone wounded or killed in US military service is awarded the Purple Heart. It's a big deal as far as a sense of honor, but not at all a big deal as far as passing WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:SOLDIER #1 &/or #2 ? Mhhossein (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does the Purple Heart meet that? It isn't even a gallantry decoration at all, let alone the highest gallantry decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related depassing ca1000|1000 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge to USS Gosselin. Many people killed at Pearl Harbor had small ships named after them - it doesn't make them notable. As for the Purple Heart, it's just a wound badge. It's awarded to anyone who's been wounded or killed. Is every wounded or killed American serviceman worthy of an article? No, of course they're not. That would be ludicrous, especially as many countries don't even award wound badges at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the nominator's rationale seems malformed in that I have no idea how a subject can "fail" WP:SOLDIER (which of cse isn't a rule and is inclusive not exclusive), regardless I cannot see that this poor bloke has enough coverage to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Consensus seems to be that DANFS isn't enough (although I've been the dissenting opinion on that one before). Merge to the article on the ship that was named in his honour. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as has been suggested. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: probably the best solution here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roger Hilton. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Botallack O'Clock[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable play by redlinked author Eddie Elks; unsourced pseudoarticle written, by astonishing coincidence, by User:Eddieelks. Google shows a couple of reviews in assorted local newspapers (and a single brief review in a national paper), but nothing around which a genuine article could be built. (I don't want to tag-bomb the author, but someone ought to take a long, suspicious look at Third Man Theatre, too.) ‑ iridescent 17:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could perhaps be merged to the theater. I dont see any independent notability. —Soap— 05:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge — only viable merge option is to Roger Hilton, upon whom the play is purportedly based, who already is linked to his own page. Quis separabit? 00:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean (South Korean singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. An up-and-coming "future R&B artist, multi-platinum songwriter, and producer" who doesn't currently appear to have any substantial claim to notability. Despite working (apparently quite tangentially) with acts like Jennifer Hudson, Justin Bieber, and others, Dean appears to have no substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'll comment further in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A few weeks ago the issue of notability was raised on the talk page. I searched through some available online sources at that time:

[55] - seems to be a press release
[56] - the same press release, modified only slightly
[57] - his page on the Joombas website, which says he also goes by "Deanfluenza"

Searching for "deanfluenza" instead, I get:

[58] - about the upcoming release
[59] - about the new release but the same press release as above
listed as a producer at our article Eternity (VIXX song), which is tagged for unreliable references

Another editor provided some more references:

[60] - this is just a music video
[61] - interview with the CEO of "Joombas" who Dean has worked with and is planning his upcoming release with; the label was recently determined at AfD to be non-notable
[62] - the original interview. The editor asserts "Naver is Korean version of yahoo or google. Very reliable source/website" but I don't think we'd consider either of those sites to be reliable. Also, it's the same interview from the last link, with only a couple of passing mentions.
[63] - a blogspot blog
[64] - a write-up in what might be a reliable source, but it's just a track listing

As I said on the talk page, a songwriter who has made a notable contribution to an artist's work should be subject of some kind of independent coverage, and if Dean's upcoming tour to support their recent (or upcoming, not sure) release was at all notable, there would be independent reliable source coverage. But I can't find it. He only seems to have released via iTunes at this point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As noted above, Dean fails the notability criteria for musicians as well as the general notability guidelines, since he has not gotten significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaaron95: I'm interested in your rationale for relisting this. I know we're not supposed to count !votes, but there have been only two editors commenting on this (myself included) both in favour of deletion. Do you think that another 7 days will attract a different argument, or do you have one yourself? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello @Ivanvector: Thanks for getting to me. My interests are not in getting a different argument rather, to get consensus/opinions from multiple editors before deleting an article. I wouldn't bother relisting a similar keep outcome but deleting is something I would wish to have a good consensus (My policy is to relist AfDs with ≥2 delete !votes). After all running an AfD for +7 days is of no loss I believe... But, you are free to ask any Admin to close this if they think is appropriate. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, that is certainly a reasonable policy to have. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There doesn't seem to be one single clear source establishing notability here. At the same time, it does seem like maybe searching by his English and Korean nicknames might make a difference. Still, at the end of the day, what remains is puffery that doesn't seem to cross into major notability. He's not won any major awards, been covered by something like Billboard, etc; also, this may be a 'too soon' case given how young the fellow is. I lean toward just scrubbing the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches using the engines reveal nothing to show the current notability of this person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, promotional, complete with list of services and list of customers DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMN Healthcare[edit]

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

My searches are finding more press releases and other non-significant coverage compared to good results even then I still don't think it would be worth the work; my searches here, here, here and here. In addition, there's not one single good link from the currently listed sources and, as an alternative, this could be moved to the best target Steve Francis (businessman). SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Media_in_Windsor,_Ontario. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Independent[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. Could not find any RS using [65] Article creator appears to be a SPA. Jcmcc (Talk) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to (one of the linking articles) Media_in_Windsor,_Ontario as my searches found absolutely nothing so at best they may only be known through familiar locals. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt is made to comply with any Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aukfa Industrial Co., LTD[edit]

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

I found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement (and the website seems to be closed now) and notability and this could've been an easy A7 also given the website seems to closed. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In fact, I think A7 should have been the route taken. I was able to find a single product on Amazon that confirms that it at once was a real company, but there is nothing to support a page in Wikipedia. No WP:RS = No Notability.--TTTommy111 (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TTTommy111 I agree and I was going to but I gave leniency towards any possible Chinese coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister That's nice of you. I guess there is a chance of non-English publications covering them in depth.--TTTommy111 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it's possible that Chinese sources might exist, I'm not holding my breath for them. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CORP. unless someone comes up with Chinese sources. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LibreSource[edit]

