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. If requested, I will restore the article to the author's private draft space so that they can try to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OddKidOut[edit]

OddKidOut (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)

Originally had this as a BLP prod-but refs were added. Anyway, questionable notability that is also a autobio. Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, can you give a few tips on how to remove the autobio while still crediting Butch's accomplishments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to over-encumber you with messages, just would like to resolve this. To get rid of the autobiography format, I can delete the brands Butch has worked with and who he has collaborated with if that helps. Just want to know what the best move is and will gladly do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-the autobio was since I thought you were the one who the page was about when I saw the name, sorry about that! Still this does have questionable notability. This is still a COI at least as well. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I can either back up any information provided here, or can delete anything that is still a conflict of interest. Very flexible on this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wgolf and I both clicked "Review" and I also planned to nominate since none of this actually gives any context with how he's notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to supply information to prove his notability, however you guys are not giving me the chance to provide that information. Nothing stated on his page is false. And I am still willing to delete any part that is causing trouble. Can you please give a more detailed response other than "not notable", as I've worked hard on creating Butch's page and would like to edit it to fit your guidelines rather than have it completely terminated because you aren't aware of the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - My vote is more for re-listing in two weeks. If the above user can provide further proof of notability, I'd have no problems. But as it stands, most of the sources used are not reliable. That said, there are plenty of Philadelphia and Music sources that pass reliability. If this user improves reference formatting and provides additional sourcing, strike out my delete vote. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have since updated the formatting of the References that are uploaded and provided additional ones as well. I have also contacted Butch and he has sent me tour flyers, pictures, etc to back up any claims made on his Wiki page that aren't in writing in some way, shape or form. I can send them to you or upload them on Wiki Commons. If this is not sufficient, again I cannot harp enough that I will remove the specific information that is not backed up in writing. I need more communication from the moderators so that I can make this page acceptable. There is certainly information provided here that is backed up in the references and deserves to stay up. Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include that Butch's page should not be marked as an orphan page either. Please visit "JuTaun"'s page, Butch is listed as their drummer but is not linked as we just created his page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2016 (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 Hazel Scott. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Long Scott[edit]

Alma Long Scott (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 about the mother about a much more well known pianist. Notability is not inherited. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nominator and there are not sources to ascertain. notability of the subject Bilbo Baggins (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any relevant details to Hazel Scott. The subject only appears notable in the context of her daughter. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - interesting info but does not meet WP:GNG for standalone. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect You can't delete and merge. None of the merge !votes say what is too be merged. The relevant info is already there in anycase. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Torch (hoax)[edit]

Olympic Torch (hoax) (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)

Hoax mail that first appeared ten years ago. According to the article, no relevant developments occurred since then. I do not think this is notable anymore. Laber□^T 04:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; no evidence of it being notable now or ten years ago. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notability is not temporary. Pokajanje|Talk 23:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm gonna go with Weak Keep. I hate to sound like I'm pulling out a ball of WAX, but we do have other articles on virus hoaxes with less coverage than this. As far as valid arguments, I'm going keep because it does have coverage as far as notable sources, though I'm going weak keep because those appear to be primary sources. (Virus rundowns from AV software sites are something I'm not entirely sure on, admittedly.) News coverage may be a bit difficult to find, as virus hoaxes don't tend to hit the news for the fact that they are not so destructive as, say, the ILOVEYOU malware. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's possible to source this (see, for example, this article in ZDNet), but what would that accomplish? It would just be a warning not to spread the chain letter. I don't see anything specifically against this in WP:NOT, but it seems kind of like common sense. We don't really have any context for this virus hoax beyond, "Hey! Don't forward this message!" For something like ILOVEYOU, we've got plenty of coverage, real-world repercussions (a new law was passed in the Philippines), and a claim of significance (that is was the most damaging worm to date). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps at best as this would be questionable for any better improvements and this seems questionable enough where there may not be any better solid material to improve with. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per my relist comment above, I'm including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Torch (virus hoax) here. Apparently the page was moved and the AFD2 template didn't recognize it. Katie^talk 23:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - would like to see the opinions of someone from a tech-related project comment. Was certainly notable in the past, but being outdated does not necessarily rule out notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary, but, like I said above, I don't think this article was ever appropriate for inclusion. The coverage consists of routine hoax warnings. If you want advice on where to look, try CNET, ZDNet, TechRadar, PC World, and PC Magazine. Those are usually a good place to start, but there are obviously lots more. I usually supplement my searches with a few German magazines, such as C't and Chip, even though my German is atrocious, because they sometimes cover stuff that the English-language sources don't. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what to say? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This hoax virus does not appear to have had any lasting coverage or notability. In fact, most of the references do not even mention the Olympic Torch virus hoax. They do talk about a similar and apparently better known hoax called Postcard, but that doesn't seem to have had lasting notability either. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licefreee![edit]

