< 10 May 12 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Gajendragarh. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gajendragad[edit]

Battle of Gajendragad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did some research on this and I could not find proof of this battle. Tipu Sultan seems to have been somewhere else when this so called battle is proposed to have happened. According to this source Haripant marched onto Gajendragad, where the fort surrendered (page 53)[1]. No details are given on the nature of the supposed surrender. There are no details of a fight between the Marathas and Tipu Sultan here. As suggested from this source, Tipu Sultan could not have engaged with the Marathas at Gajendragad as he was busy advancing on Adoni (Siege of Adoni) (see page 53)[2]. Was it simply a surrender or did an actual battle happen? This is an important question. Since I do not see evidence of a battle occurring, I do not see the point of keeping it. The 100,000 and 80,000 figures also seem implausible. Also, do not associate the so called "Battle of Gajendragad (1786)" with the so called "Treaty of Gajendragad (1787)" as the peace agreement (that some sources call the "Treaty of Gajendragad") follows the Siege of Bahadur Benda, and is not related to the so called Battle of Gajendragad. Xtremedood (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's got a 2-day block, which would have him back in plenty of time. Nha Trang Allons! 15:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no objection to a redirect either. From what I saw of the sources I could find, there doesn't seem to be much beyond "This side took the town," which sounds like unimprovable stub to me. Nha Trang Allons! 15:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gajendragarh seems legitimate. Xtremedood (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa bin Khalid Al Hamed[edit]

Khalifa bin Khalid Al Hamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP about a 28 year old businessman from Abu Dhabi. Sourced with a linkedin page and the companies webpage. A claim of beeing a member of the royal family is sourced with a picture. Fails WP:BASIC for notability. Ben Ben (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - should been handled with ((db-author)). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgem Amamentando[edit]

Virgem Amamentando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wrong site! Intended to create it on ptwiki! José Luiz talk 23:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4K.com[edit]

4K.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Other than having had some of its content picked up by news aggregators, this website (which is less than a year old) has no secondary source coverage and no claim to notability. Agtx (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cominform.com[edit]

Cominform.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Secondary sources cited seem to be nothing more than directory entries. No evidence of media coverage. Agtx (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The sources are scanned and uploaded since they are published in German. The are quite independent of the sources if you check well. The company only reserves them for future reference since there are no such sources in English Media. Remember, the firm is 100% German.Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Club Penguin. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puffle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Puffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, mostly because I don't what the article is about Fuddle (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Ramírez (Panamanian pitcher)[edit]

Ramón Ramírez (Panamanian pitcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a bunch of routine stories about a local athlete. GNG requires a lot more than that. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read them, have you? Nha Trang Allons! 15:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read them. They're the standard type of stories that any decent athlete receives in his home city. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any given year, there are over 7,000 players in MLB and MiLB, and this guy was never one of them. He's a local "decent athlete" who pitched one inning for a low-level WBC team, and nothing more. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He also played in two Baseball World Cups and a Pan American Games as I noted above. Spanneraol (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but he's still nothing more than a decent local athlete. He played in four allegedly significant tournaments but didn't impress MLB teams to the point of cracking the ranks of the 7,000 players in MLB and MiLB. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Bbny get so angry and hostile when things don't go his way? Alex (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me, but he's not the first one from the baseball wikiproject who goes into a tizzy at the notion that ANYone other than a Major! League! Ballplayer! could meet notability standards. Me, my Spanish is pretty good, and I'm satisfied that those Panamanian sources are good. Nha Trang Allons! 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see Alex is as good at reading anger as he is at comprehending GNG. Which is, of course, not very good at all. As for Nha Trang, I never said the sources weren't good. I said it was local coverage that didn't meet GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Sabertooth[edit]

Captain Sabertooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tagged for four years, no significant reliable sources exist only a imdb page and a trivial mention. Fails WP:GNG Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a picture of the bread! Hordaland, do you currently live in Norway? Basically I think it'd be cool to have a picture of that on Wikipedia, so if you could take a picture or have someone else take one that'd be awesome. (Also, how cool is it that there is Simpsons themed bread?) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! And can you also help translate the Norwegian Wikipedia page? I can do some of the stuff that isn't as reliant on the person being fluent, like the cast lists, but the bulk of the article would need someone who can translate the particulars. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I live in Hordaland :) I don't want to get into a BIG translation project. Maybe you could e-mail me passages of interest?
That picture you found was in an evaluation of "children's" breads. The advice: use them only for special occasions & don't believe anyone who tells you that children don't like rye and other coarse, dark breads with high fiber content. --Hordaland (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full Force[edit]

Full Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Per WP:BAND #2. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Force MDs[edit]

Force MDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC Joseph2302 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTFO[edit]

UTFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable band, fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep due to withdrawan by nominator. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clark County Courier[edit]

Clark County Courier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Ormr2014 (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point, Mrschimpf, is that it takes much more than simply being a newspaper to justify notability and the Clark County Courier has not established notability in any way whatsoever. WP:BEFORE|Ormr2014]] (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mrschimpf has a point, when a newspaper has existed for over a century, a WP:BEFORE search is almost certain to turn up sources. Ormr2014, you might want to so a little more searching, and consider withdrawing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory Prior to nominating the article I did searches in general, news and so on and went through several pages of results. All I found were a couple self-published excerpts about the newspaper, some Yellowpages ads, a Facebook profile, a couple local directories and a bunch of totally unrelated stuff. If someone can dig up some valid sources that illustrate notability, I will happily withdraw this nomination. But otherwise, it stands. Ormr2014 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ormr2014 I do take your point about contemporary newspapers, it is entirely possible for someone to start a newspaper (print or web) and have it fold after a few issues or even years without attaining notability. It is, however, impossible for a newspaper to exist in an American town for over a century without RS of its existence. I believe that a listing by the South Dakota Newspaper Association (sdna.com) validates this article sufficiently. As does the fact that a quick search shows that stories in the Courier are used as reliable sources by other Dakota papers. I did, however, add a couple of other sources. Papers this old always turn up in stuffy, old-time histories, Gazeteers, and state legislative registers. I would, btw, be extremely intrigued if anyone actually found a century-old American small town newspaper that could not be sourced. I didn't mean to give you a hard time here. It just seemed like an AFD that didn't really need to happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kangol Kid[edit]