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

I would've let this go if it wasn't that my searches found no additional sources, with the best results here, here and here. Of the linking articles, I'm not seeing a good move target. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has inclusion standards and this article contains no attempts to meet any of them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source coverage appears to be passing mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch technologies[edit]

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

PROD was removed by author with the rationale "Stitch technologies regarding innovations, is a topic that covers a huge area of interest for hobbyist looking to learn references about new techniques based on new technologies, innovations and relevant patents. That is why, I do believe that it should b... [summary was cut]". My original PROD rationale was "Could be merged to another article such as the article on stitching, but either way I don't see how this topic deserves an independent article.". Taking to AfD to gain a wider hearing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article began its life as a promotion for a website, was modified through the AfC process but not accepted, and it looks to me like the person got fed up and just plopped it out here in main space after blanking the draft. The topic of stitches is fully covered in Sewing machine and Machine embroidery. This article seems to be about software for stitching, although that is covered quite thoroughly in the machine embroidery article. This could even be a speedy delete. LaMona (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Collection (film). MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Archer[edit]

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

Only references are to IMDb and an primary-source interview, which do not establish notability. Conifer (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Collection (film). So far he's only known for one film, and that's The Collection. He's not particularly well known for this role, at least not in the way where Robert Englund is known for portraying Freddy, so he wouldn't warrant inclusion on that basis either. He's done quite a bit of work as a stunt performer, but then it's also expected that a stunt performer will seek out work. The amount of roles/work doesn't automatically mean that someone will pass notability guidelines, but it does make it more likely that there will be coverage. Unfortunately for Archer, he never gained any coverage to speak of. Of the sources that were in the article, one was IMDb (which is unusable as a RS) and a blog. The blog looks to be your typical self-published source, meaning that it's not usable as a RS on Wikipedia. (I have heard of this blog before and like it, but it's still not usable as a RS.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tokyogirl79, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, and I respect that. But I recently found an article in The New York Times "Movies & TV" here take a look.--> http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/1345009/Randall-Archer I will add this to the cited sources. But I really don't want this page deleted. I will continue to improve it a find reliable sources/info and such. So I really, really don't want it deleted. :( BlueFlame101 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article, it's part of a database run by the New York Times, hosted on their database. The thing about database listings is that they're considered routine, especially since most of them are created by information supplied by the actor or their representation. It's not considered to be the equivalent of an actual newspaper article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Tokyogirl79 Oh, I was mistaken then, thank you for clarifying this. It seemed like it is that's what I originally thought but now seeing it I understand it isn't an article, I wasn't sure. On another note if you don't mind me asking I am slightly stuck on this, what information would I need to find and present in order to be able to keep the page up? (which I would really like to do that's my best intention) But, I mean if it is deleted can I still come back and recreate the page at a later time when he has a lot more notability and resources of it? (Because he is still an upcoming/rising Stunt Performer/Actor) He does have notability though for his work as a Stunt Performer and small notability as an Actor. But overall he is very notable in a sense, there are groups and fans of his work and such. But overall I really would like to keep the page as I said before that is my best intention, is to keep the page. I also believe that the page should be kept and not deleted. Thank you, ☺ BlueFlame101 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC) User:BlueFlame101 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability can only be proven through coverage in independent and reliable sources. As far as his work as a stunt performer, you have to show where these roles were notable. It's generally expected that someone will be employed in their chosen field, so just performing as a stunt worker is not enough. Right now what you need is coverage in places like newspapers and reviews that specifically mention him in roles other than in the Collection film. So far it looks like he's only known for the one film and his other roles haven't garnered coverage to the point where he'd warrant his own entry. As for re-creation, you can seek recreation in the future if he has another role of this caliber, where he's a visible role (ie, he's a major character with screen time and not just another stunt performer) and where the film has received enough coverage to warrant an article. If he has a major role in a TV series (reoccurring role, major screen time, notable series) then that'd count as well. However him performing as a stunt worker wouldn't really qualify unless he's gained coverage, since most stunt performers never really gain any coverage unless they happen to be lucky enough to capture the public eye. (For every one that does, there's usually 100 that don't.) However in that instance you'd probably need to ask the closing admin if you can restore the page and if they decline, go through WP:DRV. In either situation you'd have to show where he's gained the additional coverage. Establishing notability for the other works is usually the easiest way to go about this since it's easier to show that a film is notable and if the star is a major character, then that'd show notability for the performer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Collection (film) or delete. The problem with the "up and coming, rising, next big thing" is that these people generally aren't there yet. We'll still be here when he's making headlines in Variety and Entertainment Weekly. That's the time to create an article. Keep an eye out for more coverage and maybe go through WP:AFC when you recreate the article. Right now, I think it's still too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are more keep than delete !votes but arguments and sources are weak. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Serafin[edit]

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

promotional article for a press agent. "regularly appears" is not notability, and refs to that are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This person has gotten some press, but I only find two articles here that are about him - the article saying that he will be a commencement speaker in the Univ Illinois Springfield school paper, and an article in Crain's. All of the other articles are about other people, mainly candidates, and the articles quote him or speak about him in a few sentences. LaMona (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are actually four articles about him here: the one concerning the UIS commencement address, the Crain's profile, the Patch profile, and the Chicago Sun-Times profile. I just added mention of a large holiday party thrown by Serafin every year that always attracts the "whos-who" in Chicago. What's unique about this party is that it is always attended by reps from both sides of political and ideological aisle. I have added more references to the page. - HayMerchant (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have added another reference from a 1984 Sun-Times article on Serafin's campaign tactics and their effectiveness. I believe there are more sources to be found, and according to WP:NRVE, notability depends on the existence of sources. Given more time, I believe contributors will continue to edit and add to Serafin's page. HayMerchant (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No two keeps please.. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be an interested editor and notability is established with the Crain's and NYTimes refs.009o9 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the Crain's and New York Times references establish WP:GNG. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia CEE Meeting[edit]