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

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

The only source cited which is both reliable and not 404, is churnalism - obviously based on a press release. The article's tone is promotional, as you'd expect from a product that claims to be homeopathic but contains an active ingredient, albeit one of no known utility at this dilution in treating lice. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches are finding nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - if someone active on the article recovers some of the broken reliable sources, I'd reconsider. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2016 (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' thanks to User:Northamerica1000 for finding sources. Brustopher (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lerner Spectre[edit]

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

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

I can't find any sources establishing notability, just a lot of dodgy neo-Nazi and alt-right conspiracy sites claiming she's the smoking gun for their anti-semitic conspiracy theories. This page is a magnet for this sort of trash. Maybe there are some sources establishing notability in Swedish, but better safe than sorry. Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lerner Spectre is not just some Swedish person. You have personally taken care that anything notable stays out of that article, wiping out references, and you have called a writer (Lars Holger Holm) as a fringe nutter, although there is no evidence that he is any kind of a nutter. All evidence so far has confirmed that the quote you have repeatedly deleted, is in fact just as it appeared in a TV interview. Your way of deleting and diminishing an article before calling for deletion of the whole article, is plain ugly and looks more like a way of vandalism than real constructive contribution. I oppose the deletion of that article. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

|For anyone wondering Lars Holger Holm's book is all about a Jewish conspiracy and the secret Jewish agenda and shit. Brustopher (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the current article is still questionable and my searches are simply finding nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I already said this (above), but just to make that more visible, I say again. North America brought us few sources. Quite obviously BLS is not just some random person who founded some random organization. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wood[edit]

Matt Wood (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 written & referenced article by SPA/COI editor.

Issues with notability:

first 2 references refer to arcane work as a post-grad/doctoral student. Quite common for a student at this level to have papers published, does not confer notability in isolation.

3rd reference won't load for me, likely a deadlink

4th reference is a general one about their team, does not refer to the individual

there does not seem to be anything of note on a google search. no independent articles or mentions in top publications. a couple of keynote videos. to me, seems to fall short of WP:GNG and seems to just be a vanity page that has :slipped under the radar for its 4 years of existence Rayman60 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason to think there is any notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clearly none of this actually suggests any solid independent notability, nothing convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Currently no reliable sources, and low article quality. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the above seem to be spot on. Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Sources are either by him or don't mention him, and the major claims of the article have no reliable sourcing. I didn't see any highly cited publications in Google scholar. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CV and Puffery. May be notable in the future but not yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the obvious reasons, CV, Puffery etc. –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a resume. This reads like one with nothing to establish notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2016 (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, based on available sources, this is not an independently notable topic, and suffers from original research issues. Several "keep" opinions must be discounted because they only assert that the article is "valuable", or similar, without addressing the relevant criteria of our inclusion guidelines, such as the availability and quality of sources. There is some interest into merging some content into David Pearce, and if there's subsequent consensus for that, the article can be restored for that purpose.  Sandstein  07:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionism (bioethics)[edit]

Abolitionism (bioethics) (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)