Kangol Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Notability has been up for 6 years, seems time to decide. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to keep based on additional information. Thanks for the effort. --Finngall talk 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vibe, NY Post, and Live Drays are hardly "reputable" sources.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
Say what? Vibe is a respected venue of music journalism, founded by Quincy Jones. I think it qualifies as perfectly respectable. The New York Post dates to 18-oh-frigging-one. It's suitable enough for a reputable source for establishing notability here. The other one is a bit sketchy. But you can't knock the Vibe or the NY Post. People may have political reasons to argue with the post's editorial stance, and it teeters on the sensationalistic side, but it isn't Joe Nobody's Music Blog. It'll do for this purpose. --Jayron32 02:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "UTFO's Kangol Kid Sparks Hip Hop Breast Cancer Awareness Movement". BET.com. 4 October 2011.
  2. ^ "Kangol Kid of U.T.F.O. Becomes First Rap Artist to be Honored by the American Cancer Society". Vibe.
  3. ^ "Rapper's 1984 hit song at center of librarian lawsuit". New York Post.
  4. ^ "Learn the Business Behind Hip Hop". News One.
  5. ^ "Hip-Hop Artists to Wait Tables for Breast Cancer Awareness". BET.com. 11 October 2011. (short article)
  • That's occasional coverage. An award from the Cancer Society doesn't make one a notable rap artist. We don't need to set the bar lower than it already is. And if we want to be precise, since three of your articles are cancer-related, perhaps you're indicating the notability of "Kangol's support of breast cancer awareness". Drmies (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not sure a merge would work very well. Half of the current Kangol Kid article is about his producing / writing activities separate from UTFO, which would either have to be discarded as unimportant or tacked into UTFO where they aren't entirely relevant. Dragons flight (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point there. Most of the coverage centers around the subject's involvement with UTFO, though.
Of note is that the subject also arguably meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #7, as having been "...one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city", as per (in the Kangol Kid article) "UTFO became one of the most popular rap and breakdance acts in the country on the strength of their breakout single, "Roxanne, Roxanne" and (in the UTFO article) “Roxanne, Roxanne” was ranked number 84 on VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of Hip Hop." North America1000 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, this article has been vastly neglected in terms of providing sources, but there are more than enough sources that can verify this person's notability as per Dragons flight, and North America's sources show. (New York Post not reputable? It is a media pioneer founded in 1801). Oppose merge to UTFO. It is common for a lead musician to be mentioned individually, especially after a band-breakup; other ventures may arise such as charitable work etc. (See: Wyclef Jean; Travie McCoy). Kangol Kid was also featured in an episode documentary of Unsung.[1] List of Unsung episodes#Season 8. I haven't heard a compelling argument other than its lack of sourcing. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IMBD Kangol Kid

Keep - Squeaks by. BMK (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Being Human[edit]

The Art of Being Human (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Squeak. The detailed demolishment of sourcing here hasn't been well refuted and I cannot see a consensus based on argument that this person passed GNG. That said, Redirect/merge is a better outcome for marginally non-notable content then delete and that argument best fits community expectations as well as reflecting the groundswell that this subject has some merit. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Raab[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andreas Raab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG (specifically seeing no WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RSs), WP:NACADEMICS (no evidence of meeting any of these criteria), WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Of current sources (at time of nom), the few that actually relate to him are his dissertation and blog posts, community wiki articles, mailing list messages, and other sites allowing self-published content. Google scholar shows some papers, though very few where he was the lead author on. He shares his name with a few other scientists in other fields so look out for those when you look at google scholar. ― Padenton|✉   20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still insist the reliable independent secondary sources simply don't exist to support notability under WP:GNG. However, this Google scholar search shows a total citation count (also used in academia) of 979, which I will accept as do not think is sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC. Msnicki (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm switching back to delete. I've been struggling with this and on reflection, I just honestly do not believe this individual is notable under our definition. Itsmeront has made the discussion so personal that it's been hard for me focus purely on the evidence over my desire to get as far away from this unpleasant person as as fast I can. He's taken both Padenton and me to ANI and he's still insisting he was justified and still complaining that we're the ones who are overzealous, even after it's became clear he was completely wrong on the facts of whether this Raab AfD could possibly have been retaliation. (I tagged it before nominating Nim to AfD and long before I had ever hear of Itsmeront.)
When people raise questions about my decisions or about whether I've been fair, my natural inclination is a lot different today than it would have been in my 20s. Then, I'd have gotten defensive and it would have been hard to admit I was wrong. At 64, I know I'm wrong all the time. It's part of being human. But I also know that if I am wrong, the best thing to do is correct the error as quickly as possible. The only mistakes people really remember are the ones you refuse to admit. So I tend to bend over backwards trying to see it their way. This is also why anyone who looks at my contribution history will see a fair number of !vote changes at AfD when new arguments and new evidence is offered. I try very hard never to hold onto an opinion just because that's what I used to think.
In the case at hand, I tagged the article but did not nominate it, in contrast to nominating Nim an hour later, because I thought it was borderline. The sourcing was completely insufficient. But unlike Nim, for which I could see there were clearly no acceptable sources, it looked like proper sources might exist for this subject. In determining notability, we consider only whether sources exist, not whether they've been cited. So while I didn't find any at the time, it seemed possible, given his accomplishments, that if I kept looking, maybe they were out there. All it take is two good sources, which is not asking a lot. Now I know, pretty much as a matter of plain fact, that multiple reliable independent sources actually about the subject do not exist. They just don't. Interviews do not count, especially from the organization you work with. Just getting your name into one sentence of an article does not count. Blogs and other WP:SPS sources do not count. None of that stuff counts and when you take away all that unhelpful stuff, there is just plain nothing left.
So why the switch and switch back? Well, fundamentally, I felt pressured, even a bit bullied. This whole discussion (actually any discussion involving Itsmeront) has become so unpleasant that I really want out. I enjoy AfDs because we have a crisp set of guidelines that I think are quite cleverly constructed to support our WP:Five Pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: ... Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents. I enjoy dissecting the evidence to see if we've cleared the hurdle. It's usually a fun, intellectual exercise.
But this one has not been that. When things become so personal and I find myself accused of being wrong and carrying out vendettas, it's hard for me now, at 64, not to consider maybe I am wrong. Can I look at the evidence from their point of view? By now I know that if you are wrong, it's really, really helpful to concede as quickly as you can. When MarkBernstein !voted keep, I took that seriously because I respect his opinion and, frankly, I just wanted a reason to change my !vote and get the heck out of here.
I just can't do it. (Sorry, Mark, though I still respect your opinion.) Our guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC suggest considering citation counts in the way a research university might consider them in tenure decisions. Tenure comes with the associate professor title and if you have the PhD to go along with it, I think 1000 citations cumulative would be enough to make associate professor and tenure at most places. But (a) there are LOTS of associate professors for every full professor, (b) we have an "Average Professor Test" that asks that the subject stand out from average and (c) I put those together to conclude that we consider the kinds of citations that would be considered in tenure decision but should insist on more than it takes merely for tenure. I think you could get tenure with 1000 citations spread across a pile of papers. But I don't think a 1000 citations cumulatively is at all remarkable. I still think a significant paper or book is one with over 1000 citations. It just is. And this subject hasn't got one of those and his cumulative citation count just isn't good enough.
The problem here is one that's common in technical fields. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Our work is often much better known than we are. People write about our work. They do not write about us. This is just the way it is. If getting people to write about you is an important life goal, perhaps a career as a porn star or an athlete might be a better choice. Unfortunately, this subject is not a porn star or an athlete and while I'm satisfied his work may be notable, I am convinced he is not.
At this point, I've said everything I'm going to. I am very weary of this debate and very definitely of the way Itsmeront has made something that should be a fun intellectual discussion into something so personal. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Msnicki for your comments. It seems clear that many people believe that Raab was notable, more than his association to famous people. Those famous people themselves thought very highly of Raab and his accomplishments, introducing him in prestigious events, giving him credit, listing him as a primary creator to famous journalists. Raab was not an academic, he was a brilliant programmer, that made a significant contribution to the field of computer science. Arguing his paper count or his citations would have given him a chuckle. He was not a professor, nor did he want to be one. He was hired by one of the greats and spent his life working with others that were equally accomplished spectacular developers. When he went back to Germany to get married and have children he was immediately hired by the SAP global innovation team because, unlike you, they could see his contributions to programming. Croquet is not just a paper. It is a revolutionary idea thought up by one of the inventors of the internet. It was championed by Kay and developed into a working model by Raab and Smith. I mentioned before that I could go into the details about why it has not yet become the significant contribution that it will become in the future, but I'm not sure you are interested in the actual content, as opposed to the numbers. My biggest complaint is the refusal to read the content and understand it, not just in published papers but in expert blogs. Notice that Mark Bernstein also said

Significant contributions to the research literature and to development of a very significant system.