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

Does not look like notable yet. The only two non-wikimedia affiliated sources provided are re-posts of Wikimedia Ukraine's press-relise . --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches on all engines produced zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of independent media coverage. This probably should be copied to Meta Wiki as a record of the event. Post to meta:Wikimedia Central and Eastern Europe saying that it was copied from here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Home and Away characters (2012). MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note I've changed the redirect target to "List of Home and Away characters (2012)" as simply redirecting to Home & Away is pretty much useless. –Davey2010^Talk 04:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Leonard[edit]

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

Fails NACTOR & GNG, Except this [66] I can't find anything on this BLP at all, Could be redirected to Home and Away but she's only been in that for 30 eps so kinda pointless IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Home and Away or delete. I guess there are a few trivial mentions scattered about, such as this and this, but it's not really enough to hold up a BLP by itself. Seems a bit too soon. I agree that a redirect isn't exactly a brilliant solution, but maybe new sources will show up eventually. If people prefer to delete, that's alright with me, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as she's not actually mentioned at Home and Away and only at List of characters of Home and Away and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the searches helps establish this person's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fame (1982 TV series). I don't usually close on one !vote but it does kinda make sense just to redirect considering Fame is by far his most successful show, I'm more or less convinced others would go with redirect so redirect it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Imperato[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 14:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fame (TV series) for now instead and although he's not independently notable, over 100 episodes is acceptable and he's best known for that it seems. My searches found this and this along with some TV books at Books so there's not much to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, purely promotional DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Himmat Singh (Fashion )[edit]

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

BLP PRODs reverted by article creator, who also seems to be the subject himself or someone with WP:COI. No notability asserted. Basic net search on Google does return some Page 3 culture entries but nothing worth passing WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Note: Many Himmat Singhs, politicians, golfers, cricketers, etc. are found on internet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neuber Software GmbH[edit]

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

Non-notable company (no in-depth sources found). Some of their products may be notable, but those have separate articles and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Note: I have already cleaned up a previous product catalog with EL spam (see history). GermanJoe (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as although they've gotten some coverage here and there, it's ultimately not enough and my searches found nothing better with PR and other minor stuff here. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for notability. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facial water[edit]

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

Once the spam is stripped out, there's nothing left. This product is self-evidently a waste of money but I don't think we have any evidence that it's a notable waste of money. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been itching to start an Afd for a while now. The problem is that the term means whatever a given manufacturer wants us to think it means. Other than the fact that multiple manufacturers have glommed onto the same term, making it a generic, it's no different from any other meaningless fake quality that individual manufacturers attribute to their products, as exemplified by Firesign Theatre's one-liner about Ersatz Brothers Coffee, with "Zest Appeal". So, for any given explanation the article might give as to what it is, we'd have a verifiability problem, in connection with an independent reliable source problem.

We could say that the phrase itself is notable as a marketing term, and write an article from that perspective. But I was just trying to identify sources that look at it from that perspective and came up empty-handed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without taking a position at this time about whether the article should be deleted, I'd like to point out that the article formerly contained five references; the nominator stripped out four of them before nominating the remaining stub for deletion. The article as it used to be can be seen here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on those, the phrase "facial water" appears in only one of the references. The rest discuss "facial spray", "facial mist", or "facial lotion", but not one of them speaks of the water content of these products as being something one would call "facial water". One of them discusses "thermal water", saying nothing more about it than that it's water from thermal springs. It notes that thermal water is full of minerals. Minerals? In other words, hard water—which is one of the things that the earlier version of the article said is bad for the skin. "Facial water" should contain minerals, but it shouldn't contain minerals. Clearly, the whole concept is fuzzy and subjective and even contradictory. There's no substance to it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to admit that I'm a little leery of this, given that this article had been previously created by Sibtain 007 sockpuppets. I'm also unsure as to whether or not the disclosure on the talk page means to say that this was created by someone acting as a paid editor, possibly for the same people who hired Sibtain 007 to create the article in the first place. I almost hate to mention this, but if this is the case then that poses a pretty big issue here if Largo is correct and this was created with faulty sources that do not back up the content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the article before sources and content were stripped from it. I have to admit that my feelings of leeriness are increasing since the article does twist words around. Here's my rundown of the sources and what they claimed in the article.

Oprah. This is an advice column and that's not really the strongest source out there, if it can be used as a source at all. It was being used to back up a quotes by Leslie Baumann. However what bothers me is that these are quotes taken from someone else quoting the doctor and the quotes were used to laud the ability to use facial water. The tone of the advice column is actually relatively negative since the advisor is fairly dismissive of the claims. This is included in the article but is given only one sentence whereas the quotes by Baumann take up a good portion of the article. In other words, the negative stuff was deliberately downplayed in order to play up the good things to be said about the product.
Fashionista. This is a semi-brief article reviewing several facial moisturizing products, some of which would somewhat fall under this criteria. It wasn't written by a staff member, but there does seem to be an editorial board. This one is somewhat usable, but it's far from the strongest source. The thing to take into consideration here is that many of these wouldn't necessarily fall under the idea of "facial water" since some of them seem to label themselves more as moisturizers than specifically facial water.
Living Green Mag. This one is one that I wouldn't consider a RS, to be honest. It's ultimately a how to guide on creating your own sprays. There does seem to be some editorial control, but it's hard to say how much is really done since their editorial guidelines give off the impression that if they have to edit it, they won't post it.
Style Bistro. This is kind of what Largo meant by being vague. The article talks about thermal water and while it does say you can spritz it on your face, it's kind of vague in that it looks like you can spray it anywhere you wish. Now what's most concerning about this is that while the article does quote a study, the study does not appear to be about facial misting but about mineral water in general - however it's used in the WP article in such a manner that it gives off the impression that the study endorses the use of facial or thermal water.
PopSugar. This is an article about travel tips in general and while the face mist is given a paragraph, it's not particularly in depth. It's ultimately an opinion article where one person gives their own personal list of tips for traveling. The WP article quotes the person.
China Radio International. I initially wasn't going to say that this was a RS, but apparently it's legit. Still, it's not the strongest source to go on. This one is critical of facial water and while its used in the WP article in a subsection, this was given an extremely small section. This wouldn't be so awful except that when you consider that you have a large two paragraph section extolling the virtues of facial water...