Almost entirely synthesis. WP:FRINGE/PS applies. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete original research; the only scholarship directly related to abolitionism is attributed to one person, David Pearce, who is fairly non-notable Pawg14 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, searches come up with nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - the sources are mostly about the general concept of suffering and not about this particular use of the term "abolitionism"; the neologism is not adequately supported by the sources. (I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a casual google it appears to be a term in transhumanist bioethics, (though RSes are thin on the ground), but not more widely in philosophy. Google Scholar on "abolitionism" "bioethics" shows a few minor academic papers on the topic, though I don't really know if they're suitable for notability of a philosophical term - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - agree with David Gerard above. But if sources are improved, strike out my delete vote. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. [Disclaimer: my work is cited - otherwise I'd do some editing to strengthen the entry.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added more focus on David Pearce as he is a key advocate of the philosophy, but obviously he can't play that up due to COI :) Deku-shrub (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - this is valuable information and shouldn't be lost to people who just "haven't heard of this before" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.244.180 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there RSes that would convince someone this was "valuable information" in the field of philosophy? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a valuable, credible philosophical position and deserves to remain on wikipedia Fredrik Bränström (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you bring sources that show it is, as you claim, valuable and credible in the study of philosophy? That's what the article is lacking - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Fredrik and others, and think it would be a loss if this valuable article got deleted. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have RSes that would convince someone this was "valuable" in the field of philosophy? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel this is being treated with an unfairly high standard of WP:NOTABILITY. Doesn't seem WP:FRINGE/PS because (a) it's treated seriously by philosophical authorities, (b) it doesn't seem to oppose any sort of scientific consensus. Empamazing (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So bring the cites. I literally ask above to be convinced, but it'll take actual verifiable third-party coverage in reliable sources (even specialist ones) - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has citations from WP:RS, e.g. the piece on BBC Radio. What do you contest about that one? Empamazing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC is not generally considered a reliable source for judging the notability of philosophy jargon terms - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article identifies abolitionism as a "bioethical school and socio-political movement," not as a philosophical term. But in either case, I think BBC would be considered a reliable source. I guess that's where our disagreement lies. Empamazing (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article can use some work, especially the history section which serves only to place abolitionism into a long-term religious historical context. The term may be relatively new but is definitely notable. It is a social movement based on negative utilitarianism. Also check Google books for references to abolitionist bioethics and Pearce. Keystroke (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's a sudden influx of comments from accounts with a very sparse Wikipedia editing history, and without having brought the actual cites. Did someone inadvertently issue something that has functioned as a call for votes? - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This got brought up on Facebook in a two-way comment conversation. I saw it there and felt I should contribute. I suspect others did as well. I don't think it qualifies as WP:CAN because there was no mention in the conversation that anyone should vote, much less vote in a particular way. I'm happy to be corrected on that. Empamazing (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread seems to be promoting canvassing: https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegan.transhumanists/permalink/620461634768335/ Pawg14 (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a quick search on Facebook after reading this, and also found this other thread. Sigh: https://www.facebook.com/groups/hedonistic.imperative/permalink/10153422569096965/ NeatGrey (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thread that brought me was different than either of those, just FYI. Empamazing (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a third one? Someone's been working hard at the canvassing - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already said that one wasn't canvassing. It was on someone's wall. I hope you're being mindful of any preexisting biases you have in this discussion. Empamazing (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • My preexisting bias is that obscure neologisms that even advocates say are mostly substantiated in message forum posts don't warrant Wikipedia articles - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I mean that you seem to be trying to decrease the quantity of transhumanism/rationalist-related content on Wikipedia, or at least make it more negative in tone. Even your comment just now is concerning. I gave the example of a BBC citation as evidence for notability, but you instead say people are using "message forum posts," which seems to clearly be highlighting the weakest argument against your position instead of engaging with the best ones. (I also think this thread is unproductive, and we should focus on the content of the AfD now.) Empamazing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I'm not. Although there was a lot that was a badly self-referential Walled garden of ill-sourced content, but most of that got cleared. However, the general problem of subject areas with terrible sourcing that doesn't pass Wikipedia muster is not somehow a problem of me just being mean, as you make it out to be. Rather than trying to edge up to personal attacks as you are now doing, perhaps finding solid and convincing sources for the article would be more productive - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm actually surprised David Pearce's work 'The Hedonistic Imperative' doesn't have an entry of it's own - not to mention the fact that this entry is up for deletion. I think the reason this particular entry may seem a bit light is because many transhumanists with very similar ideas are spread out and don't realize there is a single philosophical school of thought that encompasses a fundamental aspect of what they believe. It's extremely premature to consider deleting this entry, especially given the explosive growth of the transhumanist movement at the moment. HedWeb one of the most talked about works among the ethical transhumanist community and, increasingly, members of the rationalist community interested in transhumanism. There is simply no reason to delete this entry right now. Bzzzing (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Also, David Gerard - I read what you wrote, and I think it's difficult to give citations when those citations are often threads in various forums or comment threads. The fact that "Abolitionism" and "bioethics" don't show many published papers on Google Scholar is strangely strict metric to use as notability, is it not? Bzzzing (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, not really. Neologisms of primarily forum or Facebook usage don't generally make Wikipedia. Are you seriously positing forum and Facebook posts as substantiation for a philosophical jargon term? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the David Pearce article. Essentially all of the sources explicitly discussing this article's topic are about Pearce or by Pearce, so it's cleaner to put this content there, minus some irrelevant bits. "Abolitionism" is very hard to Google, because of all the sources talking about slavery, but I don't think we're going to find anything supporting this as a notable term independent of Pearce. (I see there's a canvassing warning at the top; I have no connection to any canvassing.) NeatGrey (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Pearce re notability. TimothyJosephWood 10:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: canvassing noted and more eyes invited at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Abolitionism_.28bioethics.29 - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with Pearce. Despite this nom, no evidence yet produced that it is a "bioethical school and socio-political movement". Refs are all for quotes from various long-dead figures. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if there were substantial public or academic discourse about this subject, the description given by the article is so vague as to be worthless. "Abolitionism is a bioethical school and socio-political movement that promotes the use of biotechnology to eliminate suffering." Well, what human endeavor is there which doesn't have the elimination of suffering as it's ultimate goal? Furthermore, what human endeavor actually stands a chance of doing so? This isn't a notable "bioethical school and socio-political movement," it's naval gazing by academics and transhumanists. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does not deserve an article here. If not delete, then merge the content into a more suitable article, such as Suffering. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is pretty clearly false, that all (or even a large majority) human endeavors or bioethical theories seek to eliminate suffering. You should listen to this BBC radio show or read this response to the proposition of reducing the suffering of wild animals, to see how some people respond to the idea. Christianity, for example, has a ton of rhetoric about how suffering is good and necessary (can cite if necessary). It's pretty contentious, even if it does seem like common sense in a way. Empamazing (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity rationalizes suffering, but then holds up the promise of heaven, in which there is no suffering. All art is done to increase pleasure, which necessarily (and by definition) decreases suffering. Medicine is done for the express purpose of reducing suffering. Technology, when not expressly done to reduce suffering, is done to promote convenience, which is a minor reduction of suffering. Love is about pleasure and war is about gains which will reduce the suffering of one particular group (even sectarian wars are often done to appease deities, with the ultimate goal of those deities reducing the suffering of the warring groups) while peace is defined as a lack of suffering... The list goes on and on. I mean, the very concept of 'motivation', which underpins every endeavor ever taken is fundamentally bound up with the reduction or elimination of suffering. Seriously, name anything you've ever done and why, and I can -without distorting the truth in any way- put that in terms of the elimination or reduction of suffering. Most of the time, you wouldn't even need to include the 'why,' because discerning the way the action in question reduced suffering would be trivial. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a huge gap between reducing suffering and abolishing it. You seem to think they're more similar to each other, but I think they're hugely different in many situations, like wireheading, intervening in nature, or thinking earthly suffering is good because it leads to pleasure in heaven. I think you can give a justification for most human behavior as a way to reduce suffering, but you can do that for plenty of other things, like abiding by social norms or increasing autonomy or increasing survival rates. But I think the key evidence for the purposes of whether Abolitionism is a distinct topic on Wikipedia is just the fact that is has provoked such controversy and that its "followers" have come to such counterintuitive conclusions (not to mention that it's been discussed as a distinct movement/ideology in numerous WP:RS). Empamazing (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, there's no fundamental difference between reducing suffering (or anything else) and eliminating it. It is literally a matter of degrees. That's so basic a concept that I'm truly shocked anyone would suggest otherwise without having their tongue firmly planted in their cheek. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people want to reduce the size of government, but few want to remove it entirely. Anarchism is a completely reasonable Wikipedia topic. Counterargument? Empamazing (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I point out the incredible fallacy of equating humanity's most common concerted effort to cooperatively ameliorate suffering with suffering itself? If that doesn't sink in, then allow me to spell it out: suffering is bad, by definition. It's always undesirable. (Don't try to claim short-term suffering for long-term gains as an exception, because the whole principle of that idea is a net reduction in suffering.) Meanwhile, government (as a concept, not specific governments) is always desirable. This isn't apples and oranges, this is apples and late 60's American built muscle cars.

