< 19 July	21 July >

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 - merge unnecessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Airport airlines and destinations[edit]

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

Split from Dublin Airport page is disputed. The destination list split from the Dublin Airport page is unnecessary in my opinion as the list is not particularly long compared to some airports and splitting the destination list was never agreed in the Wikiproject. Vg31-irl (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, the list of airlines and destinations was taking up an excessive amount of space in the article (27%). And in fact, the destinations are not relevant for the airport itself, as the airport will not fly there. But my main concern was the excessive space and high maintenance of those lists which can be better served in a separate article. AfD is not the place to settle a dispute. The Banner talk 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But at present, it turns Dublin Airport into a travel guide. Or are you supporting complete removal of the destinations out of all airport-articles? The Banner talk 08:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beside that, edits like this add a lot of traffic and watchlist pollution. The Banner talk 09:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the content should be excised from the Wikipedia completely, but I see that pretty much every major airport article has one of these dense tables of data. Ugh. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Be bold. That is partly why I moved this aside.. The Banner talk 13:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was never decided that if the Airlines and Destanations chart took up too much space it would be removed to a seperate article. The Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, and making a seperate article for Dublin Airport Airlines and Destanations makes it seem like it. You also so stated, 'Now it's possible to mention former destanations.' Well, former destanations are usually mentioned in the airport's history. So that wouldn't be needed for a seperate article, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 8:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not support (WP:GNG). Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 10:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A standalone article is not required for Dublin Airport which has a relatively small list in comparison with other airports. It also sets a precedent for hundreds of other articles which is unsupported in the project guide, and would therefore be best discussed at WP:AIRPORTS first. SempreVolando (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge into Dublin Airport#Airlines and destinations section. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Dublin Airport. I understand where The Banner is coming from as the source article, as with many airport articles, is too large. But until there is a wide overall consensus to content fork airlines/destinations from the airport articles, this one just go back to its original place. --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary content fork, copied from Dublin Airport where the table is still there, so there's nothing to merge Kraxler (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we're not a travel guide - The table is now at Dublin Airport so pointless merging, I personally believe tables like this deserve removing from all airport articles but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 27 July 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 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Nowak (The Octopus)[edit]

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

This is a biography of a chess player of purely local fame. The subject's accomplishments have resulted in a little coverage in local Montana newspapers, but don't seem to have drawn the attention of the chess world or public at large. Quale (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His USCF rating history since 1992 is here. No FIDE rating. Indeed media coverage of him seems to be restricted to the local area. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of local coverage, and a biographical article in Chess Life, just from the first two pages of Google searching. Seems to be enough to make this a keeper. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Sasata (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:BASIC per coverage, some of a regional or national scope. Esquivalience ^t 16:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Agree with proposer that this is a case of local fame only. He is known for his chess mastery/strength but it falls well below the standard required for national or international recognition. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not support (WP:GNG). Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 10:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Weak because of the Chess Life article, but otherwise I only see minor papers/blogs, almost all of them specific to Missoula. They count, but it's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. As a side note, some "interesting" trivia: Montana looks to be the only US State without a chessmaster (Nowak scraped 2200, but is 2105 now). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 25 July 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. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KLA Schools[edit]

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

commercial preschool. absolutely no indication of notability. I had CSD'd it as promo, but noticed it had been here many years and had many editors. Doesn't change the fact that it has no business here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No, it dosen't have any business here, it's just a plug for a franchise scheme for kindergartens. There's abolutely nothing notable in that. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any secondary sources. Only primary sources/press releases. agtx 17:41, 23 July 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. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Qahtani[edit]

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

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see notability at all. A strong whiff of advertising and he has certainly appeared at conferences and written papers - but what associate professor has not? But I see no serious, robust references from significant sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: this is an ad, and notability per WP:ACADEMIC is not established (let alone WP:NBIO). I PROD'd this article earlier; the PROD was undone by Chknmcnugget because of granted patents, yet patents don't actually count for WP:ACADEMIC. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources, claims to notability. apparently written as advertising for a new tech start-up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 23 July 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 a7 (no assertion of notability), g11 (advertising). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QWASI Technology[edit]

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

Both sources fail WP:ORGIND, and some quick googling doesn't turn up any other independent sources. Unnotable company. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Becerra[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this writer pass our notability criteria. I failed to find anything notable about her either in google or in the article itself. A google search basically shows her name being mentioned in lists of authors talking part in literature events. The article is inflated by a list o "writing on here Work" that amounts basically to blog posts about her and an "Award" section with a lot of nominations and a few actually won awards. damiens.rf 18:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a good article, but a Proquest search on her name turned up 42 articles - all in Spanish-language papers, but by no means all from Puerto Rico. I added the first 2 articles on the search to the page. I have no idea whether she has been translate dinto English, but she does appear to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of books in WorldCat, but all with very small holdings – no go on PROF. If there's other material that satisfies GNG, I'll be happy to look at that. Agricola44 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: User:Damiens.rf In this situation, try keywords. google name + a term like poet, poesia or "Puerto Rico" and you will probably get better results. I also sometimes pull keywords out of a poorly sourced article - such as the title of a book, or a uniquely named hometown. If you do this and are satisfied, it is entirely acceptable to withdraw your nomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best why googling for this writer, using both English and Spanish keywords. But, of course, you're free give it a try and add any relevant, non-trivial coverage to the article. --damiens.rf 13:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at section "Writing on her Work". I removed all the blog posts I colud spot. The remaining sources in the list seem to be small literary journals, academic journals and the largest newspaper in Puerto Rico. These are real sources that need an editor to read them and integrate them into the article. But they do support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her books are visible in WorldCat. The problem is that all of them have low holdings. Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but WorldCat is not dispositive; few sole indicators are. Particularly not for a poet and literary novelist. If a poet or literary writer is written up at length in major newspapers, wins real and significant prizes, and is encountered at serious length by critics in relatively obscure literary journals - that can pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat, by convention of hundreds of previous AfDs, is a standard tool we use to evaluate writers and library holdings are a reliable way of estimating how independent 3rd parties view a subject's work. I wholeheartedly agree that mainstream awards and/or other mainstream recognition (like reviews in mainstream publications) would independently signify notability. Unfortunately, these don't seem to be present here. The linked reviews that are about her (i.e. have her name in the title) appear to be web-pieces & blogs and the claimed awards are either obscure or have no sourcing whatsoever. These aspects are very weak justification of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Agricola44, humor me. Take a look at this search on her name on the website of El Nuevo Día, (elnuevodia.com) the biggest newspaper in Puerto Rica which, despite not having any water at the moment, is a populous island with a flourishing literary culture all its own. Click the handy "translate" button for the amusement value oafforded by google translate, if for not other purpose. Click here: [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or this search in El Pais, sorta kinds the newspaper of the old Spanish Empire, i.e. not a "local" paper in any sense [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several that I checked seemed to mention her name only trivially, although there are a few that do discuss her specifically. For example, the one that Ahnoneemoos linked to below is in the "entertainment" section of the newspaper and appears to describe her winning its short story contest. I concede that this is a source, but the fact that there is such a disconnect between the very poor library holdings of her work (one of our "gold standard" quantifiers of peer assessment) versus coverage of her winning a newspaper writing contest (and perhaps some other non-mainstream awards) strikes me as borderline sensationalism. We have dealt with many articles like this before (e.g. Jacob Barnett) where hyped "sources" are completely inconsistent with objective peer indicators. I don't think this case is nearly that bad, but I still maintain that the community of her peers has not recognized her work and that observation raises sufficient doubt for me. No worries for you, though. I think this article will be kept based on the current !vote tally. However, I will still with my conscience here. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Agricola44 I do see why this was a tough one. I see the holdings problem, but it's common with poets, literary writers. I see that some newspaper mentions are trivial. I just think that other coverage and prizes outweigh them. A slight difference in judgment on a not obvious AFD decision. But, then, the obvious keepers and obvious advertisements don't need to be at AFD. (Although too many land here.) Cheers!.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The results of Google are personalized by viewer / geography / other variables and not a good indicator of notability. Also, It's normal to have an Awards section that includes nominations to awards that were not won. There are however, 3 references by notable publications and societies that should support her notability. Vaughn88 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remember to always do a Google search through national newspapers by using the site:url-of-newspapers-here operator. For example, a Google search for 'Janette Becerra site:elnuevodia.com' yields a ton of results. In addition, in this case we go for WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:PROF since she is notable for her creative works rather than by her academic work. Here are two reliable sources that will bring this AFD to closure: from El Nuevo Día [10] and from EFE (through El Mercurio) [11]. It seems that her award Premio de Literatura Infantil El Barco de Vapor seems to be a pretty big deal in the Hispanic world. HTH, —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous Spanish-language newspaper sources above show a clear pass of WP:GNG. There is no requirement that sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per E.M.Gregory and David Eppstein and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Houghton[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 20 July 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) 19:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Qed237 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotrod (actor)[edit]

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

Complete failure to meet either PORNBIO or the GNG. No biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. The claimed awards are not even notable, and therefore certainly neither well-known nor significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FlavaMen Blatino Awards do not look significant/notable awards. Only found false positives in news/books, no apparent chances of passing GNG. Cavarrone 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about him comes even close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Cummings[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. The claimed awards fail both prongs of the well-known/significant standard, have never been found sufficient to establish notability, and were not viewed as meeting the standard in the long and extensive discussions on improvements to PORNBIO. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely meets the citera of WP:PORNBIO ["Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration"]. He's Cybersocket Web Award winning performer which already makes him notable enough to have his own article. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus enough coverage in reliable sources like AVN ([12]) and DNA ([13]) to satisfy the WP:GNG. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cybersocket is not a "well-known and significant industry award", and "Croxx036"'s sources are press releases, which fail WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 27 July 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) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadeshwar[edit]

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

Fails to pass guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hard to assess, 'books' throws up many uses, but many seem to be other 'Bhadeshwar's. Article is in a terrible state but may be fix-able.Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. However, while the existence and legal status of this populated place are almost certainly easily sourceable, the article may need to be stubbed unless further sources can be found. PWilkinson (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - No doubt about it the article is in a shit state but Villages/towns/cities are always kept regardless of the poor state, If this is the village that's in Bangladesh then there's tons of sources. –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spa Road F.C.[edit]

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

Local F.C., fails WP:NCORP A2soup (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY, can find no evidence that this club has played in a national competition. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, this info is in the 'league' article anyway.Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:FOOTYN, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. No assertion nor evidence of notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:42, 22 July 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 Gender in Bible translation. What content to merge (if anything) is at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-neutral Bible[edit]

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

The article duplicates others already existing with a similar topic like Gender in Bible translation. Basileias (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to Gender in Bible translation. This appears to be a gender-neutral (actually distorted) edition of NIV. However there are other translations that similarly try to eliminate masculine language, though perhaps less explicitly. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender in Bible translation. Gender in Bible translation is not actually a great article itself, and it only has two references, whereas Gender-neutral Bible has eight. So some of those references should be retained. And the examples of the NIV changes are quite helpful. St Anselm (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Gender in Bible translation. Multiple articles with a similar purpose. I am willing integrate some of the sources in the other article. Bigbird6 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrabhaga Dam[edit]