Basically, I can see why these were removed and if this is to be kept in any form, they'd have to be 86'd because this is pretty much a good example as to why people argue so stringently against paid editors. A large bulk of the article was devoted to promoting the product and saying nice things about it, even to the point where a few of the things quoted could be construed as being taken out of context, such as the case study. Unless someone can pull up the study and show where it would specifically endorse facial water, using it in the article is sort of false advertising or at the very least, something done for pure promotion. What also bothers me here is that if we were to boil this down to the barest essentials (moreso than what's currently on the article), ultimately what we'd have is a 2-4 sentence article that says "Some companies are selling facial misting products as beauty products that can treat skin. While there have been some who have praised the product, others have criticized it as a potential scam." That's pretty much all that needs to be said about this based on the current sources. I'd suggest merging it into another article, but this doesn't really have a good redirect target. The best would probably be something like toner or moisturizer (since natural skin care is so general that content about specific topics wouldn't really fit in well), but part of the issue is that this product's claims are so incredibly vague that it doesn't fit in well anywhere. Unless I can find some extremely great sources out there, I'm leaning towards a delete and salt, with the strict requirement that if this is recreated, it is only by someone who is absolutely and completely 200% not a paid editor. I hate to sound mean, but the impression I'm getting here is that while Sibtain 007 may have had their socks blocked, they just found another way around the issue by getting an existing Wikipedia editor to re-add the content. While the newest version of the article was more neutral, it was still promotional (meaning that I'm almost 80% sure that the article was tailored to what the client wanted for the most part since while it's less promotional, the same claims are ultimately still there in the article for the most part) and there were some definite issues with how the sources were used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrib Light Rail[edit]

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

OTRS has received a request for this article's deletion at ticket:2015081810026316. The request comes from Brain Guckian, who is the originator of the Corrib Light Rail plan. He asks that the article be deleted "on the basis that the proposal is now out of date, has been superceded by other light rail proposals for Galway, Ireland and therefore the content is no longer useful, relevant or appropriate. In addition, on a secondary basis that the content is heavily vandalised and not in any way representative of the original article or proposal." Now, of course WP:NTEMP, but I agree that the page should be deleted, rather on the basis that Corrib Light Rail was never notable, even when the project was still up in the air. In my searches online, I find no reliable secondary sources to establish that this subject passes WP:N, and the abandoned state of this project means that no new sources are going to appear. I note that most of the sources used in the current article are not specifically about Corrib Light Rail, but rail projects in this part of Ireland in general. It may be worth the smallest mention in other articles about light rail systems in the area, but I do not think it requires its own page. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable transit proposal. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Me5000 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typemock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated once before and went no-consensus with very little input. The debate was probably complicated by the fact that the article was apparently created as part of a "pay us or we nuke your article" scam. The problem is that this is a very small private company (which does not appear to meet WP:CORP) and while it has superficial referenciness, the references themselves are not independent - all of them appear to be churnalism, just press releases published in the outer corners of the trade press. There's nothing substantial here, no real evidence of notability, and the article itself is written like an advert by a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet notability criteria for companies. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons I gave in the previous AFD. This doesn't meet GNG, as neither do the vast majority of software libraries. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Website was widely spammed in 2008 - see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#typemock.com. Little evidence of notability. -- Callinus (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found no good coverage instead this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important for software developers, appearing in 500 technical books this should be GNG. in previous Afd This source looks reasonable to CorporateM and "The Art of Unit Testing" Osherove, Roy (2009). "How frameworks like Typemock work". The art of unit testing. Manning. ISBN 978-1-933988-27-6. was confirmed by Colapeninsula. Typemock is not just a library it is a company that has products that generate Unit Tests. And what happened in 2008 is in internet years - ages ago - it is not relevant for this discussion Elilopian (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stackoverflow is an objective software development community that demonstrates the relevance of Typemock in the computers world this is just one example. Typemock page on Wikipedia can hold educational value for cs students and developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gikipedian (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Phyll[edit]

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

This was originally a PROD, rationale was that this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The PROD was contested on the basis that another Wikipedia article makes an unsourced assertion of notability - but that claim is simply not correct. There is no evidence of notability here at all. Giant Snowman 09:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - The website [67] isn't entirely conclusive, as it doesn't have some older matches, including those from 2001 Caribbean Cup and The Other Final where was reported that Kurt Phyll was named to the 14-man final squad to travel to Bhutan. [68]. While I've seen no evidence that he did play, I've also not seen a line-up from that match, or other matches. He did sit on the bench for at least 3 later matches (all of the 2004 and 2008 World Cup qualifying matches). We need to find match reports from the earlier matches to determine if he has played in some of the earlier matches. Nfitz (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absent sources confirming it, we cannot assume he has played for Montserrat, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Phyll has only made it as far as a substitute in a number of games as per sources on Soccerway, the Caribbean Football Database and FIFA website. I did have a copy of The Other Final on DVD but have no idea where it is these days - althought I'm pretty sure there is a copy on YouTube if you want to trawl through. --Jimbo^[online] 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've trawled through a bit of it on Youtube. It looks stunningly beautiful to watch! But I've seen no clear indication of line-ups. And I found the person who had added the stat of his "start" who thinks he may have erred in adding that. So no evidence of a start. Though if you look at those sources you've listed, they don't include all the matches - the absense of some Carribean Cup tournaments in the records (let alone friendlies) for that period is troubling. I've no where left to look though. Nfitz (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hill International. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Richter[edit]