. I could go on and try to make nice and tell you that I'm not 20, and that my attempts to de-escalate this have been met by you basically calling me an idiot. I didn't even respond to that comment of yours, figuring I was wasting my time, but now I think I will at least do that, simply by saying that, I'm glad you at least read the articles you pointed me to on your talk page. Itsmeront (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've said I find you unpleasant but then again, after someone takes you to ANI, I think it's okay to say that. I did not call you an idiot. What I actually said, was You've consistently questioned my good faith based on absolutely nothing except your own baseless paranoia and wildly over-optimistic assessment of your own competence in an AfD. If you ever decide to buy into the guidelines, stop personalizing everything, improve your writing and adherence to simple guidelines requests (like don't edit your comments after they've been responded to without using <s> and <ins> tags) and stopped your infernal filibustering, you might become someone I wouldn't mind encountering. Right now is a different story. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, as I said you basically called me an idiot inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. I'm not complaining, you are welcome to your opinion, it just tells me I'm wasting my time. I will take the suggestion about <s> and <ins>. I used it in the past but wasn't aware of it's importance to editors. Thank you for pointing it out. Itsmeront (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources on scholar for which the subject is an author are WP:PRIMARY, making them unhelpful in establishing notability even if they were published in reliable publications. If the subject's papers were widely cited, we might be able to make an argument for notability under WP:ACADEMIC but unfortunately, they are not widely cited. In computer science, a widely-cited paper is generally considered to be one with over 1000 citations but the most-cited paper by this author has only 150 citations. I don't think that's enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's also the third author in that paper. In Computer Science, authors are typically ordered by the size of their contribution, so there's little suggesting that his contribution to that paper was significant. That was the highest citation count I saw. ― Padenton|✉   04:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, but I think that VPRI and its predecessor Squeak Central research groups did not follow the CompSci convention of author order, and in any case, the main Croquet and Squeak papers with four or five authors seem to have had equal contributions. Also Kay et al publish a disproportionately small number of peer-reviewed papers compared to their importance: they seem happy to self-publish, which I think is the only requirement of their NSF funding. Could someone please confirm, or refute, or even better, back this up with a citation? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what order do you think they did use? It wasn't alphabetic on any of those papers that come up on scholar. Do you think it was age or beauty? I think it's most likely they followed the same convention followed everywhere else, in order of contribution. Anyway, the point was that we might have tried to establish notability as an WP:ACADEMIC based on citations but I don't the evidence is there for us to do that. Msnicki (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for VPRI and Squeak Central research groups not using the author order convention for computer science, do you have anywhere I could look at this? The paper I looked at did not seem to indicate Raab had a significant role in the work. ― Padenton|✉   15:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VPRI is the research arm of Kay. They exist still and are doing amazing work in the field of the reinvention of programming. Squeak and Squeak Central started at Disney and was an outgrowth of the invention of Object-Oriented programming invented by Kay. Raab worked for both Disney and for VPRI directly under Kay. In general you will probably find Raab listed after Smith and Kay and Reed listed in that order. Kay is obviously the most notable, but the least involved. He likes to say, "I invent and then move on to other issues". Reed was little involved but consulted frequently in these papers. It was his dissertation that was the original inspiration for Croquet. The work was done primarily by Smith and Raab. The contributions were probably equal when it comes to Smith and Raab but Smith was more notable and he tended to take the lead in business, funding, and articles. This article [[11]] lists Raab second, as I would expect, not sure what article is showing him third. I would expect him to be either second or fourth, but not because of his participation, more a matter of deference to who came to the problem space first. Itsmeront (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a number of additional Thrid-party reliable sources. Itsmeront (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added information about when Barak Obama was shown the software which Andreas Raab was a primary author. Itsmeront (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your claim, There are a lot of reliable independent secondary sources that have been cited, can you kindly identify at least two of them that satisfy our guidelines' definition of reliable, independent and secondary? That excludes anything written by the subject as primary or published by the Squeak project where he worked as not independent and any blogs or other self-published sources as not reliable. I understand that you disagree with our guidelines, and you are entitled to your opinion. So I'm not asking that you agree with our guidelines' definitions nor do I wish to debate them with you. I am merely asking if you can identify any sources you believe satisfy those definitions. I don't believe there are any. Msnicki (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the noise I have moved my comments to here Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Itsmeront (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz Read! Talk!Thank you for your comments. I have removed the Eulogies. Itsmeront (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think that there is still some room for improvement to have a fully fleshed out article, I think that this page meets the notability standard and the extraneous information, more suitable for a memorial page, has been removed. Liz Read! Talk! 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I've overlooked something that you've spotted. Which of the sources do you rely on as reliable, independent and secondary as required by WP:GNG? I did not find any. Msnicki (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NinjaRobotPirate (talk) [article translated] I saw that article but it's really just a memorial on his death. Andreas was german and was educated in Germany but he spent most of his life in the USA, working with Alan Kay, and David A. Smith. He did return to Germany and met his wife and decided to stay there only about a year or so before his death. When he moved back to Germany he joined the SAP global innovation team. Calling him a German programmer is not quite accurate. He was more a German - Programmer in the USA. Itsmeront (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki (talk) claims: In computer science, a widely-cited paper is generally considered to be one with over 1000 citations[edit]