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

This disambiguation page mentions only one article, rest of all are red links, is there really need of such page when rest of all mentioned dams are non-notable dams and its less likely that someone will make article on them. Thank you. Human3015 knock knock • 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are currently four entries in the dab page. One blue link and three red links. The only place that the three redlinks link to is the dab page. Two of the redlinks have two blue links in the entry and the other one has one blue link. None of the blue links mention a Chandrabhaga Dam. I do not see any reason to keep this dab page. Chandrabhaga Dam, Amravati should be moved to Chandrabhaga Dam or Chandrabhaga Dam should be redirected to Chandrabhaga Dam, Amravati. -- GB fan 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per GB fan. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per recent changes. Agree with Boleyn that the last two red-link only entries should breed removed until there is a suitable target for them. older ≠ wiser 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is a non notable dam, and why is it less likely that someone will make an article on them? I don't see any logic behind the statement. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05, you got the point. But I said its "less likely that someone will make article on them" because this dab page is made back in March 2013, in this time period of more than 2 years no one (including creator of dab page) tried to make article on said pages. --Human3015 knock knock • 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any logic. However, if it satisfies you, I will go ahead and plan with Dharmadhyaksha and create the pages. Who knows, we might get another DYK out of it.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, my question on what is a 'non-notable dam' remains unanswered. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05, you are talking like I'm hardcore opposer of "Chandrabhaga dam". I welcome if you make page on it and I will be more happier if it features on DYK, because you too know that such topics are my area of interest. Regarding notability of Dams, each district in India usually has 10-20 Major minor dams. For example see 20 dams in Nagpur district. We can't make article on each dam unless they are notable like Jayakwadi dam or Koyna dam. If we make article on every dam then India has 650 districts and there can be more than 13,000 Indian dam articles on Wikipedia. Anyways, why anyone will have problem if you make proper article on said dams. Go ahead. "The 20 dam Nagpur list" I have given also has mention of red linked dam in dab page. You can use that source. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't noticed that my given list says there are 54 "major" dams in Nagpur district, not just 20. So just one Nagpur district has 54 "Major" dams (here they excluded minor dams). So how many dams does entire India has?--Human3015 knock knock • 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05, Moreover you can read this pdf format government report, they have clearly mentioned "dams of national importance", and there are only 61 dams in India with "national importance" with additional 17 under construction. Of these 61 there are only 5 in Maharashtra and two of them I already mentioned Koyna dam and Jayakwadi dam. Otherwise there are thousands of other "non-notable" dams have been mentioned. "National importance " dams are those dams which have height of more than 100m, while these dams mentioned elsewhere has less than 15m or 10m height and there are thousands of such dams in India. We can make article on anything but we should also look for notability. We should prefer to make article on those 61 dams of national importance which don't have articles. I don't think that all of those 61 plus 17 additional under construction have articles on Wikipedia. --Human3015 knock knock • 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ only one valid entry. Rsrikanth05, for entry on a disambiguation page (which is basically an index of WP articles), it needs an article of its own, or mention in an article (see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION). Only one entry here is currently valid. As for what would make a dam notable, WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG and WP:MAPOUTCOMES are probably of most use to you; however, whether they are notable or not is not directly relevant to this discussion, unless you're planning to create the articles asap. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Human3015, please stop throwing dams of national importance and state importance at me. A dam is a dam. Irrespective of it's size or whatever. If it has enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, it stays. By the reasoning, no dam that has sources is non-notable. What irks me is that you began this AfD and two XfDs of articles/categories created by Dharmadhyaksha immediately after they nominated two categories that you created for deletion. What is this? Vengeance? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05, please don't WP:ACCUSE me of anything, Dharmadhyaksha's 18 categories have been nominated for deletion by other user and I commented there Keep even after he nominated my categories for deletion see here. I never have "revenge" kind mentality that other many users usually have. I always support those things which deserve to stay on Wikipedia. Whatever work of Dharmadhyaksha I nominated is deserve to get deleted and it got delete comment by community. You should not support anybody's work just because he/she is your friend on Wikipedia, in that sense I'm also your friend and we work on same projects. And regarding dams, If you think that no dam is non-notable then you please go ahead and make a valid article on said dams, no one is stopping you. --Human3015 knock knock • 03:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @GB fan, Bkonrad, and Boleyn: User:Rsrikanth05 has created the Chandrabhaga Dam, Nagpur now. Would you all please like to review your previous stands now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per changes. Last 2 entries should be deleted as it stands, but I've left them until this discussion closes in case someone is in process of creating them. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Thanks Boleyn! I had, two years back, enquired with our WikiProject Dams on what the notability criteria for dams is. I came to know that they don't have any fixed criteria as such and case to case decisions are taken if notability is questioned. Btw, per the report (pdf) published by Central Water Commission, an office under Ministry of Water Resources (India), all these four damns fall under the "large dam" definition of ICOLD. That's sufficient notability for them and they obviously are verifiable from other sources as well. So yes, we will have articles on all four. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a nominator, I will vote for "keep" now, as dab page now has 2 blue links and thats enough for dab page. --Human3015 knock knock • 07:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are now two articles with the same name this dab page is appropriate. I have struck my previous delete recommendation above. The other two entries should be removed until such time that they have articles also. -- GB fan 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alfred's Elephant (children's book)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google brings up the illustrators website and little else. worldcat show it is held in 3 New Zealand libraries only - [14]. As it is a 2015 book it may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability yet, possibly 'TOOSOON'.18:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)
Delete as a non-notable book. Schwede 66 08:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above - WP:TOOSOON. There is comment in the Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article about the book and this would seem sufficient for the moment. I have added a few additonal facts to the article, but don't think they bring the book over the treshhold for notability. NealeFamily (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schwede66 and Pincrete -- Shudde ^talk 02:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep that's fine --Whakaoriori (talk) 10:29, 23 July 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 speedily deleted (by me) as copyvio. Deor (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goody (Gorizia) Goodelle[edit]

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

I can't figure out what or who this article is about, but it seems a bit long to spedy as 'no context'. It's probably a copyvio as well. TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is this a hoax/joke? (can I have some of what s/he's been smoking?). Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax (or, at least, not a complete hoax).[15][16] This singer did survive the Cocoanut Grove fire. The article appears to be this person's account of the event rather than a true biography. I'll check further for copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. 100% copied from this blog post. ~~Tagging for G12.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor tagged it for G12 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Obvious G12 is obvious. –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Juan Ponce de León[edit]

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

Original research, primary sources. User who created article is author of book. J.Ponce de León's ancestry already included in his respective article. Maragm (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles should be mostly referenced to secondary sources, particularly those published by legitimate publishers, not old unpublished historical documents. While Juan Ponce de León is obviously a very important historical figure, his ancestry is discussed in the main article, which makes clear the dominant opinion that little is known about his ancestry or birth. This article is undue detail and appears to present a fringe theory, speculation, and/or original research. We should stick to reporting what reliable secondary or tertiary sources say, and this can be done in the main article. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks: Just to clarify some of the reasons for proposing the deletion of this article:

In user’s talk page, I explained that the Ponce de León lineage comes from Ponce Giraldo de Cabrera, not from Ponce de Minerva. My info is based on several works, some of which I mentioned in the respective talk page of the article: Juan Luis Carriazo Rubio, professor of Medieval History at the University of Huelva; Margarita Torres Sevilla Quiñones de León, Professor of Medieval History, University of León; Inés Calderón Medina, professor of Medieval History at the University of Mallorca and author of several works; Simon Barton, reputable historian and author of several works; and Jaime de Salazar y Acha, member of the Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y Genealogía and author of several well-known works on medieval genalogies.

The user using an IP, deleted the entire article claiming that: "I have deleted the Ancestry of Juan Ponce de Leon because of your refusal to accept the fact that Ponce de Minerva is in fact the ancestor of the Ponce de Leons. It is my article and my sources".

In article, before I reverted, he claimed that: It has been said that "Ponce de Minerva's ancestry has been a bone of contention since the seventeenth century but John Browne Ayes' and Salazar de Mendoza's work are the only historical works that give the most complete and precise genealogy and historical data to date". John Brown Ayes, as he himself claims, is also the user Ayesart (by the way, his user page seems to be a CV and pretty much self-laudatory) and Salazar de Mendoza is a 16th-17th century author. User has also said that he is the "documented 27th great grandson of the Adelantado Juan Ponce de Leon".--Maragm (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not think his ancestry and relationships are likely to be notable. Juan Ponce de León certainly is. The implication of other comments seems to be that the article's accuracy is disputed; if so, it should not be in WP: that is why we do not allow WP:OR. Nobody "owns" a WP article. I have run into this problem myself when WP was much younger and someone had written an article with claims that frankly were fantastic. This conflect was resolved by my publishing my view in a reputable journal and then citing that in the amended WP article. I had to defend my view quite hard against the exponents of the fantasy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:STUPID, and WP:BOLLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to ancestry.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odsonne Édouard[edit]

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

Hasn't played in at least one senior professional game. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Top scorer at Euro U17 but that's not enough. Dudek1337 (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 20 July 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) 17:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:19, 21 July 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 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

François Ravidat[edit]

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

PROD deletion was contested by the subject of the article, but on review it appears to be a valid argument for deletion; I can find no good independent sources to support an article about this person. Sources may be available in French, though I didn't find them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reiterate prod rationale that it fails WP:BIO. Unable to verify that the individual is a film maker or that they received the Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, not that by itself it would make them particularly notable if they have received it. Vrac (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my multiple searches found nothing good aside from that 2000 coverage here and there's no good move target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 26 July 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 consensus for a specific action has emerged herein. Discussion regarding a potential redirect or page merge can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Conflict (college football game)[edit]

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

This is not a rivalry. UCF denies any rivalry. UCONN basically just created a trophy. Even the sources cited in the article criticize UCONN for creating a trophy for a rivalry that doesn't exist. Joeykai (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be a "rivalry", but whatever it is, it clearly meets WP:GNG just from the sources in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note that based on Dirtlawyer1's reasoning and the ongoing discussion I'm reading, I'm considering changing my !vote to merge. I will not !vote delete, because there is too much coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom appears to take issue with whether this event should be notable, but that's irrelevant to determining whether it is notable. Based on sources in the article, it passes WP:GNG. I would agree with a need for a copyedit, though, as it may be factually untrue to call this a rivalry game if one team denies its existence. I'll discuss that on the talk page, as that likely will be controversial. ~ Rob^Talk 17:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever it is, it's notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - We do not have stand-alone articles for two-game rivalries or game series. That's silly. I remind everyone above who has already commented, that notability is not the only measure of a topic's suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. This is a news article about a dispute whether a rivalry exists per WP:NOTNEWS; that is not a suitable basis for a stand-alone rivalry article when other viable alternatives to preserve the content exist. Per WP:GNG:

. . . significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . .