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

The references are all non-independent sources, interviews, or non-significant coverage such as routine notifications of hirings and promotion and directory listings. Article was created by a SPA and sockpuppet that only edits articles related to Hill International, their employees, and Construction Management. I would support a redirect to Hill International. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stuartwilks (talk) Although the author (who has declared their interest in the company) is an employee of Hill (as am I), it seems to me that the page bears little difference to other similar pages for CEO's of major US companies - such as John Veihmeyer - there is a category "American Chief Executives" which it seems to me the page might usefully sit within? Whilst I appreciate the notion of the 'sockpuppet' writer, it seems to me that the article is quite neutral and well referenced and relates to a CEO of a US NYSE listed firm, so has a legitimate reason to remain on Wikipedia?

Redirect to Hill International - My searches found several results such as this and this but essentially he may be best known for Hill International. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the basic requirement is some significant coverage about himself in independent reliable sources (WP:GNG). Found sources are either focussed on the company, or very short passing mentions and common announcements. Not every successful businessman is automatically notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the term). GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronit Baras[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. The sources are self published or only make a passing mention of the subject, with no discussion about them - just a brief quote, and nothing sufficiently in depth. Her books are self published, and there's nothing that I can dig up pointing to them having enough of an impact to pass WP:AUTHOR. Bilby (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding good sources on her or on her books. Could be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. I also suspect main article editor has conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promo, fails GNG and coi article. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Revel[edit]

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

My searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam, thefreelibrary, The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald and ABC News found noting good and although the article is neat and sourced, there are no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trove doesn't seem to carry any reviews, either. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is too heavily sourced to her website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Searches produced nothing that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable unfortunately. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 14:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen W. Gee[edit]

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

WP:AUTHOR a search turned up very little evidence. 1 interview on an anime site? [69] A review of first book at SF Signal [70] Savonneux (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub. --Article editor (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find anything to show that this author is notable at this point in time. It looks like he's released one self-published book (not including the short story set in the book's universe, which is also self-published) that has not received coverage in any place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. It exists (and FWIW, I'm probably going to buy it since I like the premise) but that by itself is not enough to show notability. The only source on the page is Goodreads, which is absolutely unusable for notability purposes on Wikipedia. It's not even really usable as even a trivial or database type source since it can be edited by almost anyone, since Goodreads isn't really all that exclusive about who they turn into a librarian. The guy just isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. To warrant even a stub article we'd need enough sources to show that he'd pass WP:NAUTHOR and they just aren't out there. Just existing as an author hasn't been a qualification for notability for years now. If he gains more coverage than what's above then it can be re-created at that point, but the sources just aren't there at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, neither of the above sources are usable. The SF Signal article isn't actually a review, it's actually an article where Gee is one of several people that are talking about their favorite genre shows of 2014. It's not even an interview where he discusses his work. He does, however, mention that he blogs for Random Curiosity, which is the "interview" linked to above, making it a WP:PRIMARY source - especially since it was published by Gee himself. (He goes under the moniker "Stilts" on the site and the article isn't an interview as much as it's just him telling you why you should read the book.) However I do need to note that even if he wasn't a writer for the site it would still be a self-published source since it looks to be your typical blog. It's a popular one, but it's still a blog and there's really no true editorial oversight there, at least not the type that would pass through Wikipedia's notoriously strict guidelines for RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also redirected his book's page to his author's page here. He's only really published the one thing, so the book wouldn't pass notability guidelines either. I'd originally redirected it with the expectation that I'd be able to find sourcing for the author's page and then we could maybe justify having one article instead of two, but it doesn't look like either the book or the author currently pass notability guidelines. Don't take this badly, it's just insanely difficult for people and books - especially self-published ones - to pass notability guidelines and there are actually a lot of insanely popular self-published people/books that currently fail notability guidelines. I mean, the Play to Live series is pretty popular and has a fairly decently sized fandom (enough to where the newly released book 5 is #888 in the Kindle store), but it's never received any coverage that would have it pass notability guidelines. It's just that difficult to get that coverage and to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough coverage in RS to be notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, the first AfD's consensus was delete and this was restarted by what appears to be a band member, with no good sources and not to mention it seems the band is no longer together and the website is now closed. My searches found nothing better than this and this. Notifying tagger GoingBatty for comment. There aren't even enough sources to suggest minimal local notability and there's not to much change here. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; does not meet guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it appears I tagged this in August 2011 with ((COI)) (because a user named Absolutionsinger created the article), ((cleanup)) (maybe because there were a lot of redlinks and copyediting needed?), ((cleanup-link rot)) (because there are a lot of bare URLs) and ((more footnotes)) (because there were a lot of external links that could be used as references). I made no evaluation for notability. Many of the external links are now broken - wonder if looking at archived versions of the pages would help make this decision. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no discussion here, blatantly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Probert Boorman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Note that the claims that she won medals at the 1959 Pan-Am games and won the Alfred B. Maclay Hunter Seat Championship - or exercised Jackie O's horses, for that matter - appear to be false and fail verification. See this discussion at BLPN. Those claims are sourced to a (very) unreliable source, and much more reliable sources contradict them. Without that, she fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, etc. Not notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person. As noted by Fyddlestix, the claims of three Pan American Games swimming medals appear to have no basis in fact, given that one of the claimed events was not held in 1959, and three other well-known women swimmers won the medals in the other two events. To the extent there is any significant coverage, the remaining sources for the article do not appear to be independent sources, but a collection of alumni publications and the like which cannot be used for establishing notability (and, as noted above, may not be reliable, either). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Fyddlestix - who makes the best presentation for deletion. Searches revealed nothing to show this person's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vans Brothers[edit]