Msnicki (talk) can you please cite Wikipedia editorial policy that backs up your assertion that papers require 1000 citations to be notable. And to be clear here you are not arguing Reliability since Andreas has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources including books and was the author on peer-reviewed published journal articles, is that correct? Itsmeront (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not a policy question. We only have a small number of policies. Everything else is a guideline. (C.f., WP:POLICYLIST) And our guidelines do not specify an exact threshold, they offer only guidance, so I'm offering you my opinion, based on the guidelines. From WP:ACADEMIC#Specific criteria notes:
  • The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
    • To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.
:
  • ... The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure.
We can get some guidance from the yearly citation thresholds it took make it into the top 1% of most cited paper Archive.org's snapshot of the Science Watch thresholds as of 2009. (They've since removed this information from their public website; they want you to pay for it.) They explained their methodology here but basically, what you see there is that for a CS paper to make it into the top 1% at, say, the 5 year mark, takes 39 citations. By the 10 year mark, it should have 70 citations. But this is only to make into the top 1%. There are THOUSANDS of papers published every year and 1% of those is still thousands. As you move up in rarity to the top .1% or top .01%, the citation counts become staggering. For example, Martin Hellman's New Directions paper on public key encryption has over 13,000 citations.
In real life, I'm on the faculty in the EE department at a local university so I also have some first-hand knowledge how academics regard citations. In my informal, completely unscientific experience, 1000 seems to be threshold where academics begin to take notice. But even 1000 is not that big. I have a paper of my own with over 1100 citations and I don't think anyone (certainly not me!) would seriously argue that should make me notable. (If you're concerned to verify the claim, send me email and I'll privately disclose my identity and give you the reference.) 150 citations is just nothing.
Separately, I notice you have been adding more sources. Most seem to be more of the same WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY junk as in the past and I'm not interested and don't have the time to follow a zillion links to check every one of them. But it only takes two good sources to get me to change my !vote to keep. I follow the guidelines. I do not carry out vendettas. If somewhere in that pile you have two that really do meet the guidelines definition of reliable, independent and secondary (not your preferred definition) and they're actually about the subject, please identify them. If you've got two good sources, I promise to change my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, they are very helpful. This means that Raab papers by your numbers make it into the top 1%. Additionally by the numbers it seems that the most relevant articles don't necessary get the most citations. [Google Scholar ECC] I work in cryptography so I thought I'd verify your numbers with something I know something about. Notice that the most relevant articles the original research are only cited a total of 40 times. There are other articles about the work with references much higher as you point out. I would say that in this particular field of synchronization protocol the overall impact of the new protocol is not fully understood yet. I can go into the reasons for this with you if you like. To understand why Croquet is notable, you have to understand what Croquet is. Please note that even President Obama has seen the software. That seems notable.
To answer your question [Squeak: Open Personal Computing and Multimedia] is a book about Squeak not written by Raab, but about his work. He was a major part of that community writing a majority of the software himself. [INFOQ] is a third party publication covering his work on the Squeak VM for Android. [Boston University Croquet workshop demonstrates revolutionary computer software] is a third-party review. [ECOOP 2003 - Object-Oriented Programming: 17th European ..., Volume 17] is a third-party acknowledgment on his work on traits which is a multiple inheritance implementation for Object Oriented programming. Itsmeront (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for wasting my time. I honestly can't tell if you don't understand our guidelines or just choose not to. I looked at each of these sources and not one of them qualifies. If you had read and understood our guidelines (even if you don't agree with them) you should have known that. Not one does more than mention the subject's name. That is the essence of a trivial mention and it is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already given you references in peer-reviewed journals about his work in computer graphics, software for the blind, etoys, tweak, Traits and Croquet which you say is not notable but that I belive qualify under " a number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.". I have shown you a number of books that have referenced him. In this case, I was trying to follow up with additional third-party sources that mention him. We have already provided proof that Andreas was a major part of the Squeak Community, he was hired by Kay, was a the leader of the community and majority creator of the Squeak Software itself. The published book on Squeak shows notability of the subject that he was so intimately connected with. The other references were Third party coverage of him specifically. It seems that what we disagree with is the number of citations. By your own count, the citations on his papers put him in the 1% of published papers. Hopefully, the other keeps and opinions on the necessity of over 1000 citations will be enough to vote you down because you are correct I certainly disagree with you. Itsmeront (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes (Specifically the first one) and further down the page at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics.
As for books:
  1. Books are not automatically reliable sources and only credible and authoritative books give evidence supporting notability. "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
  2. Any source being used to support a notability claim via WP:GNG needs to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. That means books he contributed to, wrote, or thanked, do not count towards his notability through WP:GNG. That being said, it can be used to support a notability claim via WP:Notability (academics), but then he needs to meet different criteria, any of those listed at WP:Notability (academics).
  3. Some of these sources in the article are mis-characterized. For example, "Andreas Raab's work was extensively reviewed in Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres edited by Tracey Bowen, Carl Whithaus" Unless he's mentioned under another name here, the book in question has a single mention of Andreas Raab, in the bibliography for one of the chapters where a paper on Croquet that he was one of the authors for was cited. [12]
Peer-reviewed published journal articles aren't enough by themselves. There needs to be a considerable number of peer-reviewed journal publications, and enough citations on them overall to indicate the person has had a notable impact on their field. To give you an idea, the vast majority of people with PhDs are not notable, even though PhD programs require a novel contribution to their field. A large number of college/university professors fail notability as well, even at research universities. ― Padenton|✉   19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the Weekly Squeak interview with Raab. This is independent because it was done at a time when Raab did not have an official role at Squeak. His contributions to Squeak at that time were voluntary, he didn't have a seat on the board, and his full time job was Croquet.
  2. the c't magazine obituary, from reputable German magazine publisher Heise. (machine translation to English )
If the article fails to be kept, there is plenty of new material that can be merged into the articles on Croquet, and to start a new article about Teleplace, not to mention posting a bio on the C2 wiki.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are almost always WP:PRIMARY and do not contribute to notability. This one is no exception. Please see WP:Interviews#Notability for more. It is also not independent. This is the Squeak project interviewing one of their own contributors, even if it's true he didn't have an official role at the time. Sample quote: "You are one of the most active Squeak developer [sic] out there." It's not even a reliable source. The Squeak project does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control as we understand those terms here on WP. Msnicki (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect to my colleagues, the 1000-citation threshold is very difficult to defend. Looking at the ACM Digital Library, most cited paper by Dame Wendy Hall (past president ACM, knighted for her computer science research) appears to have 224 citations. That’s The Semantic Web Revisited, a fairly well-known paper. The most cited work by Andy van Dam has a citation count of 335: that’s the famous Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics. I get similar results in the ACM Digital Library for people like Andreas diSessa (Boxer) an Oliver Selfridge (Pandemonium). A bar that excludes these people is a bar set far, far too high.

In other fields, our standard is significant independent secondary coverage. That standard can be met with a very modest number of citations if those citations are substantial.