The relatively minor content of this article should be merged to the relevant CFB ~~season~~ articles: ~~2013 UCF Knights football team~~, ~~2014 UCF Knights football team~~, ~~2013 Connecticut Huskies football team, and~~ 2014 Connecticut Huskies football team and Connecticut Huskies football. Per the longstanding precedents of WP:CFB, that's the way we handle non-rivalry CFB game content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Merge proposal revised to acknowledge that the "rivalry" trophy did not exist before June 2015, and UConn's self-awarded "rivalry" trophy only includes the 2014 win by UConn, and no game has been played since UConn coach unilaterally declared the series to be a "rivalry." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I was asked to reconsider my vote based on the above, so I'll comment on these arguments. WP:NOTNEWS would be applicable if this were likely to be a news story that does not extend beyond a few news cycles (i.e. no enduring significance). The persistence with which Diaco has treated this "rivalry" suggests that this will not fade away in the short-term. It's more than a simple news event. The referenced text from WP:GNG essentially reminds the reader of WP:IAR, so that only applies if consensus suggests the article does not belong. It's inefficient to duplicate this information in four articles, requiring each to be separately maintained, so I don't believe WP:IAR makes much sense here. Lastly, consensus on non-rivalry game content is not applicable here. This might not be a rivalry depending on your opinion of the requirements of one, but it's something more than a non-rivalry. ~ Rob^Talk 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - "The referenced text from WP:GNG essentially reminds the reader of WP:IAR". No, Rob, that's not it at all; this is not an IAR argument, and it can't be "IAR" when the GNG guideline itself expltcitly states that "significant coverage is not a guarantee". The referenced GNG passage allows that there are other suitability standards that apply to stand-alone articles, and permits even notable topics to be covered as part of a larger article. This article is essentially about a weird one-sided attempt to create a new CFB "rivalry" via marketing/publicity by one of the two universities; that makes it "newsy", especially when every reliable news source article cited was published in an 8-day period in June 2015. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be careful not to put WP:UNDUE weight on USER:Dirtlawyer1's comments. Yes, "UNDUE" pertains to article content and I'm extrapolating for the discussion here. My point is that I take exception to the phrase "We do not have stand-alone articles for two-game rivalries or game series" -- with emphasis on "We": The editor makes a sound argument and it should be considered, but it does not necessarily represent consensus. Who exactly is this "We" that the editor references in the argument? Is there a policy someplace? Doubtful. So please consider the argument but do not inflate it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Paulmcdonald: I am happy to link the 30+ AfD discussions for CFB rivalry articles in last year, Paul, but is that really necessary? You participated in almost all of those AfDs, and you are well aware of the outcomes that resulted in "delete" or "merge" in all but one of those discussions, and in each case you participated, you were in the minority position, and opposed to the merge/delete position supported by a majority of our fellow CFB editors. Suggesting that I am sort of cowboy/renegade, advancing a position that is not amply supported by dozens of AfD precedents (and in which you advanced similar arguments that were rejected) is disingenuous and inaccurate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps you should put together an essay on college football rivalries. Other editors could join in and it could be a "we". But until then, know that AFD Discussions are not policy. In almost any AFD discussion you will find dissent. Third, if you would add up the count of all those involved in the 30+ AFD discussions, you would get a finite number of editors--how many I'm not sure, but it's safe to say less than 20 and probably closer to five or ten. Other AFDs are valuable as a reference, but WP:OTHERSTUFF does or does not exist does not equate to a decision supported by entire body of Wikipedia. Therefore, when making a post on any discussion as an individual, it's best to avoid implying that any one editor speaks for consensus. If the consensus has spoken on the subject, then link to it. If consensus has not spoken, then it isn't "we" but "me" and that should be made clear. It's only fair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "AfD Discussions are not policy." Yes, Paul, I know that; guidelines are not policy, essays are not policy, WikiProject standards are not policy, and talk page consensus regarding a particular topic is not policy; only identified Wikipedia policies are "policy." That's also completely irrelevant. AfD outcomes represent consensus on the notability and suitability of particular topics for inclusion as stand-alone articles. As for the participation rate for other recent AfDs for CFB rivalry articles, the overwhelming majority were 8–2, 7–2, 6–2, 7–1 or 6–1 !votes in favor of merge or deletion, and most of the participants were regular CFB editors. When there are 30+ such discussions over a period of months, all with similar results, it suggests a very strong sense of where the concerned community members' opinion lies. As for your suggestion that those prior AfD outcomes do "not equate to a decision supported by entire body of Wikipedia," that's a massive red herring: it is a relatively rare AfD in which more than a dozen individual editors participate, but that does not make the AfD outcome any less valid. If you want those previous AfD decisions reviewed by the larger community, please take them to DRV -- but I believe you will find no reasonable basis for overturning those outcomes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Any way you slice it, you still only represent yourself and not multiple people. You are not a "we" and that's undue weight. Want to reference the other discussions? Fine--provide the links. If others agree, then they will agree. Don't !Vote for other people that are not present.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        And other CFB editors have now been invited to participate -- I'll let them speak for themselves. And I have never "!voted for other people" -- care to strike that? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I will not strike that comment. You clearly stated "we".--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While there are a lot of differences as well, this AfD brings to mind the discussion last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry where a "Broken Chair" rivalry trophy was invented as an Internet joke but ended up garnering substantial coverage. I ended up neutral there and come out the same way here. On the one hand, the coverage is substantial, including the major national media outlets. On the other hand, for this to be a true "rivalry," a longer history should exist. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: In the absence of a "true rivalry," then why not merge this content to the season articles, or perhaps more appropriately, to the main Connecticut Huskies football article? As GNG notes, "significant coverage in reliable sources" is not a guarantee of a stand-alone Wikipedia article; it is perfectly acceptable to cover a notable topic as part of a larger article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merge proposal may or may not have merit, but it would potentially require duplicating (and then separately maintaining) the content in as many as six different places; the UConn and UCF program articles as well as the 2014/2015 UConn and UCF team/season articles. Rob raised a reasonable point above: "It's inefficient to duplicate this information in four articles, requiring each to be separately maintained." Again, though, I'm remaining neutral at this point. I'll keep an eye on the arguments as they develop. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the merge proposal above to acknowledge that (1) the "rivalry" trophy did not exist before June 2015, (2) the self-awarded trophy only includes the 2014 win by UConn, (3) and no game has been played since UConn coach unilaterally declared the series to be a rivalry in June 2015. The net effect of which is this bizarre one-sided "rivalry" content should be merged primarily to the main Connecticut Huskies football article, as UCF does not even consider UConn to be a rival. There are no real "maintenance" issues involved for the season articles, any more than there is maintenance for any other CFB season articles: for meaningful rivalries, we simply note that the annual game is one in the rivalry series, and then discuss the rivalry in the context of that particular season if it's worth mentioning. This is no different. Easy-peasy, and completely consistent. Also, given that all of the significant coverage of this rivalry in reliable sources was published between June 1 and June 8, 2015, I would also suggest to you that a pretty strong WP:NOTNEWS argument exists, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now):A coach has stated a football rivalry exists between the two teams. Whether or not this will become a true rivalry will be determined as future games are played. The article is properly cited and comes from reliable sources. My guess is it will be talked about at least for this years game. If it washes out after this year and nobody talks about it next year, then I can be convinced to change the article's status.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (for now). This isn't a "rivalry", not yet anyhow, notwithstanding one coach's efforts to declare it as such. The indifference of the opponent to this young series - or its refusal, so far, to regard it as anything but a routine recurring future event - pretty much ends that discussion. As I said on the article Talk page, calling this a "rivalry" makes as much sense as calling my crush on Angelina Jolie a "romance". The Connecticut coach's motivational / publicity efforts have received a bit of media attention, but it's been a pretty quick flurry, and if it ends there then even the term, "Civil Conflict", fails notability. So what I would do is create a redirect to the Connecticut football page where maybe there's a quick paragraph about it (not to UCF, to which this event is, for now, meaningless), with an option to revive the standalone article if this appellation and characterization take hold. JohnInDC (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said in the text, the only difference I have is your comparison with your "crush" on Angelina Jolie. If you stated that publicly (or if I did for that matter), you would not be referenced by the media. Unfortuntely the UConn coach has, and I'm sure will be talked about at least for the game in question and at least for this year. If someone wants to get further information about it, Wikpedia should be the place for them to look, however this AfD finally gets resolved....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it's not me but Donald Trump who proclaims his affection. It's still not a romance! And in this case, a redirect to two sentences at the Husky's football page is quite sufficient. JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touchè!....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnInDC, was Sam Harris talking about you here? :) Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That friend he ran into on the street - whose life had been changed by his fated alliance? I don't want to brag on myself, but ... (That was pretty good - thanks!) JohnInDC (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvmoutside: Per WP:GNG:

. . . significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . .

There are other measures of the suitability of a topic for a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this cooked-up, publicity-stunt rivalry; it has had it's 15 minutes of fame.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't doubt that it is a cooked-up, publicity-stunt rivalry. But with the coverage it seems to have received, the publicity stunt has worked and I believe it has become notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno. Three years from now, after no one has applied the phrase ever again to the contest, the article will look pretty silly. We should wait to see if it takes hold, and redirect in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CRYSTAL That's amazing how you can see into the future three years from now and let us know if the phrase has or has not been applied. Let's go to the track! However, I believe that there is enough coverage to stand on WP:GNG at present, which should be the question at hand and not trying to predict the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the mere passage of time can render an article not notable (as it would, if these three weeks turn out to be the entire lifespan of this matter), then it probably wasn't notable in the first place. I can say that now, without any special clairvoyance at all. JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Speculation has no place in AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Diaco, and leave a brief paragraph at the target explaining & putting the situation in context. I'm not as concerned with what either team's opinion is on the status of a rivalry (should we delete Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry just because the Longhorns want to pretend that A&M doesn't even exist anymore?) as I am about the facts. And, in this case, the fact is that this is a purported "rivalry" between two schools 1,200 miles away from each other, without any kind of common history or culture between them, and with a grand total of two all-time meetings on the field. To sum it up, this "rivalry" doesn't seem to have any kind of meaning or significance to anyone outside of Diaco, therefore I believe it's probably best to briefly address it on his page, and move on. And, I agree with Dirtlawyer that there are some legitimate WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS concerns with the article as it currently stands. I also note that, should this article be kept, it's title should be changed, it is currently disambiguated where no disambiguation is necessary, as Civil Conflict remains a redlink. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Connecticut Huskies football, 2015 Connecticut Huskies football team, Bob Diaco, and/or other appropriate articles. This two-game rivalry isn't even recognized by both parties. The significant third-party coverage seems to be more about the controversy surrounding the one-sided conception and questionable nature of this alleged rivalry. Some description of this is probably appropriate in the aforementioned pre-existing articles, but a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 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 Oldschool jungle. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle music[edit]