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

This is another classic case of an unsourced article by a SPA from January 2008. I attempted to retrieve both the Scoop.NZ link (archive.org and the Scoop website) and the interview link but to no avail. My searches found nothing good aside from this. At best, if this existed, it was a local garage band. I'm inviting tagger @Calamondin12: for comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this band existed at all, which is doubtful, its album (The Story of Your Soul), record label (Insurance Good Records) and apparent songs (such as "Clothing World Blues") appear to be hoaxes. If such an album had been "released" in New Zealand in 2006, or if it had ever had a "small fanbase," it would have drawn a fair number of Google hits even with a minor record label. There is also no such place as Leviathan Studios in Auckland. Looks like a clear hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appear to be non-existant - nothing coming up in New Zealand searches NealeFamily (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calamondin12. -- Shudde ^talk 08:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sense of the full discussion is that the subject lack notability established by independent, reliable sources. I also fully endorse the decision to semi protect the discussion given the sock infestation in the first AFD, and the indications that the same might be occurring again. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Matton[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actor, recreation of page deleted previously via discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johan_Matton Kavdiamanju (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please read deletion page or talk page if having a concern with the article instead of placing it for speedy deletion. Many contributors/user have worked on this article and added notable news articles regarding Johan Matton's notabilty. Non commercial aspects has also been deleted. And there is a Swedish version of the page. seems like user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kavdiamanju might have an outside agenda or missed checking the contribution history for this article. Johan Matton was concisered a notable topic and the article has been polished several times by many users. The discussion of this article to be deleted seem non relevant as many larger improvements and additions has been made since it's creation.

Not sure if Kavdiamanju has missed the history contributions or has an agenda. The Article Johan Matton has been updated the last 3 months by several news articles and a link to a recent TV interview. More han 10 separate contributors/users has added news regardig Johan Matton being notable. Worth taking a look at the article and read through.

The article has also been polished several times and commercial aspects has been deleted. There is also a Swedish Wikipedia regarding the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.146 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — 172.56.19.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This low-quality source was the best I could find that provides anywhere near substantial coverage of the subject. There are two extremely brief mentions in Aftonbladet [71] [72] but other than that the sources are all primary sources (film festivals, imdb etc.). WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are therefore not met. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.kens5.com/videos/entertainment/television/great-day-sa/2015/07/31/till-we-meet-again/30935427/ seem to be a 5 minute segment on Johan Matton aired July 30th on CBS / Kens 5 Good Morning SA which after a quick check has 2 million viewers. The link is included in the article. http://lt.se/kulturnoje/1.2931451-nykvarnbo-siktar-hogt-i-new-york is a full article on Johan Matton in Swedish news paper. The subjects notable awards and recognition within the field of independent film and acting seems to have strong coverage and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F1E6:ED00:FC7E:741:E73C:8780 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — 2604:2000:F1E6:ED00:FC7E:741:E73C:8780 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment the previous (read: 1st) AfD drew many socks and IP voters, so I have added a tag (potentially preemptively). Primefac (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how to formulate me within wikipedia standards for arguing an article so I merely ask for the judging of this article to read through the whole article and look at the references. Especially view the full interview with the subject: http://www.kens5.com/videos/entertainment/television/great-day-sa/2015/07/31/till-we-meet-again/30935427/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedish Journalist (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Swedish Journalist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment

Please more experienced Wikipedia users, read through and judge following articles. I found these 6 references Interviewing or writing direct related article regarding the subject on top of the indirect ones: Good Morning SA: http://www.kens5.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/31/till-we-meet-again/30936177/ Interview for a pod cast: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/brian-decicco/boat-over-the-mountain/e/interview-with-john-matton-til-we-meet-again-38089478 Swedish news Paper Article/Interview http://lt.se/kulturnoje/1.2931451-nykvarnbo-siktar-hogt-i-new-york Fan page Article http://www.fansshare.com/news/johan-matton-career-in-2013/ Press release? The B I Z was taken apart here because wikipedia did not approve on that ending, to read article please put it together. http://www.filmindustrynetwork.b i z/till-we-meet-again-world-premiere-at-san-antonio-film-festival/29338 Interview https://sv.stagepool.com/nyfiken_pa/6947/det_ar_valdigt_manga_nej_pa_ett_ja Interview http://archive.is/qXdXI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F1E6:ED00:501F:197D:EB60:BC83 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — 2604:2000:F1E6:ED00:501F:197D:EB60:BC83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - with some margin this article passe WP:GNG. It is clear that this actor has had a few important roles. And it is sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article passes WP:GNG. There is no question the actor in this matter has had some parts of significance and that the actors has won a few awards. Sourced with good references and some less important references. I admit that a more thorough search had to be made with his nick name mentioned in the article. The two more important references would be the Kens5 Good Morning SA interview http://www.kens5.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/31/till-we-meet-again/30936177/ and a Swedish interview http://lt.se/kulturnoje/1.2931451-nykvarnbo-siktar-hogt-i-new-york≤/. A side mention is that the article is far from an Orphan article with many direct linked articles.