Keep: Significant contributions to the research literature and to development of a very significant system. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard at all to defend the 1000 citations number. Our guidelines ask that the number be related to what is typically considered in tenure decisions and also that we're looking for more just the average professor. Universities don't publish specific criteria for tenure. But it's certainly possible to find out what it appears to take and that it's about 1000 citations. For example, "The successful professors’ most cited papers from this period received, on average, over 1000 references. For the non-successful professors, the number was closer to 60."[13] and "academics aspiring to be a Professor should aim to have their work cited 1000 times and or a H-index average for their discipline."[14]. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but again -- look at the examples I gave. Hall's past-president of BCS and ACM, full professor, head of her faculty, FRS, etc etc. Van Dam pretty much founded computer graphics and has had tenure at Brown since their CS department became a department. Leslie Lamport (Turing Prize) has only one paper over 1000 citations in the ACM DL. Ben Shneiderman (dean of HCI) seems not to have a paper with 1000 citations, or even 500 citations, in the ACM DL. We must be applying different standards here -- these are among the most notable computer scientists of all time. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another test that suggests we're on different wavelengths: I've been chiefly involved in ACM Hypertext/SIGWEB, but I've also been program chair for ACM Wikisym and ACM Web Science. These may be odd corners of computer science, but they're not completely esoteric -- especially not as we're all here on the web, writing links, on a wiki! In the 25-year history of ACM Hypertext, I don't think any paper has been cited 1000 times. I'm quite certain nothing in Wikisym has 1000 citations, and very much doubt anything from Web Science has made it that far. We're not just talking excluding the average tenured professor, we're excluding nearly everyone. By comparison, our standard for actors and actresses is quite modest, and our standard for porn stars and athletes is very modest. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Wendy Hall's most-cited paper has 1522 citations, Andries van Dam's book has 2865 citations, Andreas diSessa's top paper has 1488 citations, Oliver Selfridge's top paper has 965 citations (pretty darn close to 1000). I'll stick by the 1000 number as what it takes. 20:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That's why I queried: I'm getting citation counts (as I said) from the ACM Digital Library. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you can now see that none of the people you were worried would be excluded if all we considered was citation counts would in fact be excluded. And that's before we consider whether notability might be established for some of these individuals the old-fashioned way, with multiple reliable independent secondary sources. As for the "low bar" for porn stars and athletes, you're wrong. The bar is the same: multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona (talk) Thank you for your comments. Can you explain your reasoning for dismissing papers from Squeak Foundation. References like 5 and [Squeak: Open Personal Computing and Multimedia] show clearly the importance of Squeak, and the other references by experts in the field, support the even larger later contributions to the field that Andreas Raab made to Squeak itself. Surely you can accept these expert references as collaborating evidence for his contribution in the field. Ref 13 is clear in the text. Tweak was used extensively in version 1.0 of the Sophie Andreas was the primary author of Tweak. Tweak was the primary platform of Sophie. Ref 14, is the original thesis, that is the basis of Kay, Reed, Smith, Raab work called Croquet. That this is the original source is mentioned many times throughout the books, articles, and references. Ref 17 does clearly mention Raab on the last line. The workshop was to discuss Croquet at Boston University Croquet workshop demonstrates revolutionary computer software. Ref 18 does clearly mention Raab as on of the principle architects of Croquet, it is Reeds thesis that became Croquet, the fact that Reed gives credit to Raab is certainly a valuable reference. Ref 16 is his own writings but published in a peer reviewed journal. Ref 22 demonstrates his close work with Alan Kay and Viewpoints institute (corroborated in other references) in a funded NSF proposal. Ref 20 is a meeting of Boston Museum of Science Computing Revolutionaries event where Alan introduced Andreas Raab of the University of Magdeburg, Germany. Andreas is part of the Open Croquet project which show that both Alan considered his work on Croquet with Reed (one of the original coordinators of the UDP protocol, he do not like to be called the inventor of UDP, but that is what others call him, that is an integral part of the internet), Smith (the creator of the first first-person 3D simulator), and Raab, Revolutionary. Ref 21 is an Expert Blog by a very distinguished scientist in his own right. He is one of the main architects of eToys, and the One Laptop Per Child system for educating third world children. [Etoys for One Laptop Per Child]. I think that it is clear based on your categorization of the references that you missed everything. Itsmeront (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaMona: You wrote "please point them out". As I wrote above, there is c't magazine [15] and Weekly Squeak [16]. The 2nd relies on my opinion (questioned above) that Squeak Foundation or similar is a reliable source (for reporting what Raab said.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Answering both: Even if Squeak foundation were considered a neutral source, listings of wikis, individual emails, newsletters, etc. do not rise to RS level. So the email eulogies aren't considered RS (e.g. [17], and nor are entries in the Squeak wiki -- user-contributed sources, like wikis, blogs, email, etc., are not RS. I wasn't able to determine the editorial policy of the German computer magazine, but the article is not enough on its own to confer notability. I have no doubt that Squeak is an important language, but this isn't an article about Squeak, it's an article about Raab, and the sources that support this have to be about Raab and show the notability of Raab. Mentioning him in articles about other notable people also is not enough for notability. You can state his accomplishments over and over, but you need reliable sources with substantial text about him to complete the article, and I just don't see that. Oddly enough, he isn't even named in the article on Squeak as a developer, and that would be easy to document and uncontroversial. LaMona (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona, thank you for your comments. To me the articles are supporting evidence of accomplishments for someone that worked hard on developing Squeak from the community of Squeak. Raab is mentioned twice on the Squeak article you mentioned in the developers table block, and he was mentioned as the developer of Tweak as an addition to Squeak. Understand that Tweak was not a different program, it was an interface option in Squeak. The two are not different platforms, they are the same platform but different ways to build applications in Squeak. Note that in Ref 2 on the Squeak page listed here as Ref 5, Raab is listed as the main contributor of Squeak for Windows. He is the guy that made Squeak run on Windows. This is evidence that he was hired early on by Kay to make Squeak a viable platform for people to use. There is a ton of information that also connects Raab to Squeak, I can find more if you like. He was a major developer on Squeak, the community credits him with writing more then 1/2 the code, that citation was done by looking at the code itself which is signed, by another expert source Goran Krampe. I'd be happy to share more information about his credentials also. The people that knew about his work that were listed as corroboration are not just bloggers or someone that can add to some site, they are all extremely well respected members of the community, and experts in their fields. There is a lot of information that clearly connects him with Croquet, Tweak, Sophie using Tweak, eToys, interfaces for the blind and computer graphics, which makes him quite notable. If your vote comes down to proving he was a major contributor to Squeak, and the the leader of the community, I can go find that for you. It is certainly true so the truth should win out if you are discussing reliability. Also note that Msnicki comment: in reference to insufficient RS she states

However, this Google scholar search shows a total citation count (also used in academia) of 979, which I will accept as sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC.

Just found another reference

Squeak was created by a team that includes Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls, Ted Kaehler, John Maloney, Andreas Raab, Kim Rose, Scott Wallace. The hackers' site is http://www.squeak.org. The children, parents and teachers site is http://www.squeakland.org

[[18]]. As I said there are probably more and I'll look for them if that will help. Itsmeront (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That is not a reason to keep. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as sources of material about a living person Andreas Raab is not living Itsmeront (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased), the material is not contentious, the only argument is about the quality of the source, not of it's accuracy. I have not seen a single argument that the material submitted in support of Raab notability is FALSE, the argument is that it's not properly sourced. This policy does not apply to Raab. Itsmeront (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to: WP:Five Pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: ... Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents. This article does not espouse some unpopular theory or make claims for social change or to support the status quo, it's not political and therefor not a soapbox article. It is unlikely that a deceased person will benefit from an article about them, therefore; it is not advertising, it can not be vanity since Raab is not capable of being vain, it is not political so not espousing anarchy or democracy, this is not an article that display indiscriminate collection of information, nor a listing of content on the web. It doesn't define a word, or is reporting on current events. And this is not a collection a documents. I see nothing in the Five Pillars that prevent the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. Itsmeront (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL ― Padenton|✉   21:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignore all of Raab's accomplishments, his contribution to computer science, in graphics processing and ui development, including his work on UIs for the blind, his leading a community devoted to education and children, his participation in the development of Smalltalk and Object Oriented Technology, his participation in the creation of Croquet, developing a new protocol that will change how systems are synchronized, and his work to get funding for new advancements in the redevelopment of programming then maybe you could call this a memorial. Please note that Liz stated in a much more helpful way how to convert this document. I listened and changed it. She responded with a Keep above and said:

Although I think that there is still some room for improvement to have a fully fleshed out article, I think that this page meets the notability standard and the extraneous information, more suitable for a memorial page, has been removed.