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

It appears an article could be written about the genre, but this dab page has just one semi-reasonable entry and one partial match. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oldschool jungle. 2nd entry can be deleted - doesn't meet MOS:DABMENTION, isn't mentioned on the article. Probably worth a hatnote on Oldschool jungle to Jungle (disambiguation) if this is redirected, as there are many songs, albums, a record label etc that a user might be looking for if they type in Jungle music, although it's unlikely. Boleyn (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oldschool jungle. If anything, this is actually the commonest name for that subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this article makes more sense if links to drum and bass and ragga jungle are kept - not quite sure why they were removed. It might be that a redirect is sufficient that they wouldn't be needed. Artw (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oldschool jungle; drum and bass and ragga jungle are subtopics of that topic, and are already discussed in the article. bd2412 T 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main uddin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking at the references, Main uddin is known primarily for being on the editorial team for http://indilens.com/ blog and I don't think this is enough to establish notability. This article was speedied as a A7 and been the subject of an earlier AfD discussion but it has been recreated with more citations that demonstrate Uddin's online presence but not his notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC with only a single WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview source and a bunch of WP:PRIMARY website profiles. This doesn't sound significantly different to the first AfD. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any proper 3rd-party sources or any in-depth coverage here, just primary and bloggy sources. Mr Potto (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate salad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable. No references support notability. valereee (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does have some coverage outside of recipes. If it was known where the name came from, I'd suggest a merge to Watergate Hotel or Watergate scandal but it's not known for sure. (It should be noted that while there are independent sources, e.g. the Mahoney article, a lot of publications reference Wikipedia in discussing the salad, so care should be taken with references.) Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it could be merged into Ambrosia salad as a variation? valereee (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - It's a real thing, and it's well-documented by soucres, but it's also a variety of ambrosia. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have been a real salad. The page is sourced. People truly are said ot have eaten this kind of thing in the Nixon administration. O looked at Berian's suggestion, he's usually ontarget, but it does seem different form ambrosia salad. What I do not recommend is actually eating this sweet, green glop.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arping[edit]

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

Although this topic has some "How to's" written about it, It is not WP:NOTABLE as a "how to" dosn't really provide notability. No articles are written about it or its history. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NSOFTWARE. Many printings and third-party literature exist for this software tool. See this source, as well as this one. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely available, used e.g. by NetworkManager --HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The program and concept are not fiction, they exist and are used. The poor quality of the article is not a criterion to deletion. In fact, I see no genuine reason for deletion. Kbrose (talk) 17:28, 23 July 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 clear consensus on what should happen to this article was reached. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtowood[edit]

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

There are less than 3,000 matches on Google for the term "Pashtowood". It is unclear to me if this is a recent neologism or an inappropriate fork of the Cinema of Punjab article. In either case I wanted to bring this up for community discussion to determine whether this should be deleted outright, or redirected as a possible search term. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move page back to Pollywood. Was recently moved. sami ^talk 01:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pollywood currently redirects to Cinema of Punjab. For clarification, are you suggesting that this article redirects to Cinema of Punjab as well? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then move to Pollywood (Pakistan) or Cinema of Peshawar (consistent with Cinema of Punjab). This page was recently moved to new title and the article has been here since 2006—thus should not be deleted because of inappropriate page move. sami ^talk 20:15, 22 July 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 Bush (album). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ya Dogg[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, along with the other Snoop Dogg songs that this editor proposed, to Bush (album). These songs have not become Top 40 hits on any charts. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect along with all other songs from the album up for deletion. Non-notable and all fail WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 02:36, 26 July 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 Bush (album). (Closing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Ya Dogg) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Run Away (Snoop Dogg song)[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 20 July 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 Bush (album). (Closing per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Ya Dogg) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awake (Snoop Dogg song)[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 20 July 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 Bush (album). (Closing per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Ya Dogg) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R U A Freak[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 20 July 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 Bush (album). (Closing per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Ya Dogg) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Knew That[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 20 July 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. Nakon 23:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Orbin[edit]

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

YouTube drummer, sourced largely to his own site, YouTube or social media Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable music with no significance coverage. Fails wp:Band. –323MU (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 20 July 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 clear consensus on how this article should be treated has been reached, despite 2 relistings. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Gassan[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO as I cannot find any substantial coverage of the subject. SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there was an ADDY award given, this might make him notable, but the source used to substantiate it doesn't actually say that, and I can't find anything with my own web searching either. Would be willing to switch vote if this award actually exists. Brianhe (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Followup: I don't see him claming an ADDY award on his public LinkedIn profile (though he does claim some others). Brianhe (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: This source does say he won ADDY award for the successful launch of The Kravis Center for the Performing Arts website. You have to click "Read Full Background" to see that. Please check. - Arr4 (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably redirect to Whale Path - I'm not all that familiar with the ADDY Award but it's seems notable for anyone in that field, however, I say we move to the Whale Path (which he founded) for now until better solidity is established. The best my searches found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's assuming that Whale Path is notable though, which is certainly debatable! SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought too but at least that article looks a little better. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 20 July 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. Nakon 23:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Garry Guptaa[edit]

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

Although there are a couple of reputable sources here I don't think that either of them are really sufficient to establish notability: they may mention the man but they are not substantially about him. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo advert, sources are a few trivial mentions, others are own website and advertising his business, fails WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barely any different than the version I speedied. Even if the article subject is shown to be notable - the Hindustan Times source is the closest he comes to an independent, non-passing mention, and I can't find anything better with an (admittedly cursory and unenthusiastic) search - this version of the article should be deleted anyway due to the promotionalism. —Cryptic 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad Rende[edit]

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

The article is a biography of an Argentinean woman who was born in the Falklands and then had trouble getting an Argentine passport. Non-notable and would seem to fail WP:BIO. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Not the first "Argentine" baby born in the Falklands according to this. A tenuous claim to notability at best, and one that by definition is charged with POV. Vrac (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very rarely are people notable merely for the incidents of their birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BLP1E and any other guideline Kraxler (talk) 18:26, 27 July 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. Nakon 23:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammed Shah Kazmi[edit]

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

This person is listed simply as a "prominent politician" with no actual information on offices he held. The sole citation is a dead link with a title and citation style that are not clear enough to understand what the possible source might have been. Other than being a "politician" and father of G. M. Syed, there does not appear to be anything of note here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the "dead link" citation at archive.org and have updated the citation appropriately. Unfortunately, it does not mention Kazmi at all, so it has been marked as a failed verification. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, probably mostly WP:OR, there's not much to find on the web, but this says that the subject died six months after the birth of his son G. M. Syed (that would place his death in 1904), subject is also mentioned here as the father of G. M. Syed. Nothing else. In the absence of any sources, it fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 18:44, 27 July 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. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in education[edit]

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

article is hopelessly WP:POV at this point as it is a product of WP:ADVOCACY related to SEDAI - an organization/movement that fights discrimination against Iranian students. WP:TNT for now. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per Jytdog --Orland (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable topic. I don't see how it is about Iran. [17] There's a significant number of scholarly articles about the topic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikimandia:. If you consider the contribution history, you will see that the initial edits were by PenLover (talk · contribs) and the other editors in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PenLover. These edits had an undue focus on the treatment of iranean students in a few western countries, and had it's offspring in the campaign SEDAI, and as a forking of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination in education in Norway. The following edits were contra-edits by their opponents, the two accounts in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los. These edits were intented to set the iranean government in a bad light. In view of this POV approaches in the article history, it would be better to start all over again. Bw --Orland (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks pretty good to me in its current state. Initial edits are irrelevant. @Alec Station: did some work on it and added Australia. It's more of a stub class article and needs more content, but there's no reason to delete it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly problematic article. Being used to push a POV, it's basically a WP:Essay. There's also the issue of links to many non-existent articles. The article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the section for Australia and made some edits. I do not think it is an essay but an article about a VERY important subject. It needs to be expanded not deletedAlec Station (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Education is a very broad topic, discrimination is too, and the two have so many ways to intersect that this article can't be anything but a more or less random selection of individual problems, cases and controversies. This is better covered in the articles about each country's educational system, or for any international topics in Education. Sandstein 10:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Split or Rename - As noted above, this article's current scope is too broad, but the subject of discrimination in education is notable in its own right and shouldn't only be covered in national-level education system articles. It seems like there are three primary types of discrimination covered: Race, sex, and disability. Sex differences in education covers one, but the other two are folded into much broader topic articles (at least as far as I've seen). That there are so many sources about each of them in particular (not just racial/disability discrimination, but discrimination in education), suggests to me it would be best to cover them in their own articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 29 July 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. The article needs work, but there is no consensus to delete. Nakon 23:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Wimbledon league record by opponent[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that the subject matter is notable though no indication how this is so provided. Fundamentally misleading article in the first place as much of the stat dump appears to be concerned with their non-league career. Season articles per WP:NSEASONS and WP:FOOTY consensus would not be appropriate for this club at that level as they were not playing in a fully professional league, so not sure how they are appropriate in this different form.

Furthermore it is unclear why this article should be limited to just league fixtures.

Finally, whilst there are certainly notable points in the lead regarding their promotions and their unbeaten runs, but these should be discussed in the history and the long list of stats below does nothing to enhance these claims nor help the reader gain a greater understanding of these initial statements. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with regard to the inclusion of stats from the club's non-League era, it's worth noting that an article like Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, a long-standing FL, includes results from the period when the club played outside the Football League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder - these kind of articles can be notable, but they are not automatically notable, and I see no indication that this example is i.e. has AFC Wimbledon's league record received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:GNG? No. Giant Snowman 07:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like this have the potential to reach featured status, and those that have include Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent, Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent and York City F.C. league record by opponent. And I should add that all of those lists include non-League statsitcs. This list needs improving, not deleting. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mattythewhite. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mattythewhite and Lugnuts articles are generally only deleted for problems with content only if they are unsalvageable .But this list can be improved as Mattythewhite rightly points out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:16, 25 July 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. Nakon 23:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gig Bag[edit]

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

7 episode series on public access TV - the article is unsourced and the subject fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 7 episodes of 30 minutes, aired in October/November 2012. Only source is the show's own website. No coverage in secondary sources. Fails all guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 19:00, 27 July 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 Bush (album). (Closing per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Ya Dogg) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This City (song)[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 20 July 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 Bush (album). (Closing per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Ya Dogg) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edibles (song)[edit]

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

Non notable song, that has not even charted. Koala15 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 20 July 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 Experimental hip hop. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Rap[edit]