— 2604:2000:F1E6:ED00:A65E:60FF:FECF:3F73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sources form the Nordic Film Festival is really telling. Clearly notable per GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of different nordic film festivals - Canada, London, Los Angeles. This particular one [73] is in New York and is in its first year (as of 2015). In fact, its first awards have not yet been given. LaMona (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, semi-protected, so let's see if we can reach a consensus without the likely socks floating around. Courcelles (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly too soon. A lot of what is here would be considered to be original research, since most links are to directly related sites like web sites for the movies themselves. I looked at nearly every reference, and found only one (#4) that might be considered a minor but reliable third-party reference. Here is what I conclude about the others:
- Not RS (not third-party resources, or not reliable) 1, 2, 8, 17-19, 25, 29
- Only mentions: 5-7, 9-13, 16
- No mention: 14, 15, 32
- Minor awards, mostly "also rans": 3, 7, 20-21 LaMona (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He hasn't had that many roles so far, but it does appear that he's received a general amount of coverage (including 'also rans', which are still at least party notable) that he passes the bar as far as notability goes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mainly per LaMona, because subject does not meet GNG or relevant specific notability guidelines. Winning an award is not notable unless it's a major award, and a new indie festival award does not fall into that category. Plenty of otherwise NN people win awards on the indie circuit. Thus far, he's got news coverage and a few bit parts, and everything else is non-contributory. MSJapan (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but copy in user draft space) - Per LaMona, I don't think the coverage of the subject is strong enough to merit an article at this point in time... however, I think is quite possible that the subject will gain more substantial coverage in the future. When that occurs, it would be a shame to have to start completely over on a new article. So... I would recommend choosing a volunteer custodian, copy the current article into his/her user space... contributors can then monitor the sources, work on the article as a "draft"... and present it again when it passes muster. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have a lot of roles or reliable sources. Best known role is either a minor role in an episode of a TV show, or a movie he wrote, produced, and starred in and won a few awards at one film festival. May have been too soon for this article to have been made. Wait until he has more film roles before determining notability. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm actually surprised that this wasn't deleted sooner as sheer promotional puffery. Since it's been around since 2011 and looks to be a clear hoax (in that the family in the article did not exist and was created to promote a fairly non-notable Halloween attraction, I'm going to archive it as a hoax at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. No need to drag this out, considering that the consensus to delete is fairly clear. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanderdark Morgue[edit]

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

I was able to retrieve the two dead links here and here but it's minimal at most and this all seems more like local folklore with unsourced claims and a Halloween-like story. My searches found nothing aside from here. I'm inviting taggers @Calamondin12 and Mattgirling:. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've wondered if this article was a joke even as I did a few edits. I'm thinking this is a made-up Halloween story that turned into (at best) folklore. But certainly none of these sources are serious, and so this article must go. I doubt anyone would miss it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Stevietheman, thanks for commenting. I saw you in the history but I don't usually notify people with cleaning and other passing edits but now that I look, you've would've been a good one to notify as you made recurring edits. I'm assuming you had this part of your watchlist. :) SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't on my personal watchlist, but I monitor the Louisville and Kentucky project watchlists, and I have a script that makes prods/xfDs show up in a vivid color. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep and re-name Baxter Avenue Morgue~~ as that name is what it currently is. Has been written up quite extensively in books and articles spanning many years.[74][75][76][77] CHANGED to "Delete" as the article in its current form is hardly about the Baxter Avenue Morgue, although I wouldn't be opposed to an article about that topic being created as long as its properly sourced. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all the current content would have to be wiped out to make way for a serious article. On top of that, three of these sources are very local and the remaining one non-authoritative -- they need to be more spread out for this to be considered notable. At best, a new article could be created given additional usable sources can be located. Then, this page could redirect to that article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The basic problem with this ghost story of Faulknerian complexity is that the article is fiction presented as reality. A few of the more plainly demonstrable examples:
- Although the extreme southern segment of Baxter Avenue was once called Von Borries Avenue, the block on which the morgue is located has always been Baxter Avenue, as this 1884 map from the University of Louisville shows. The address "451 Von Borries Avenue" has never existed.
- Victor Vanderdark is described as "very much a public figure," yet his supposed disappearance in 1932 is never mentioned in any reliable sources.
- The surnames Vanderdark and Pongieu appear to have no use outside this article. Figures central to the story like "Caspar Vanderdark" generate no Google hits at all apart from the article.

Clearly, many other implausible statements exist throughout the article, but these facts should help demonstrate the obvious: This article is fiction, made up to provide a backstory for a local Halloween attraction in Louisville. Over the years, fictitious articles presented as fact to support a real-life entity have been deleted as hoaxes - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray McKenzie, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Tarsus Club, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/3G Boyz for examples, along with this noticeboard discussion on the Tarsus Club hoax and this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Gadyukin. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V-Jay's Verghjesles[edit]

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

The listed sources never mention this and my searches found nothing at all and you've expected at least minimal improvement since January 2011 (started by SPA). I'm inviting taggers @Calamondin12, Ironholds, and Dusti: for comment. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited production non-notable amplifier by bankrupt non-notable firm. The article itself argues for deletion: "References to the V-Jazz are limited online as of this. However, high street knowledge of the unit still exists, and many still sell on online markets." I am sorry, but "street knowledge" does not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a clear hoax. To begin, "Verghjesles" does not appear to be a real word, and has no Google hits outside of this article, mirrors and word sites that pull random words from sources like Wikipedia. No references are found for anything else associated with this article, such as the Which? magazine review or recommendation from Sony. Numerous technical specifications mentioned in the article ("Sabre ADC 970012," "Sylvania 6932," "Texas Instruments Type R") do not exist. CanJam 2010 was held in Chicago, not Provo. The article also lacks internal consistency. Although the product was supposedly "unveiled at CanJam 2010," the next paragraph says the company "filed for type-14 bankruptcy in 2008, effectively ending the company and stopping all production of the V-Jazz." Incidentally, "type 14 bankruptcy" also does not exist. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Clear hoax. Current external links do not mention it, searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger of Blood[edit]