Itsmeront (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all promotional spin, by you, who created an article for his friend 2 days after his death with the clear intention of memorializing him. Forgive me if I don't take you at your word when describing your friend's impact on computer science in such promotional language. ― Padenton|✉   13:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking you to take my word for it. Do you have an argument against anything I have said? Could you try to actually stick to the subject and be specific. I will try to find whatever additional information you are looking for. Itsmeront (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Squeak. He is known for that and it is in sources obituary in German but I can't honestly say anything else he's done has been picked up in high-quality sources we should use for biographies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333, Thank you for your comments. I agree that Raab is mostly known for his work on Squeak / Tweak and Etoys, in the Squeak and Squeakland communities. His work on Croquet is equally notable. Notice it was picked up by [Lisa Rein] Lisa Rein is a co-founder of Creative Commons, a video blogger at On Lisa Rein's Radar, and a singer-songwriter-musician at lisarein.com. She is also a freelance journalist, writing for publications such as OpenP2P.com, XML.com, Wired News, CNET, Web Review, Web Techniques and many others. She now works at the Washington Post. Notice the in-depth coverage of Croquet in her article, also see the Boston University and Boston Museum articles which call Croquet Revolutionary. Itsmeront (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion [WP:CSD#A9|A9]], non-notable song by a non-notable (redlinked) artist. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Time (Anna Rose and The Reasons Song)[edit]

The Last Time (Anna Rose and The Reasons Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song by band that doesn't even have a page. Tinton5 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queunliskanphobia[edit]

Queunliskanphobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced article about a phobia. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 20:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ager[edit]

Rob Ager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable. I am the article’s original creator but from the outset others have complained of non-notability and I now agree. At the time I underestimated just how commonplace this type of researcher is amongst Kubrick film fandom, and more notable researchers (eg those in the film Room 237) don’t have Wikipedia articles. Subject is already generously covered at Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The_Shining_(film)#Spatial_layout_of_the_Overlook_Hotel. Silent Key (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1752 van Herk[edit]

1752 van Herk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1785 Wurm[edit]

1785 Wurm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.U.K.[edit]

S.P.U.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
long title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Sorry Bejnar, for a non-English Yugoslavian film Croatian coverage counts, and we are allowed to consider the difficulty of pre-internet Croation sources being available online. A source telling us a film was not a critical success is coverage, even if negative... and what later becomes a cult favorite is not based upon financial success. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian coverage would count if it were significant, it isn't. --Bejnar (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Is it you personally believe a 418 word 2899 character article which speaks in part about this film is insignificant? Or is you feel pre-internet coverage never existed? We'll disagree. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with whether the coverage is electronic or not. The article you just cited mentions the film is one sentence, translated: Among domestic films in the program are "Train in the Snow", "Sreća pojedinca - uspjeh kolektiva" [the film in question here], "Moram spavat' anđele", and the season closes with this year's hit film "The Priest's Children" by Vinko Brešan. That is not significant mention, no. --Bejnar (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A topic need not be the main focus of a source, and Croatian searches are difficult. And cogent since I do not live in Croatia, finding online sources for something Croatian AND pre-internet is even more so. But your point does underscore it screening 30 years after initial release and thus meeting OEN prong 2.3 "screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Daniels (activist)[edit]

Ross Daniels (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject, not updated in years, shouldn't have been created in the first place. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followed link on talk page, thought I was linking through to the prior AFD. Instead it took me to this page. Often useful to look at old AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Daniels (politician). The page has been moved since then. Frickeg (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. you provoked me to look again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked at the sources again, just to be careful, and every one of them is a primary source; at least one is a dead link. Much of the information is a WP:BLP violation, with claimed but completely unsourceable data. Yet again Wikipedia is on the news as being unreliable; this article is another piece of evidence our critics need to hammer us over the head. I call on anyone who wants to keep this to fix it, now. Bearian (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perla Adea[edit]

Perla Adea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous Alejo[edit]

Marvelous Alejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: does not reach threshold for notability as actor. Mostly cruft article. Quis separabit? 05:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dixon Elementary School[edit]

Arthur Dixon Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school without clear notability. Jacona (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School is a rare Level 1 public school on the south side of Chicago and was the focus of a documentary, The Curators of Dixon School (2012), because of the school's unique art focused learning environment. There are lots of reliable secondary sources about both the school and the documentary that can be used to expand this page. Kausticgirl (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/diasporal-rhythms-south-side-art-collectors-logan-center/Content?oid=11178567
  3. https://arts.uchicago.edu/logan-center/logan-center-exhibitions/archive/diasporal-rhythms-ten-year-love-affair-collecting-art
  5. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/new-film-looks-at-arts-influence-on-dixon-elementary-school-students/#.UThK45LK3SA.facebook
  7. http://thechicagocitizen.com/news/2012/mar/06/cultural-connections-african-marketplace-and/

Jhurlburt (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Delija[edit]

Ante Delija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. He fails GNG because there's no significant independent coverage of him. The article's only link is to sherdog and my search only found routine sports coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pavle (kickboxer)[edit]

Ivan Pavle (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a kickboxer he fails to meet the criteria at WP:KICK. The sources are routine sports reporting, like fight results, or youtube videos. There's nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, this article is under development, I am gathering resources and references. Thank you. User:Efkey189

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to someone having another go from scratch. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Friedl[edit]

Jeff Friedl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of references dotted through the article. None are both reliable and in-depth coverage of the subject. Dweller (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he's clearly notable, I'd be happy to close the AfD. Do you have some evidence of notability? --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshaw Mafia Motherfuckers[edit]

Crenshaw Mafia Motherfuckers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band with only one album and multiple searches found absolutely nothing thus nothing significant or notable. I can't speak for Japanese sources but I doubt any good ones exist. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Texans[edit]

Independent Texans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization with no significant news coverage despite multiple searches here, here, here, here and here and nothing at thefreelIbrary. There's not much information and not much worth keeping. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wakaba Girl[edit]

Wakaba Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upcoming anime show that might fall under too soon, no refs to be found or notability. Wgolf (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)withdrawnWgolf (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. At best this article is redundant to the pre-existing article about the ACA. At worst this is a personal essay riddled with original research. I would e-mail a copy of this to the article's creator but they haven't enabled their e-mail option. I'll leave a message on their talk page about this, but I will not leave a message on their YT channel as they requested on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity[edit]

The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL Not to mention being unencyclopaedic. Adam9007 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the epitome of an essay ("The author of this page wishes to inform young adults..."), and it's riddled with OR and speculation. I don't see any salvageable content here. Maralia (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, did the author mess up by creating it in article space or is there really a teacher out there instructing students to create Wikipedia articles for homework? —МандичкаYO 😜 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrawellTag Cover-More[edit]

TrawellTag Cover-More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising puffery. Sources fail to prove WP:N. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the sources are insufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Recreation[edit]