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

Non notable subgenre. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a possible redirect to experimental hip hop - This is, at best, a WP:TNT scenario. The article doesn't even appropriately summarize the scant sources that do exist for this particular meaning of "art rap". The words "art" and "rap" are also combined to talk about various aspects/kind of hip hop music/genres/subgenres/themes, but most appear to talk about things that seem to connect to experimental hip hop as our article talks about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to experimental hip hop. Defining musical genres is tricky, and discriminating between them is even harder, but this article is weak and doesn't accord with what the sources say. The word "art" is commonly used as a rather vague qualifier as in "art music", "art film", "art game", "art rock", etc, so maybe the meaning of this is too obvious to need explaining, or too vague to be worth trying to explain, but a redirect to a similar term can't do too much harm. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:30, 21 July 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. Nakon 23:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Art 3D Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. this is almost an WP:ADVERT. found zero coverage in gnews and also one of Malaysia's biggest newspapers, The Star. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator indicates, the references are primary sources. No reliable sources are given and nothing supports notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment the museum has barely existed for 3 months, which further raises concerns that this article is an advert. LibStar (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no reliable coverage in secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Batik House[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. batik houses in Malaysia are often fronts for shops, I don't see this as any different. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a run-of-the-mill structure.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability in the article, just another batik place. Kraxler (talk) 19:07, 27 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Mells[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 July 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) 17:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think we can quite call it a consensus to keep, but that's the clear majority opinion, and the chance to obtain a "delete" consensus in any future nomination appears remote in the extreme. Sandstein 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg[edit]

AfDs and DRVs for this article:

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

This has been brought up many, many times at AfD, and having read through the arguments of past listings, there are sources, but his coverage is because he's a Kennedy, and so are his activities. Thus, this is WP:NOTINHERITED. Kennedy-related activities aside, Schlossberg is a non-notable college student. If he goes into politics, and makes something of himself therein, then we can consider an article, but in three years, nothing has shown itself to meet either GNG or independent notability. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is an Essay in the series "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Has anyone made that argument? No. This is the 5th AfD and it's getting ridiculous. Schlossberg is notable because he has tons of sources available and easily passes the GNG notability guidelines. The mistake the nom is making is attributing "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" to the sources themselves. The nom is also ignoring the many reliable sources that cover Schlossberg and making a personal judgement that being a college student is non-notable regardless of how many sources the person has. The nom says he must "make something of himself" before he is notable. This is a bias and/or misunderstanding of how notability works. -- GreenC 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Sorry, it makes a big difference. From that section: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." So it's not at all "an argument to avoid." Would Schlossberg be hosting Profiles in Courage or be at the Kennedy Library for big events if he wasn't a Kennedy? No, because those are Kennedy family events. Anything he does for or with the Kennedys is therefore not usable to ascertain GNG. Having read what the result of that section is, it seems like a pretty valid line of argument - I'm not sure why it's in there as an argument to avoid. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to be avoided is the notion that notability is inherited just from having notable relatives. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As written, nothing here satisfies any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion tests. I'm sure that he'll eventually qualify for an article on his own merits, probably WP:NPOL (duh), but nothing in this article convinces me that he warrants one now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when an actual notability rule can actually be met. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is inherited outside of Wikipedia; thus, the considerable coverage given to someone simply for being related to someone highly notable. He passes the GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat, MSJapan, and WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Nothing notable about him outside of family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable because he has been frequently covered in RS. It's not our place to decide he's not notable because his coverage is because of who he is related to. Do you understand the difference? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (people), the notability criteria for biographies, indicates that who a person is does affect to an extent whether he/she is notable. See the WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY sections for more. The sheer number of references (regardless of reliability) in this case existing that mention him is entirely moot since family affiliations alone are not enough to warrant an article and he isn't noted for anything significant on his own. WP:NOTNEWS also states that people or events simply being mentioned in the news aren't always notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIOFAMILY says "mention their family members in passing", these sources are full on about Schlossberg and his accomplishments, they are not "passing" mentions, they extend over years. Your contention that he has done nothing notable is your opinion, but one the press evidently disagrees, as do I. He has done things. -- GreenC 18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that WP:BIOFAMILY also states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person" as I previously noted, and was trying to emphasize that family affiliations alone aren't enough to make someone notable. As for "the press evidently disagrees", see WP:NOTNEWS, which states the following:

"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be"
"Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."

The number of sources and detail on him is therefore entirely moot since they're on things that are family-affiliated (i.e. JFK's 50th death anniversary ceremony) and/or trivial (i.e. Yale activities). Meeting WP:Notability (people) is more nuanced than simply being covered in reliable sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever said he is notable simply for being a Kennedy? He has done things (writer, presenter, NGO founder). There are sources that talk about those things. But it doesn't even matter, people can be notable *for no reason at all*, there is no requirement they "do" something. The rule your quoting is a general guideline; when a person has so many sources devoted entirely to that person over many years in many magazines and newspapers, is internationally known, it defies imagination how they could not be notable. As has been confirmed over and over in these many AfDs and DRs. Also worth mentioning the article has been visited 10,269 times in the last 30 days and is linked by 190 articles, though I know if other people derive utility from the article is not your concern. -- GreenC 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schlossberg has still done nothing that was notable. He was involved as a minor player in some endevors that even the leading figure in is not quite notable. He is not notable. The fact that he has been mentioned in some news stories does not make him notable. He is not notable. Some of the past arguments have been that he will inevitably do notable things in the future. Well, it has been a few years and he has done nothing to make himself even a little notable. His most notable accomplishment is graduating from Yale, and for someone from the socio-economic background and family he is that is no accomplishment at all. Being a member of award committees, writing for hiscollege paper (even if he had been editor that would not make him notable) and being a guest at a celebration of the 50th anniversary of something related to his grandfather in no way make him notable. If you read the criteria about what makes someone notable, nothing about Schlossberg makes him notable. Anything that might be worth including in an encyclopedia can be mentioned in the article on his mother.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we disagree that he has not done something notable. I think he has. In cases of disagreement it would nice to stick to the core Guideline which is stated at WP:GNG. The sources are the arbitrator. -- GreenC 18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What notable thing has Schlossberg ever done? Name one.Being a college student is in and of itself never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a writer for which he has been written about in the press. He is an awards presenter, for which the press has written about him. He co-founded ReLight, for which he was written about in the press. The sources should be the arbitrator of notability, the sources clearly believe him to be notable per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He writes for a college paper, which is not enough to be notable. He has presented minor awards, which is not enough to make him notable. Relight is not notable, and his involvement in it was even more minor. Wikipedia is not news and everyone who gets mentioned in news sources is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Winning awards at times makes people notable, presenting awards almost never does. He is an award presenter as a default due to his family connections, not because of anything he did himself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established, neither in the article nor in the responses here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I mentioned in previous AFDS for this and the deletion review, he gets significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passes WP:GNG just fine. The article currently references plenty of sources in it. The fact that they briefly mention his famous grandfather is irrelevant. That isn't the only reason he is getting coverage. People magazine [18], and Today [19] both have articles that list information known about him, seeing him as notable enough to do that. The New York Post gives a lengthy article about him. [20] Just look through the sources references in the article already. Dream Focus 13:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post is not a reliable source, just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reliable in previous AfDs and DRs. There is no consensus at WP:RSN that NYP is unreliable. Wikipedia link to it thousands of times. -- GreenC 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many of the !voters here confuse "notability" with "importance". It's not necessary that somebody do something notable, WP:GNG says that somebody must be the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. ~~Note that the sources are not required to be reliable, they are required to be independent (which makes the haggling about the NY Post moot).~~ If there is much speculation about the subject in the press, which is deemed interesting to their readers, then the subject attains notability without actually doing something. I'll cite again Prince George of Cambridge who is much talked about in the press and thus passes GNG without having said a word yet. Kraxler (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources actually DO have to be independent AND reliable. Don't overlook the necessity of reliable sources for articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out, I must have got confused too. (That happens when one continues to edit Wikipedia until after midnight...) I corrected my statement. But my !vote stands, the sources in the article, and more found in web searches, being reliable enough. Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has also written opinion pieces for the New York Times, USAToday and the Huffington Post. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not policy, and states This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence which is not true in this case as notability can be verified by third-party sources. These sources should not be dismissed because of the activity Kennedy was involved in as notability is a property of a subject and it doesn't matter if editors consider the activities covered by those sources not to be notable in themselves. Also, WP:FAILN, which is a guideline, states For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