That being said, yes, anarchism is not fundamentally different from the desire for small government, it's just a matter of degrees. The fact that not everyone wants to push that idea of shrinking government to its logical conclusion just shows that most people grasp the fact that a certain amount of government is always desirable. So at least the comparison is object to object, instead of, say, apples and the existential implications of solipsism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't feel either of us have more evidence or arguments to bring to the table at this point. Thanks for discussing, and maybe we can resolve this disagreement another time. For what it's worth, I hope you're right! Empamazing (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd love to think you're right. But aren't there many secular and religious ideologies that seek to rationalise suffering rather than aim at its long-term abolition? By all means add a Criticisms section - just "naval gazing by academics and transhumanists" as you put it. The whole entry could do with strengthening (IMO). But this is different from arguing for its deletion. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are lots of ideologies that rationalize suffering. But they all also claim to offer an end to it in some way. I'm not denigrating the idea, mind. Finding a way to end suffering would, by definition, be the single greatest thing ever accomplished (so long as that's the only thing brought to an end), but it's just such an incredibly broad notion that it's not feasible to have an article about it. I mean, literally every single school of thought in bioethics is about reducing or eliminating suffering. It's a fine subject for a book, or a paper. It's just not a good subject for an encyclopedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after adding the most important information to the Pearce biography. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In response David Gerard's request for reliable sources, here's a listing of some examples of when "Abolitionism" has been mentioned in print (limited to books I either own or have heard of; though I'm fairly certain there are more I haven't seen)