Creative Recreation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are press releases, and this article is clearly a case of WP:ADMASQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the publisher of that second source is listed as "Creative Director, Mosaic Experiential Marketing", a PR company [24]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Gearon[edit]

Ida Gearon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, any reliable source found was a mere mention about her being Bruce Campbell's wife. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex noise[edit]

Sex noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't seem serious to me, tone is jokey. Could be merged into Sexual intercourse. crh23 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments above would only fall under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC if they stopped at "unencyclopedic" as the reason for deleting. Because they actually explain what makes your article "unencyclopedic", the argument is not a circular argument.
Note - For the record, Freidnless lnoner is the author of this article.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
I just noticed we have another article on this Female copulatory vocalizations, so a merge or redirect may be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Female copulatory vocalizations has now also been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female copulatory vocalizations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That AFD has been withdrawn now crh23 (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (but may be moved to draft space on request). The relevant policy that was cited in the nomination is WP:SYNTH which is in place to prevent combining different sources to deduce a conclusion that none of them have. Such practice is considered a form of original research. I have looked through the presented arguments and cannot see this being truly answered. For lists with clearly defined inclusion criteria, combining several sources to assemble a full list is accepted, but "controversial" is, as many have mentioned, a vague criterion which also brings up concerns with its ability to withstand WP:NPOV challenges on a topic like this one.

Starship.paint did point out that some sources have made connections between some of the entries on the list, but using sources that connect three or four entries at a time is not the same as having support for presenting a full list in this manner. Other users have pointed out that the underlying premise for the list, the killings during the past few years of African Americans in a manner perceived to be racially motivated and often by police, is a real and covered topic and have suggested that this topic be covered at Black Lives Matter.

I have considered the option of merging, but I have decided against it since problems with WP:OR would still remain. However, I recognize that some of the content could be of use in the Black Lives Matter or similar article provided that the entries can be sourced to demonstrate relevancy to that topic. Feel free to ask me or any other administrator to restore the page to draft space if you want to work with it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The table has been revised to link each entry up to Black Lives Matter. The page is now a redirect and the editing history is restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s[edit]

List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created purely to prevent the deletion of Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans. Article is an example of a non-notable interestection. Article combines multiple events to infer notability not explicitly stated in any of the sources and is thus WP:SYNTH. And for an "other stuff" argument, we don't have any of List of controversial killings of.... articles. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - User:Starship.paint is the creator of this article and the Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a crime and it does not render my vote invalid. Likewise, Article created purely to prevent the deletion of Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans is not a valid deletion criteria. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - It's not a crime. It's just a note so that people understand where your !vote is coming from. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the murder rate in the USA overall is about 5 murders for 100,000 people per year. List of countries by intentional homicide rate. There are around 40 million African Americans. So I would expect about 800 to die of murder in a typical year, and also about 800 to commit murder. I'm guessing there is about one police officer per 1,000 people, maybe more. So about 300,000 officers. So 15 murders by police officers in a year would be normal, also 15 officers to die of murder. Not sure how much of this kind of background should be included in article, or how to do it. Borock (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borock: - Are you new here? We have policies on original research. You may want to take a look. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to engage in conjecture: see United Nations stats presented in List of countries by intentional homicide rate and Race and crime in the United States, and the official FBI crime stats for the United States: [29]. There is no reason to guess; the data already exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think NickCT's point was that putting that data into this article would be OR. Borock (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borock: - That was my point indeed. If you're going to put stats or numbers in an article, you should have a source for those stats or numbers. The exception being if you're doing simple calculations. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buffaboy: - The fact that all the items on a list are notable doesn't justify the existence of a list. That's the whole idea behind notable intersections. NickCT (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If reliable sources are making the intersections, doesn't that make the list notable? We could always rename this article, but to what? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
greater importance of the killings of this ethnic group over those of other ethnic groups - the reliable sources are connecting the killings of African-Americans together. See my vote above for some examples. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Starship.paint The only thing these sources indicate is that the killings occurred. Any connection between them is implied and despite similarities in some of the cases, implied connection is nothing more than speculation. Not all perpetrators were White, nor were they all police officers (there was even an unsolved murder in the list), making the only common denominator in every case the race of the victim. If the only real litmus test for this article is the race of the victim and the murder making the 6 O'clock news, would it thus follow that we should also have lists for "controversial killings" of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews, and so on? And what about all the other African Americans murdered that made the news? Should they not also be in the list? And what specifically is so special about the year 2010? Aren't there plenty of African Americans being killed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015? Look at the news today! What a list that would make!
I appreciate the author's desire to contribute to the encyclopedia, but you can't just take a bunch of unrelated murder victims and weave together a tapestry article where the only common thread is the race of the victims and call it encyclopedic because it's not.The fact is, none of these cases are notable and the hypothesis of this article is anything but encyclopedic.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
  • @Ormr2014: - how can anyone take your vote seriously, if you haven't even read the article? Yes, there are African Americans being killed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The list is about killings in 2010s, not only 2010. Obviously, you only read this AfD. Come forth with sources linking multiple killings of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews - then we can talk. You can claim that none of these cases are notable, but why do all of them have Wikipedia articles then? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: Once again, you are assuming. Before I comment or vote on any of the AFD articles, I read them.
As for your statement about coming forth with "sources linking multiple killings of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews", etc, it would be a moot point because those articles would likewise not warrant inclusion here. Furthermore, these sources do not "link" the killings of this particular article together in more than a speculative way. You can imply they are linked all you want, but you have not, nor has this article, demonstrated any connection whatsoever, other than the victim's race.
Other inconsistencies include the year (some were in 2010, some in 2011, some in 2012, etc.); the location (the killings are scattered across the country); the perpetrators (some were police officers, others were "neighborhood watch", "software developer", and "unknown"); even the circumstances of each varies greatly. What exactly makes these killings "connected"? Please explain because thus far, you have made no effort to do so. Are you alleging a conspiracy of sorts? The only way to possibly justify your list is to demonstrate they are indeed connected, which you have not and despite your assertion to the contrary, none of your references make this connection either. Ormr2014 | Talk 
  • Come on now. You claim to have read the article, yet you somehow missed out on all the deaths from 2011 to 2015 (all but one of the whole article), thinking that the article was only about deaths in 2010. Of course articles on other groups like Jews do not warrant inclusion because nobody has started citing sources.
  • San Francisco Bay View: Seemingly every week another unarmed Black man is in the news, having been killed by a police officer or vigilante who made another fatally false assumption. Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Rekia Boyd, Freddie Gray – the list goes on.
  • Complex magazine: They look to remember and raise awareness of the deaths of black children that were caused by the police, including Aiyana Jones, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Trayvon Martin.
  • Forbes: Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Ezell Ford, John Crawford and Michael Brown, who met their deaths at the hands of police officers ... “We mourn the loss of life and the absence of justice for Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride and Jordan Davis, killed by private citizens ...
  • Marin Indepdendent Journal: Garza said that after Martin’s death, the violent deaths of unarmed black people began to gain more attention. She quickly rattled off a list: 43-year-old Eric Garner, 25-year-old Ezell Ford, 19-year-old Renisha McBride, 17-year-old Jordan Davis, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
  • Salon: It seems that our culture has never been more aware of racist police violence, and yet we are asked to treat each new incident as an isolated case rather than a harrowing pattern. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - Your first source is a Black Nationalist website, your second source a blog post, the third source does not substantiate your view that all these instances are connected, Marinj News is a news blogging site where most of the posts are freelance "news journalists" and hardly constitutes as an authoritative source (plus it does not draw a connection either), and the last source you listed is also a blog post.
That you still have not demonstrated, or attempted to explain how the killings in your list are connected seems to indicate that you simply don't have a reason. For example, you could say something like: "I believe these killings are connected because (reason 1., reason 2., reason 3., and so on)..." Yet you have not and we are expected to simply take your word on this?
I'm done debating this article. I've said my piece and will allow others to discuss the merits of the article... Ormr2014 | Talk 
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It implies that all of these killings are somehow related or connected, yet none of the facts validate this assumption.
  2. It implies that all these killings are "controversial", but that too hasn't been substantiated as killings, by their very nature, will always receive some sort of media coverage.