As for assertions that Keep votes are advocating including his article simply because he is a Kennedy, arguments for deletion might also advocate deleting this article because he is a Kennedy. Either consideration is based on fame which is different from notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has written opinion pieces, but those are not "third-party independent sources." Also, they are written because they give a "Kennedy perspective", not because the subject has achieved a level of knowledge in an area. The NYT piece is about "JFK's legacy as seen by his grandson." Therefore, if he was not that relation, he would not be writing that article. The USA Today piece is about two people receiving the Kennedy "Profiles in Courage" Award, and the HuffPo is just a verbatim copy of that same article. That's why just posting links is not automatic notability. I'd also note the last part of Schlossberg's mini-bio on the HuffPo article is "grandson of JFK." So again, these sources are related to his family connections - he didn't write the "Profiles" pieces as an independent person - he presented the awards. So effectively they're not independent of the subject, and again, are related to something he does because of his family, not because of himself. MSJapan (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Liz, Kraxler and DreamFocus. There is more than enough coverage in reliable sources out there to prove he is notable. Calidum T|C 14:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and not renominate for 2 years at least. I am not really sure about the article, but I incline to keep on the basis of likely increasing notability, but that's a weak argument. More important, "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." (my italics) says very clearly that it sometimes will be. In the case of this close a relationship to a truly famous person, it probably is. Most important, that repeated renominating an article until it happens to get deleted is wrong. Considering the variable participation in afd discussions, almost anything can be removed that way regardless of the merits. We need some degree of stability--if something repreated deleted cannot be kept without DelRev, then there's a case fora stable keep also. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second a 2-year moratorium on future AfD nominations of this article. Enough time and effort was wasted already. Kraxler (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EFFORT and WP:NOTAGAIN, which are both discouraged arguments for AFD discussions per WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN says "This is a good argument in some circumstances" and this is one of them. But Kraxler wasn't even making a !vote argument, rather voicing his frustration with so many AfDs. WP:EFFORT is about work on the article not the AfD as Kraxler clearly says. Essays are not rules or policy, they are not black and white, they leave plenty of room for other interpretation and POV, they are generic by design. And when overused they are irritating :) -- GreenC 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a two-year moratorium on future nominations. It is absurd this is now in the fifth round of AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is already the 7th round, including two at DRV. Kraxler (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for the wall of text, but...I read every AfD before I nominated again. Plenty of time has been given to find sources for this article, and yet nothing has appeared to meet notability. As a matter of fact, there is nothing new or significant in any of his coverage - even the People article consists of "5 Things To Know about Jack Schlossberg," one of which is that he has "Kennedy hair." Nevertheless, the same policy-based arguments came up to delete, and now we've even got "likely future notability" (WP:CRYSTAL?) as a keep statement now. No matter how many times this is kept, there's nothing there to improve the article, because that is absolutely typical for an 18-year-old who then goes to college for four years. We know college students are not generally notable - can anyone even name me anyone from their college paper? Every source I located and read indicates that Schlossberg's entire notability at this time is based on the fact that he is a Kennedy, and particularly JFK's grandson. Nine of the eleven sources mention JFK or the Kennedy family directly in the headline. Of the other two, one is People (already mentioned as a puff piece) and one is Today. His own written articles are either about presenting the (Kennedy-presented) "Profiles in Courage" awards, or writing about "the legacy of his grandfather." That's the extent of thr three articles he has written, and one is a copy of another. Both People and USA Today, and even NECN, emphasize that he is a Kennedy - that's what makes him coverage-worthy to them, and WP:NOTNEWS might apply here. He simply has done nothing to meet GNG; we are forgetting that there is no "significant third-party coverage" - it extends to "EMT trainee at Yale, does Kennedy family stuff, grandson of JFK." That's literally all we know about him after three or four years of trying to do an article. So we have a choice - delete due to no notability, or admit that, contrary to policy, simply "because he's a Kennedy, he's notable." That's what we're left with here. MSJapan (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he meets GNG or not, there is no doubt that WP:NOTNEWS (which is policy) applies as I mentioned above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to rehash it, but I pointed out already in my !vote that some !voters confuse "notability" with "importance" or "achievements". notability is sometimes attained by achievements (like holding an important elective office, under WP:NPOL; or playing in pro football, under WP:FOOTY; people who qualify under these rules don't need any over coverage, only the facts and their existence must be proven, possibly by primary sources), but mostly notability is established by being talked about (that's the essence of WP:GNG) . It's not necessary for the college boy to do anything, if the press (i.e. multiple reliable sources independent of the subject) talk about him, he becomes notable. WP:NOTNEWS applies to ephemeral mentions of news items that happen and pass, not to somebody who is the continued target of press coverage. Kraxler (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but I think what you are missing is the causative. Schlossberg is covered, yes, but not because he's Schlossberg, but because he's "Grandbaby JFK." Hosting the Profiles in Courage isn't independent - he hosts it because he's a Kennedy family member - it's a Kennedy thing JFK started. When every headline about him mentions JFK or his connection to JFK, then it's reasonable to think that JFK is the point of interest, not Schlossberg. It's not "what did Schlossberg do?" it's "what is JFK's grandson up to today?" The point of interest (and therefore his notability) is not Schlossberg as an individual, it's what he is and what he does as a descendant of JFK. If you don't believe me, read the sources. Ignore the headline, even; they all start the same way in the text. Then compare it with, say, George Clooney, who is often identified as "the actor," not "the son of Rosemary." In spite of a famous relationship, that is an example of personal notability. Schlossberg hasn't got that at all, because nobody cares what he does aside from being a Kennedy. Is there any coverage of his EMT training? No. Has anyone critiqued his Yale articles, or commented on his academic work? No. Are they certain that you need to know who his grandfather was? Definitely. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are most surely about Schlossberg, and in-depth. Yes of course they all mention JFK's grandson (or "Grandbaby JFK" as you put it). That can't be avoided he will always be seen in that light even if he becomes President. Ignoring INHERIT which is an essay, the only real guideline that says anything directly on this is WP:BIOFAMILY which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." That would be true if there were no or few sources directly about Schlossberg, where he was only mentioned in passing or listed as a relative. The guideline goes on to confirm this: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." It does not say or imply that to become notable they must achieve something spectacular. All that is required is WP:GNG and that is easily done here. The argument that he doesn't meet GNG because the sources are nullified by BIOFAMILY is circular reasoning and illogical, nothing in the guidelines says to ignore reliable sources. -- GreenC 23:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria for biographies (see WP:BIO) is actually more nuanced than simply the GNG requirement of being significantly covered in reliable secondary sources; one must also be noted for something on their own a.k.a. not based on family affiliations. Not sure if they have to be "spectucular" per se, but it has to be something they alone are noted for. As previously indicated, he's pretty much only noted for being Kennedy, which isn't enough on its own for a separate article. Additionally, being mentioned in the press doesn't always make one notable per the policy WP:NOTNEWS. We have specific notability criteria for specific types of articles for a reason, so WP:BIO should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO is a Subject-specific guideline. According to WP:NOTE (top of page #1): "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". So yes it is simply about meeting GNG, though you are free to request otherwise if you can get consensus for it. The issue of NOTNEWS was correctly addressed by Kraxler 4 replies above. I believe we are spinning wheels here and repeating the same positions. -- GreenC 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've oversimplified it. First of all, "presumed to be notable" doesn't automatically mean "is notable". Secondly, there's more on the page that talks about instances where a bio isn't notable enough (such as WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:BIO1E, though it is WP:BIOFAMILY that applies here). I mention NOTNEWS because much of the pieces in the press are just for trivial things (i.e. Attending ceremony for 50th anniversary of JFK's death). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've oversimplified things. First of all, WP:BIOFAMILY doesn't automatically means "is not notable". Secondly, there are things on that page that don't apply here. -- GreenC 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums, it doesn't matter if some of the coverage in trivial. The coverage mentioned as passing the WP:GNG is all that matters, and that proves he is notable. Dream Focus 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "all that matters", especially when a person is only noted for family affiliations. Also, I wasn't saying every possible scenario listed in BIO applied; my point was that WP:BIOFAMILY indicates family affiliations by themselves are not enough for someone to have a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is getting ample coverage on his own. How he first got attention is irrelevant, he is now getting attention for achievements he does on his own. He has two sisters, but they don't get the coverage he does. Dream Focus 03:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Liz and DreamFocus, the borders are crossed on WP:BIOFAMILY when the coverage focuses on the PERSON instead of just having articles ON someone with a "Foo's brother Foo exists too and he has nice hair"! Seriously people can be the heavy focus of coverage just by having relations with highly notable people, his sister's don't get this kind of coverage so they fail WP:BIOFAMILY, sick of this new trend of removing people that are in real life encyclopedias just because they are the sister or daughter of someone more notable then them. Atleast this one went to AFD. GuzzyG (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me Schlossberg's entry in a "real-life" encyclopedia? I'm also not sure why the apparent overall quantity of coverage (regardless of depth) also seems to be outweighing quality (and depth) of coverage, when the latter is the underpinning of WP policy. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the 6th and 7th nomination, then delete on the 8th. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to eleven. -- GreenC 04:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iVote based on the well-known WP policy: Don't Cut Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face. ;-) I do understand all of the policy-related arguments for deletion. And shudder to think how may spotlight-seeking grand-children the Karsashians might collectively produce. However, in this case the article is well-sourced, it get upwards of 500 hits a day - all, I assume, wanting to know what JFK's only grandson is doing with his life. I simply fail to see the purpose of deleting the article. WP is here to offer reliable info about things people want to know about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schlossberg is notable. He has dozen of sources available and easily passes the GNG notability guidelines. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After examining the appended cites and running his name through search engines, there is no question that he possesses clear notability in his own right. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the topic is not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant Police Department (South Carolina)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. coverage is run of the mill in gnews and gbooks. there is no inherent notability based on the size or population served by a police department. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non notable org, can be covered in Mount Pleasant article —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am prepared to accept this satisfies GNG. "Run of the mill" is not a valid argument. As a plausible redirect to the Mount Pleasant article, this page is ineligible for deletion and should not have been nominated in the first place (WP:R). I would go so far as to urge a procedural close on that grounds alone. AfD isn't for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what a ludicrous statement, "this page is ineligible for deletion". You tried that on another AfD for a police department that got deleted. Trying to invent some make believe procedural clause fools no one especially a closing admin. And again you fail to provide sources to establish GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. User:James500 has not provided any substantive evidence that this article should be kept nor rebuttal why this article shouldn't be deleted.68.148.186.93 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As that deletion was a violation of the policy ATD, there was no valid counter argument against redirection, and AfD is not a vote, it is eligible to be sent to DRV. It is an outlier, a fluke, a mistake. Not all deletions are correct. Some admins use their tools incorrectly. The guideline NRVE makes it quite clear that I do not have to cite sources that you can find by putting "Mount Pleasant Police" or "Mount Pleasant Police Department" into GBooks and GNews. I'm sure you, LibStar, have already seen the hundreds of sources I've looked at and accepted as significant. The reason you don't accept them is because you construe GNG (which is almost completely subjective) in a more restrictive way than way than me in your subjective personal opinion which is different to mine. It is fairly obvious from your past voting that you expect a much higher level of coverage than I am prepared to accept, and that your opinions are so different to mine that there is no point in trying to convince you. Anonymous user, please don't send me echo notifications from this deletion sorting list: I look at it regularly. You might like to read or re-read the relevant policies and guidelines, as you don't seem to understand what they require me to do. James500 (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again, long winded rants and again can't be bothered with demonstrating sources. The whole idea that this is ineligible for deletion is a complete falsehood and raises concerns about your competency in AfDs. Like the sun coming up tomorrow, you'll respond with a long winded rant. LibStar (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is nonsense from start to finish. We know what you think. Now you should let other editors !vote on this, which won't happen if you keep oppose badgering in a way that will frighten them away from this AfD. James500 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. You're well known for badgering opposing views to yours in afds. The irony. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Coverage is very minimal, and what there is is pretty run-of-the-mill. Not every workplace needs an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 05:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's run-of-the-WP:MILL, no secondary sources in the article, one is the subject's own website, the other is dead. No coverage of the department can be found anyewhere, only the usual few trivial mentions. Fails alçso WP:ORGDEPTH. A redirect is out of the question because it's not a plausible search item: people dial 911, they don't look up the police department on Wikipedia. Anyway, the would land at the article on the city without any info beyond "the city has a police department"... Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That comment about redirection is utter nonsense. Of course people look up police departments on Wikipedia because they are interested in things like local history, how public money is being spent, whether public services are adequate and so forth. Not everyone in the world is a rabid anti-intellectual. There are not a few sources (a word that generally means something like "handful"), there seem to be hundreds in GNews and GBooks. A trivial mention is something like an entry in a phonebook, not large chunks of text like this. And that does provide us with something to say beyond "the city has a police department". James500 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 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 as article has noticeably improved. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Dickinson[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is fully notable; my searches with the best results were this, this and this with searches at British sources (BBC, Guardian & Telegraph) only finding two links. A search at The Sunday Times wouldn't be good because it needs a log-in (which happens to be one of the best listed sources). SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll add a few sources for this well-published and well-publicized British poet. The article is promotional and needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added reviews, criticism form high-brow Brit magazine and reviews, criticism form 2 major American dailies. The article still needs a major overhaul. But User:SwisterTwister, you might want to withdraw this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another case in which proper WP:BEFORE would have shown sources. Really, book reviews in the New York Times are not all that hard to discover in a quick search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there is a good thing in bringing articles up for AfD because they bring critical eyes to the content, help improve it. In this case, the poet is British but her impact seems to be greater in the US so it is somewhat harder to spot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable British poet, sufficient references, poetry books reviewed in NY Times and Chicago Tribune, article fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, cruft trimmed, sources upgraded as per WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Star Orchestra[edit]

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

I believe this appears notable and is apparently a well-known name in the Grateful Dead world but, as I'm unfamiliar and have no interest with this type of music, maybe others can give some input. Searches found results here, here, here and here which several of these can certainly help the article, but again, before using my time and efforts, I'd like to get input if this is acceptably notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – DSO has received lots of significant press coverage, thus passing WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Grateful Dead's music celebrated at Dark Star Jubilee". The Newark Advocate.
^ "Dark Star Orchestra channels Grateful Dead in Morristown". Daily Record.
^ "Dark Star Orchestra helps keep the Dead alive". stltoday.com.
^ "Preview: theCAUSE welcomes Dark Star Orchestra guitarist Mattson for Grateful Dead tribute". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
^ "Experience The Dead with Dark Star Orchestra". heraldonline.
^ "Dark Star Orhcester - New Hampshire". UnionLeader.com.
^ "Tribute band Dark Star Orchestra raises Grateful Dead for Stage AE show". TribLIVE.com.
^ "Dark Star Orchestra to resurrect the Grateful Dead at Greenfield Lake Amphitheater". luminanews.com.
^ "Lib at Large: Grateful Dead's music lives on in Dark Star Orchestra". marinij.com.
^ "Grateful Dead tribute band, Dark Star Orchestra, returns to State Bridge Saturday". The VailDaily.
^ "Bands pay tribute to the Grateful Dead and the Band". The Poughkeepsie Journal.
^ "Dark Star Orchestra brings Grateful Dead vibes to The Fillmore". ninertimes.com.