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

From what I am seeing, this subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. The two references on the article thus far look like web sites where personal pages can be created by themselves, so it looks as though the information that was cited on both references is probably self-published. Also, on search engines, the search "Avenger of Blood" provides results for the biblical concept and the Marvel comics group, while "Avenger of Blood band" only returns results for pages the are the equivalent of self-published sources (band sites, "MySpace", etc) and no sources for this subject in any "news" search results. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article about a non-notable heavy metal band that includes several non-encyclopedic sentences like "Upon its release the band not only received great reviews, but showed them also that the path they were gonna take was well in place." No reviews are cited. And then we have this gem of encyclopedic prose: "After a 3-year break, the band is reorganizing and preparing for its next assault that will be harsher, angrier, and more insane all around!" I wonder what a "Manual of style" purist would say about that exclamation point? My point is that there is nothing worth saving here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current content of the article is not a strong argument on whether an article should be deleted or not. As long as the article could be fixed by someone, it should remain.--Retrohead (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Retrohead, that is in no way the basis for my deletion nomination of this article. There are no references from third-party sources that meet the requirements for this subject to be notable per WP:MUSICBIO. An article that has no credible references cannot be improved by anyone since there are no third-party references that confirm the subject's notability; in other words, this is not an issue of editors not wanting to improve the article, but rather editors can't fix the article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't fully agree. Here's the band interviewed by Revolver, here's the band interviewed by Terrorizer, and there is dozen of interviews by not-so-notable websites (The Metal Crypt, All Access Magazine, Metalmark, etc.) which were generated by Google and could be easily used for expanding the biography.--Retrohead (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware, Retrohead, that interviews are not independent sources, and by themselves, do not establish notability. Please focus on explaining specifically how this particular band meets our notability guideline for bands. So far, I do not see the evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by independent sources? In my two year wiki tenure, I've never met that term. Regarding the issue in hand, Avenger of Blood is not an important band as Iron Maiden or Def Leppard, and you won't find them in rock encyclopedias. However, the band has interviews, album and concert reviews by the heavy metal press and I think there is something to be written about them.--Retrohead (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrohead, the General notability guideline requires coverage in reliable, independent sources. Please read Wikipedia:Independent sources for in depth discussion of what this means. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this sounds akin to a WP:ILIKEIT statement; just because you feel as though this band needs an article on Wikipedia doesn't make the subject encyclopedic. Before I nominated this article, I searched for credible sources or information that could help this band establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO (which I highly recommend you read, if you haven't yet; it provides links for information about "independent" sources, "third-party" sources, etc.), and I could not find any; all information I found were as mentioned above: either self-published material on "band sites", or interviews from sources that are not credible in regards to establishing notability in an encyclopedia. That, and as you stated above: ...you won't find them in rock encyclopedias..., if this subject is not even mentioned in "rock encyclopedias" (whose notability requirements are probably not as strict as a multi-subject encyclopedia due to only allowing a specific genre of subjects), then how do you believe that this band is notable enough for inclusion here? Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It fullfils point 5 from the criteria for musicians and ensembles, with two studio albums on major label–Heavy Artillery. Second thing, album reviews are independent sources, and band interviews may not be independent, but count as reliable because the magazines are shipped worldwide and have editorial overview.--Retrohead (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a label can be considered a "major label" if the label itself is not an encyclopedic subject. When I did a search for "heavy artillery", I only received results for the weaponry. In fact, WP:MUSICBIO itself refers to "major labels" as is referenced in major record labels, and there seems to be only six (now three due to absorptions) that are considered "major record labels" for the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can consider it an indie labels, as it has a roster of artists (in the link above) and exist more than a few years.--Retrohead (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO also states that for an artist on an indie label to be considered notable, the label has to have ...a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable.... Per a look at their artist list, I don't believe that any of their artists are independently notable. Steel1943 (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only coverage I could find was on niche blogs and such. Not a notable group. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Lynn[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Doesn't derive notability as the father of rapper Common. Quis separabit? 01:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While he may not derive notability as the father of Common, he does meet WP:NBASKETBALL from his season in the original ABA. That notability guideline is only meant to be a rule of thumb on whether GNG is likely met, but based on that guideline, there is a reasonable chance that the article can be cleaned up with sources focusing on his basketball career, even though with his career ending over 40 years ago, you might have to find them in old newspaper archives. SCMatt33 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBASKETBALL having played in the original American Basketball Association. Also meets GNG, incidentally. Rikster2 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, he is notable as a basketball player. Notability is not temporary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:NBASKETBALL pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in the original ABA, thus passing NBASKETBALL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clearly no value, and its existence is causing issues with vandalism elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phan (ship)[edit]

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

Unremarkable "shipping" name, the result of fan speculation. Hardly worth a mention in the subjects' own articles, Definitely not worth its own article. Just doesn't quite fit into a speedy category. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite astounding quantity of fan-generated material on this. The closest approximation to a source I can find is newmediarockstars.com, a WP:TABLOIDy website which wrote a brief blurb about Howell and Lester's launch of a joint YouTube channel, and included "PHAN" as one of a dozen tags. It's possible that a future RS will take enough notice of the phenomenon for a mention to be added to the subjects' respective articles. FourViolas (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be enough to write a somewhat spun-out article about Howell and Lester's joint achievements (radio show, joint gaming channel, upcoming book and tour) that would be less appropriate to main at either one article, but the shipping is not deserving an article now, and at most a redirect to a Reception/Influence section later. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although their generic presence of them as internet celebrities are quite notable, an article about this so-called closer-than-people-think relationship is unnecessary and very gossipy. A section on Dan and Phil about their internet adventures in general is something that would be more appropriate. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And I recommend that this matter be closed soon. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No encyclopedic value whatsoever. General Ization ^Talk 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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