Bottom Line: This article should not be part of Wikipedia, period... Ormr2014 | Talk  16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numan Niazai[edit]

Numan Niazai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been repeatedly created and speedily deleted, and still does not assert the significance of the subject. Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, fails WP:NFOOTY, and sufficient coverage for WP:GNG has not been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Santangelo[edit]

Dean Santangelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I claimed in an earlier PROD that not one of the sources in the article backs up the facts in the article. It has been proved that one (possibly two) of the sources does back up the facts, but the rest are so vague that most of the article should be deleted just for being unsourced. The rest does nothing to suggest that this individual is notable, since he hasn't made a single competitive appearance for a fully professional club. His only appearances have been for non-league sides Bromley and Didcot, which don't play at a high enough level. – PeeJay 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 10:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: as per WP:NFOOTY, he plays at a fully professional team (FC Lugano, which hops on and off the Swiss first professional league tier) and has enough coverage (such as the Daily Mail), ergo my AfC accept. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has he actually played for FC Lugano though? The club website suggests that he hasn't. Furthermore, FC Lugano doesn't play in a professional league, and I'm not actually sure the club itself is fully professional either. They haven't played in Switzerland's only fully professional league since 2002. – PeeJay 12:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Scandal in Belgravia (book)[edit]

A Scandal in Belgravia (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Found only trivial reviews including the one ref. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Eggestein[edit]

Johannes Eggestein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Xuna[edit]

John Xuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity piece, written and edited by the candidate himself. He does not appear to have received coverage from independent reliable sources, so he fails WP:BIO. He is an unsuccessful candidate for office so fails WP:POLITICIAN. He has written self-published material and taught school, but he does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this, but it seems to me there are quite a few ignorant and arrogant editors out there. Do whatever you have to do, but you are wrong!

1) I DID NOT CREATE THIS PAGE "JOHN XUNA", someone else did, many years ago, honestly I do not know who. Although I had to make changes to it, three years ago, because it was not accurate.

2) "Vanity piece" ... you do not know what you are talking about? If you have an issue with my books because of being the author Atheist, say so. "The Ignorance of Faith" (Amazon, Barnes and Noble).

3) "Unsuccessful candidate for office?", I am the CURRENT Democratic candidate for CD18 FL (please visit www.JXuna.com), and I have been a past candidate for CD22 FL (GE 2002)(please visit www.Xuna.com). "Unsuccessful" is shortsighted and hurtful. What a bunch of arrogant and disrespectful editors, it seems. You will be reported for your lack of tact.

4) The "science beacons" are online, and the web links are given for you to check any you wish.

5) The corrections I made a couple of days ago, I would appreciate if you email those to me, regardless of accepted the revision or not. After those corrections the page was quite precise and correct. Please send it to Xuna@MSN.com.

6) "Ridiculous article" ... based on what criteria?

7) The pioneering books in "peak oil" can be corroborated with the evidence presented in www.OilDepletion.com and www.PetrolSOS.com. If you care to check.

You don't get to cite your own self-published websites about the books as proof that you're notable for writing them. Notability on Wikipedia is conferred by reliable, independent sources writing about you, not by simply being able to cite your own self-published content about yourself as proof that you exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8) The copyrights on ZUET (Zeroing in Underground Energy Technologies www.ZUET.com) are there on the web, as well as pictures from my lectures at Harvard and M.I.T.

9) First Atheist to run "openly for the US Congress", please go to the link of article from award-winning Bob Norman that was offered. In the part that you did not accept (edited yesterday, I believe), I provided information about ever Atheists who sat in a chair of Congress (3 of them), indicating they disclose being non-believers after leaving office, or after having been elected, and not while campaigning for office. That information is public knowledge, even appears in your Wikipedia, but you can check it in the US House and Senate websites. If elected, I would be the first atheist who openly campaigned as such. If you do not like it because you are religious, that's your problem, not mine.

10) If I knew how to properly edit and improve that page (although the changes I did yesterday seemed to have improved the professionalism of that page) I would have done that long time ago. It is embarrassing the comments that you have displayed on the top of that page, since -at least- 5 years ago.

11) I am not editor, and my vernacular is Spanish. Yet, I am one of the $upporter$ to Wikipedia, because I have used it a lot, and it is an excellent service. Yet, as I can see, there is some childish arrogance going wild there. Grow up kids! :O(

John Xuna (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

  • What a thoughtfully written explanation MelanieN. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to ask User:John Xuna about the statement "I am one of the $upporter$ to Wikipedia". This comes across like you are implying that you should have an article because you donate money to Wikipedia. Donating money to Wikipedia does not mean that you get a page. You may not have meant for this statement to come across, but the thing is that the vast majority of people who bring up donations in a deletion discussion do so because they are either directly or indirectly stating that this means that they merit a page and that if the page is deleted, they will stop donating to Wikipedia. You cannot buy an article and any statements about donations in a deletion discussion will come across very, very badly. I would also recommend that you not call other uses "childish" because this assumes bad faith on their behalf and can be seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack, another thing that is a very poor idea to state in an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, I also moved the ref to the accident section of the railway article--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Braysdown railway accident[edit]

Braysdown railway accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for events; no injuries/fatalities; only mention of this incident is standard report. Could be merged to Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetAdmin[edit]

GetAdmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear notability or potential for expansion, nor any references. No claim at all of significance. MopSeeker (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davood Roostaei[edit]

Davood Roostaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find very little coverage of this artist, who doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG. I took a look at WP:NARTIST, which lets artists qualify if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Since the article says he invented a style called cryptorealism, I looked that up--and came up almost empty. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). North America1000 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Colvin[edit]

Brody Colvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player, no non-routine coverage out there to pass GNG. Wizardman 01:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pribanic[edit]

Aaron Pribanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player, no non-routine coverage out there to pass GNG. Wizardman 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer and Michele Steffin[edit]

Jennifer and Michele Steffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography about non-notable child actresses. Their only roles were playing babies on TV shows. Random86 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob and Zachary Handy[edit]

Jacob and Zachary Handy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography about non-notable child actors. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Random86 (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More