Keep. Bringing something you believe is notable to AfD to get help is a new one on me. The band's website contains many links to coverage, some of which is in reliable sources ([21]), and Google News in particular shows sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate notability, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and from GBooks: [28], [29], [30]. --Michig (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's obvious that this band meets the notability criterion. — Mudwater^(Talk) 11:35, 20 July 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.

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens[edit]

The result was Userfy, per request. I find it reasonable that BFP be given more time to work on this in their userspace, and find that to be a reasonable reading of consensus as arrived at here' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 July 2015‎

AfDs for this article:

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

I discovered this article during a discussion about how to organize topics related to infectious causes of cancer. You might think from the title that it's about actual infectious diseases, but it's not; that's in list of infectious diseases. This one is a list of diseases with possible (but unconfirmed) infectious etiologies. Almost none of the sources in here are anywhere near WP:MEDRS-compliant - which would be one thing if it were an article on the current state of scientific research on the topic, but it's not that either; it's just a very long list of purported associations, each of which is cited to sources that are some combination of primary, dated, and fringe. Only a small number of the entries are anything close to robust, reproducible observations. Furthermore, the article creator and primary author invested much of the rest of their wiki-time in POV-pushing about Morgellons, a WP:FRINGE topic. The previous AfD closed as no consensus and appears to be responsible for the long, defensively worded introduction that fairly screams "fringe".

I started to dig through this with the intention of trimming it and have given up. This needs WP:TNT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

violation of topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As the original creating author and major contributor of this page that is being considered for deletion, I would like to take part in this discussion. However, I am currently under a ban for the medical area of Wikipedia, and am not sure whether this ban prevents me from contributing to this discussion. The ban was put in place in July 2013, and I presume is still in force. (The ban resulted from a over-heated discussion on the Morgellons Disease talk page, where myself and others tried to get the pseudoscience extricated from that page, but the major editors there were intent on keeping the pseudoscience). Would anyone here know whether a medical ban excludes me from taking part in this AfD discussion? In any case, I understand that a ban may be lifted, and I will try to find out the most expedient way of appealing against a ban, in order to take part in this discussion. Drgao (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Drgao: I am fairly sure your topic ban does not apply to Articles for Deletion. In this case we're only talking about whether or not the article is notable enough to stay. Your participating in the discussion would not involve you editing any medicine-related pages. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

violation of topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As the original creating author and major contributor of this page that is being considered for deletion, I would like to take part in this discussion. However, I am currently under a ban for the medical area of Wikipedia, and am not sure whether this ban prevents me from contributing to this discussion. The ban was put in place in July 2013, and I presume is still in force. (The ban resulted from a over-heated discussion on the Morgellons Disease talk page, where myself and others tried to get the pseudoscience extricated from that page, but the major editors there were intent on keeping the pseudoscience).

Would anyone here know whether a medical ban excludes me from taking part in this AfD discussion?

In any case, I understand that a ban may be lifted, and I will try to find out the most expedient way of appealing against a ban, in order to take part in this discussion.

Drgao (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drgao: I am fairly sure your topic ban does not apply to Articles for Deletion. In this case we're only talking about whether or not the article is notable enough to stay. Your participating in the discussion would not involve you editing any medicine-related pages. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but is it possible to rename the article to something like, List of diseases possibly induced by infectious pathogens (or something better than "possibly"), so it's clear these are suspected, but not yet proven? I'm not an expert but I looked down the list and it seems legit, as I know in some cases with mysterious diseases, exposure to pathogens is theorized as a cause, and it says so in their respective articles. For example, Chronic fatigue syndrome#Pathophysiology states "infection by viruses and pathogenic bacteria" is a possible risk factor. I don't believe this to be WP:FRINGE since there is significant research into what causes these diseases, and new discoveries are being found. Additionally many editors have contributed to this article and it is heavily sourced. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is superficially well-sourced - in that there are a large number of footnotes to legitimate scientific papers - but by the standards of medical content, it is not well-sourced at all. Many of those publications are out of date or appear in journals that are not very selective about what they publish. Even the good ones are frequently primary sources, which in this context means the paper reports a single set of observations that may not yet have been reproduced. I don't mean to belabor the point but several of the keep votes in the prior AfD come from experienced contributors who voted based on a good-faith misunderstanding of how the scientific literature works in this topic area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a bunch of primary sources from borderline publications, basically a coatrack of fringieness. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for example For an infectious pathogenic microbe that has been noted to frequently accompany a disease, there are several logical possibilities that can explain this observed association: The pathogen is an "innocent bystander" that plays no causal role in the etiology of the disease, but for some reason is more prevalent in patients with the disease (perhaps because the disease compromises the immune response, for example). Germ theory denialism? In the 21st Century? The reality-based content of this is at List of infectious diseases, this title is redundant per the reality-based list, since the mechanism of infection is pathogens pretty much by definition. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's trying to deny the germ theory of disease. It seems more to me like a statement that "correlation is not necessarily causation". For example, there are some kinds of bacteria that appear in much greater numbers in dead people than in living people, but that doesn't mean the bacteria killed them. Mr Potto (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Potto is right; this is just a somewhat clumsily written attempt to acknowledge that associations may not be causal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

violation of topic ban Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Originally I never included these labored explanations of the technical terms "association" and "causation", but if you read the talk history of this page, you will see that some editors thought that the article would be misunderstood unless these things were very clearly explained. So that is why I put them in, for the benefit of the less scientifically literate. Judging by Jytdog's response below, he is an example of someone who does not appear to know what "association" means, so perhaps these labored explanations are useful for some people. Drgao (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

violation of topic ban Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Originally I never included these labored explanations of the technical terms "association" and "causation", but if you read the talk history of this page, you will see that some editors thought that the article would be misunderstood unless these things were very clearly explained. So that is why I put them in, for the benefit of the less scientifically literate. Judging by Jytdog's response below, he is an example of someone who does not appear to know what "association" means, so perhaps these labored explanations are useful for some people. Drgao (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~This article was created by a very respected editor Iztwoz, one of doctors who spends his time improving the encyclopedia.~~ Some of us have been trying to correct statements that are poorly sourced and removing material that is not supported by the reference. If it can't be salvaged, I would like to request instead that it be tagged that the references are outdated. I can probably pare it down to a stub ~~and then work with Iztwoz to insert appropriate references that meet MEDRs.~~

Bfpage |leave a message 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete or WP:TNT - no idea why Bfpage claims that I created the page. The only edit I made was to add missing word 'viruses' to a section! --Iztwoz (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iztwoz, I am so sorry. I had two browsers open and was reading the wrong edit history. Bfpage |leave a message 02:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have begun working on this article and so far have made at least 35 53 82 edits in response to the concerns so far described in this discussion. I would ask for more time to edit, and to provide appropriate sourcing.

Bfpage |leave a message 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, you've put a lot of work into this, but I really think your energies are better spent elsewhere. The content you're writing in the intro appears to be a general history of infectious disease medicine, which is interesting but not a topic that belongs in this particular article. Taking the contents of the list and adding sources where better ones can be found is progress, but the items in the list were cherry-picked according to poorly defined criteria by a user with known-bad judgment about medical content. Each item can be impeccably sourced and the article could still be wrong: a hallmark of irrecoverable WP:SYNTH issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is only a small (incomplete) section on the history of infectious disease and it is not part of the intro. The cherry-picking is being addressed in the editing. My goal in rescuing this article is to provide an encyclopedic article about some of the most common infectious pathogens and their sequelae.

Bfpage |leave a message 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE piece of garbage. I cannot emphasize that enough. garbage The problem is the loosey-goosey scope of "associated with", which could mean anything from lunatic charlatan claims to mildly FRINGE claims (like ALS has an infectious disease etiology) to things with decent but not certain evidence to things that are dead certain like the causal link between HPV and cervical cancer or HIV and AIDS. But this article is WP at its absolute worst. Please put this sick animal down, already. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

violation of topic ban; takes more than a "few editors'" opinions to lift a topic ban Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several editors said that I should be able to participate in this discussion, so I am going to do so: Jytdog, the phrase "associated with" has a very precise scientific meaning. I suggest you acquaint yourself with that scientific meaning before you go any further. It is a crucial point, and the fact that you don't understand it makes your vote and opinion look very uniformed. Drgao (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] There is no violation of a topic ban if these editors are correct in saying that the ban does not apply to the AfD. Unless you can show me a document that indicates it does, I would ask you not to tamper with my edits. To repeat what I said earlier: Jytdog, the phrase "associated with" has a very precise scientific meaning. I suggest you acquaint yourself with that scientific meaning before you go any further. It is a crucial point, and the fact that you don't understand it makes your vote and opinion look very uniformed. Drgao (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

violation of topic ban; takes more than a "few editors'" opinions to lift a topic ban Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Several editors said that I should be able to participate in this discussion, so I am going to do so:

Jytdog, the phrase "associated with" has a very precise scientific meaning. I suggest you acquaint yourself with that scientific meaning before you go any further. It is a crucial point, and the fact that you don't understand it makes your vote and opinion look very uniformed. Drgao (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of a topic ban if these editors are correct in saying that the ban does not apply to the AfD. Unless you can show me a document that indicates it does, I would ask you not to tamper with my edits.

To repeat what I said earlier:

Jytdog, the phrase "associated with" has a very precise scientific meaning. I suggest you acquaint yourself with that scientific meaning before you go any further. It is a crucial point, and the fact that you don't understand it makes your vote and opinion look very uniformed. Drgao (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep to give time for Bfpage to work on it and see how it turns out. Mr Potto (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "associated with" catch-all is just too vague and slippery to ever make for a useful list; instead, this article will continue to be a magnet for collecting dubious fringe and conspiracy theories. Where there is credible evidence (or even widely-recognized and -discussed speculation, for diseases of unknown etiology) then infectious theories of origin should be handled in the articles about those diseases. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then this discussion can be applied to the article, List of infectious diseases. Same idea, less text, no references, just wikilinks.

Bfpage |leave a message 22:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a bunch of sources of varying reliability that make various strength claims of association being compiled into a topic. Unless this can be based off of reliable third party source discussing the topic itself then this article is nothing but original research through synthesis. Chillum 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~This article needs substantial work. The list needs to be more than just a single primary source claiming an association. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been removing primary sources where I find them, replacing them with sources that meet the guidelines of MEDRs.

Bfpage |leave a message 22:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy to Bfpage Agree that this article causes confusion. Some of these are directly cause and well accepted to be cause by an infection. Others are believed to be triggered by an infection but not to be directly due to one. Others are just loss associations that are not accepted by the mainstream medicine. Mixing all three just causes confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully request that I be allowed to continue to work on this article by the closing administrator by placing this article in my draft space. I believe that there is a need for an article on this topic. The contentiousness between the two topic-banned editors has 'muddied' the waters and has possibly affected the discussion. I appreciate all the time, opinions, concerns and comments provided by those participating in this discussion. I have nothing but respect for those of you who have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia regarding medical content. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two topic banned editors? I thought there was only 1. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchi Love[edit]

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

Delete: thoroughly non-notable actress. A joke of an article. Quis separabit? 03:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I would not call her thoroughly non-notable, nor the article a joke. The Japan Action Club is still a significant force in Japan, having been founded by Sonny Chiba (Kill Bill) and creating such big stars as Hiroyuki Sanada (The Last Samurai, Lost, The Wolverine) and Etsuko Shihomi. Not everyone there was a star, however. Mitchi Love appeared in about 9 television shows [31], with her most significant role being in JAKQ Dengeki Tai. She also appeared in about 3 or 4 films depending on the database [32]. Since her career was mainly in the 1970s, net searches don't come up with much, but a search of Oya Soichi Bunko, which is the only place that indexes popular magazines, comes up with four hits, mostly gravure photo spreads in Asahi Geino or other tabloids. In general, it seems that for a few years in the 1970s, she was a minor, but not insignificant action idol. Still, I don't think that is enough to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, unless someone else can find better evidence. Michitaro (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor actor, with no indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 22 July 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 indentured servitude. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish slave trade[edit]

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

There was no Irish chattel slavery in the Americas. There was indentured servitude, and there is a huge difference between the two. For starters, Irish indentured servants were people with legal rights whose services were under contract, and they could go to court if the terms if their contracts were violated; slaves were considered property, and could not give testimony in court. Irish indentured servants did not pass that status on to their children; slavery was automatically passed from mother to child. When an indentured servant's contract ended, the person typically received a "freedom package" that included land and money so they could set up a farm for themselves; slaves' terms of service lasted for as long as their master owned them, without terms and conditions and typically for as long as the slave lived. Slaves could be put up for auction or bid on and sold like cattle; indentured servants signed contracts of service and those contracts of service could sometimes change hands between employers, but the servants themselves were not property to be sold, leased, and re-sold. And so on and so forth.

The sources contained within the article detailing this "Irish slave trade" I trust about as far as I can throw them.

As AlexMC pointed out in the talk page, Rhetta Akamatsu (author of The Irish Slaves: Slavery, indenture and Contract labor Among Irish Immigrants) is a self-designated "certified paranormal investigator," and so her credibility is a problem. As is the credibility of Michael Hoffman, the author of They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold Story of Enslavement of Whites in Early America; Hoffman is a Holocaust denier and a notorious conspiracy theorist, and I could make the argument it was his book that started this whole "Irish/white slave trade" nonsense back in 1993. Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl by Kate McCafferty is a fictional novel, and so it is beyond me why that is considered an authoritative source. Finally, the article The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves by John Martin (if such a person even exists) is hosted on globalresearch.ca, a site that is a notorious hub for conspiracy theories revolving around 9/11 and Holocaust denial.

That essentially leaves To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland by Sean O'Callaghan and White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh. These at least try to treat the issue of Irish indentured servitude in the Americas with a modicum of seriousness, but their repetitive conflations of chattel slavery and indentured servitude undermines much of their work. I submit the following article for a more in-depth rebuttal of the arguments contained in these books: http://www.academia.edu/9475964/The_Myth_of_Irish_Slaves_in_the_Colonies EricSpokane (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and try again: no agitprop on this encyclopaedia. The ugliest sections of history can be and are dealt with on Wikipedia, but without sensationalist wording and titling. Quis separabit? 11:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FRINGE theory. I recently read the Jordan and Walsh book which is actually a good account by two journalists of just how bad indentured servitude could be, but even the authors admit that they are deviating from the use of "slavery" by mainstream historians. In the introduction, they note that "It invites uproar to describe as slaves any of these hapless whites ..." (p. 14) but then goes on to note: "Of course, black slavery had hideous aspects that whites did not experience ...." (p. 15) This attempt to redefine "slavery" to include indentured servitude and to contrast this with a new "black slavery" that had even more "hideous aspects" is not a usage that mainstream historians have adopted. EricSpokane deals with the other less than reliable sources above. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge) to indentured servitude, using this for a section on where the servants came from. In view of the existence of books using the term "slave", the title is a potential search term, and leaving a redirect will prevent inadvertent re-creation. Irish rebels, The Scots army defeated at the Battle of Worcester, and English criminals (follwoing comutation of a death sentence) were transported to America, where they were forced inot indentujted service for 7 years. This is something rather different from the lifetime perpetual slavery imposed on African chattel-slaves. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are unreliable, and reliable sources that would support such an article don't exist. Historians are very clear, and very much in agreement, that "Irish Slavery" is misnomer. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after some POV cleanup) and redir likely search strings, per Peterkingiron. It's amazing that we don't have at least an article section on Irish indentured servitude in the Americas in particular, given the role that played in Irish–American history. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir likely search strings, per Peterkingiron, per SMcCandlish, there's a place for a section on this subject, and a redirect with a decent and well sourced finish will add clarity to the issue and at least provide context, deletion for the specious reasons listed above are reactionary as per me on the talk page. Deletion as a reaction just invites further editing conflicts. There's a need for a section on this and there are plenty of articles and sources that provide a decent series of arguments. It can be shown that indentured servants in the early stages of colonization lived (if they lived) through a harrowing experience, and the Irish have to add early English ethnocentrism and bigotry to that burden, while making the easy distinction of servitude from the developing American form of chattel slavery, which was not the only form of slavery in use in the world at the time of colonization of the Americas. Robbie.johnson (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete, and move to "White slave trade to America" - I was to quick when I found those sources (and did a very bad job when I first made this article in general I can see!). This does not mean that the other ones are invalid, and I think you should read about the subject before you make a decision. If we delite the sources and call it "White slave trade to America" it would be better. Because we have two credible sources on this subject. In the book the author have written about many different people being forcefully shipped off to the new world and being treated horrificly. While not chattel slavery, it were by defention slavery. Many others sold their labour, indentured servitude, for many years to sail over to the new world, they were treaten very badly by their "owners". Often black slaves and white "slaves", not chattel, rebelled against their owners together. Read more, preview of the book: https://books.google.no/books?id=KjOIEDCpxsQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=no#v=onepage&q&f=false Olehal09 (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "white slave trade to America" article would be deleted just as fast as this one. Faster, maybe, because the vast majority of reliable sources make it very clear that no such thing ever existed. Right now there are two sources in the article that meet even wikipedia's most basic standard for a reliable source, and that counts for very little when a huge amount of academic scholarship tells a completely different story. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix, The Academic field on the subject is not of one mind. The American academy leans toward your position, but the American academy is at least partially compromised because American race relations are currently at such a sensitive impasse. The British, while admitting near slave conditions, also minimize most atrocities to a condition of "Yes, yes that happended in the Imperial period." The Irish national narrative is divided between the traditional oppressed / and new deconstruction movements, but like most decolonized regions and conquered peoples, freely use the words enslaved and slavery. And the Caribbean Schools actually favour a postion that Caribbean servitude and slavery had a near identical lived experience in the 17th century up until the solidification of Restoration Governance. Allowing that the original article certainly needs a complete reworking, and without even approaching the fact that there are certainly distinctions between bound servants and african slaves, the status, treatment, outlook, and lived experience of all servants in the early period of colonization is far more contentious academically than you are making it out. This is what is actually born out in the English Language discourse. Let's work tidy, shall we? Robbie.johnson (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Show me some contemporary, academic references that take the idea of "Irish slavery" seriously then. If the situation is as you suggest, then you should be able to cite some specific sources to back up your position. Please do so. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment is only being put up to complete the debate, not change the result. I recommended merging as well) ANY of the contemporary sources worth their salt take the idea of Irish Slavery seriously. Nini Rodgers ^[1] or Akensen's ^[2] or Beckles' ^[3] or Dunn's Sugar and Slaves, or the work from the New Americans like Jenny Shaw. The issue is not to conflate Irish experience and the Black Experience for American Political Points. Or to dignify the conflation , but the Issue is to compare and contrast and find out why the Meme or trope of the irish as slaves exists, and has existed for hundreds of years, and why it's there, why it keeps going, and why it started. Rodgers notes in her book that conquered and colonized peoples use the word slavery, or enslaved often and the Irish are no different. Akenson, notes that the Irish were just as prone to be abusers as abused, and after going after Beckles at first, saying that on Monserrat there's a "Universe of difference between servant and slave" admits pages later that the lived experience of Irish and Black unfree labour on Barbados was strikingly similar, except that the Irish eventually had an out. Beckles calls all servants with no recourse to bettering their positions proto-slaves and takes the idea of the Irish as mistreated very seriously enough to answer and show exactly what is accurate in their cultural history of oppression and what isn't. Jenny Shaw and Kirsten Block have redefined the terms in their work, Subjects without an Empire, talking about the period before the slave codes were written as Unfree and Free labour. So any scholar of note, and there are more I could quote, takes the trope very seriously, and rather than simply dismissing it, and throwing more tropes and misinformation (i.e. Servants' Children being born free, they certainly weren't supposed to have kids at all, and the kids who were born and immediately indentured until adulthood. ) at it, they deal with the root causes of the idea, and explain the reasoning behind it. So, I have done so. Hopefully to your satisfaction And as the debate is over and the page has been merged, if you need more sources or explanations so you can accurately answer questions about the topic, hit me up on the talk page. Cheers. Robbie.johnson (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sources deny that such a trade existed, two says it did. They just lumped the slaves with indentured servants and didn't call them what they by definiton should have been. Olehal09 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE a per WP:FRINGE. There was no trade in Irish slaves to the Americas. There was Indentured servant. These two things are not the same. Calling indentured servitude "slavery" is a way to push a POV. Not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 27 July 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.