-"Ethics Matters" by Charlotte and Peter Vardy An excerpt: "Abolitionists tend to have a really optimistic view of the future and believe that technology can and should be used to eliminate the causes of human suffering, thus making the world progressively happier. Many Abolitionists are doctors, scientists, and IT innovators."

-Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement edited by Calvin Mercer and Tracy J. Trothen

-Cyborg Selves: A Theological Anthropology of the Posthuman by Jeanine Thweatt-Bates

-Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity by R.U. Sirius and ‎Jay Cornell

-Transcend the Flesh: Transhumanism Debate by Tobiasz Mazan

-Michael Avon Oeming's "The Victories: Transhuman" graphic novel describes Aabolitionism as one of the "intellectual currents that circulate[s] through the wide river of Transhumanist thought."

These are just a few of the books I'm aware of that mention "Abolitionism". If you need excerpts, or links, I'll try to provide them. I'm genuinely curious, David Gerard, what else constitutes notability? I joined Wikipedia as an editor several months ago, and I'm really struggling to understand why you think this page in particular should be deleted. Bzzzing (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE to my above comment:

After reading through some of the past comments, I felt I should add some information on the sources I listed. The first book I mentioned, 'Ethics Matters' was written by Dr. Peter Vardy and his wife Charlotte. One would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source than Dr. Vardy when it comes to the specific subject of religion and transhumanism. The second, 'Religion and Transhumanism', was written by Calvin Mercer and Tracy Trothen, both of whom are PhDs and university professors. Jeanine Thweatt-Bates book 'Cyborg Selves' is one of the more popular and commonly cited books about Transhumanism and religion. The 4th book I listed, 'Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity' was written by an icon of the counterculture/hacker/transhumanist/libertarian communities... I don't even know how to describe R.U. Sirius (aka Ken Goffman) without feeling as if I'm underestimating his impact on culture. Nevertheless, I believe he is a fairly reliable source. I'll stop now and possibly update later, since it looks like we're getting close to wikipedia's "scheduled maintenance". Bzzzing (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant canvassing by Davidcpearce, with personal attack: [1] (There's a copy on archive.is at GGtOF in case that Facebook post disappears.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this have to do with me? I listed some reliable sources. Are you now moving the goalposts? Seems to me like a police officer who stopped a driver with no cause, and then ends up trying to arrest him for resisting arrest. Can we debate the actual merits of the page here? Bzzzing (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing, which is why it wasn't under your comment - it's a separate issue concerning this extremely problematic AFD. @Davidcpearce: has been caught blatantly canvassing, after denials of such - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, please assume good faith. In many years of Wikipedia editing, I've never urged anything but KEEP - including entries for groups, individuals and philosophies that I profoundly disagree with. I'm not sure what you mean by canvassing. If, say, the Flat Earth Society entry were at risk of being deleted, then I'd publicly let them know. But this is very different from soliciting votes - or for that matter an expression of intellectual sympathy with Flat Earthers. Or in your judgement, is it best if potentially interested parties in any deletion debate _don't_ know it’s under discussion? --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing explains what is meant by the term. In short, a call to action among editors otherwise uninvolved in a situation which calls for a consensus in order to influence that consensus is considered canvassing, and canvassing is considered disruptive. In this case, the links seem to show that some members were calling on any editor interested in this subject to come vote to keep this article, which is a clear-cut case of canvassing. While it's true that we should always assume good faith, when there is clear evidence of misbehavior (as is the case here), it would be ridiculous to expect editors not to mention it, or not to draw attention to it, or even not to 'out' the editor responsible. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your canvassing included a direct personal attack on me, you have already demonstrated a lack of good faith in this matter - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, you are an outspoken critic of transhumanism in all its guises and favour deleting many transhumanist-related Wikipedia entries. If this misdescribes your position, then I apologise (seriously). MjolnirPants, lamenting the latest round of deletionism is not misbehaviour unless one believes that Wikipedia deletion debates are best conducted without the widest possible discussion.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, MjolnirPants... this is per the first sentence of Wikipedia's page on Canvassing:

"...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Some here seem to be trying to use the rules in a way counter to their true spirit. Some people who disagree with you have appeared in the debate, so it is suddenly "canvassing". Tell me, how does one discover there's even a debate happening? Is the only true and noble way to accidentally stumble upon it?

But as I said... none of this really matters. No one has addressed my point, which makes all of this moot. I listed several reliable sources showing that Abolitionism is a well known and used term. Are there any responses to that? Specifically David Gerard, does that have any effect on your opinion about the deletion of this page, and if not, why not? Bzzzing (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop reading at the first sentence, then. Seriously. I've seen this exact argument a hundred times, and it's just as fallacious now as it has ever been . The links clearly show a call to action directed at a large group of editors who were very likely to vote a certain way. Unless you can produce some evidence that the call to action was made to multiple groups of people, you have no ground to stand on. David, the same thing goes for you. If you have no evidence that this call to action was made to a wide variety of people, then you have no right to claim that it was an attempt to broaden the discussion. The links have been posted and seen. This is clearly canvassing. At this point, it would be best to admit to it and either try to correct it (by making further calls to action to groups not likely to vote your way, such as skeptics and those who have expressed criticism of transhumanism in the past) or try to mitigate the damage done in some other way. As things stand, I really have no idea how many of the one sentence votes above to keep are based on actual consideration, instead of ideological loyalty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like pointless procedural rule arguing, engaged in with the express purpose of trying to avoid talking about the actual merits of the page. The fact is, there is no reason there should have been a call for deletion in the first place, and I have shown evidence of that. Ignoring that evidence and focusing on some obtuse interpretation of the rules seems disingenuous and, honestly, like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

But nevertheless, lets look at your argument. What would you have Davidcpearce do? What do you want? If you truly think that some malicious canvassing was done, then ignore the votes that have no actual substance or point to them. Does any of that have an effect on your opinion about the deletion of this page? Bottom line is that the facts are the facts no matter where they come from, and this focus on canvassing is a sort of backwards, twisted, turned-around version of the argument from authority. Abolitionism is a well known term, it's used widely, it's in print, in papers, and in talks. I've shown that, no one has disputed it. So why are we still here? This debate is being needlessly stretched out. Bzzzing (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But nevertheless, lets look at your argument. What would you have Davidcpearce do? Oh, I dunno. Maybe exactly what I already suggested he do? Seriously, you're clearly arguing to argue. If you don't have any actual point, it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse.

Abolitionism is a well known term, it's used widely, it's in print, in papers, and in talks. So you claim, yet finding RSs for a definition of the term is still a problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing worth keeping in the article. See WP:SYNTH and WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge what info is possible to the biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Very selective merge Not seeing a lot to be saved. Perhaps the second sentence of the Philosophy section could be moved into the BLTC Research section atDavid Pearce (philosopher). If so that section should be the target of the redirect. Everything else is covered in enough detail and most of the rest of this article would be undue or is poorly cited. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2016 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and Computing Engineering[edit]

Mathematics and Computing Engineering (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 topic doesn't seem notable to me. The sources are all universities that offer courses with this name (or similar names) except for the page on Careers360.com, which appears to be either a copy of the article, or vice-versa. If the article is a copy of that page, there are obviously WP:COPYVIO issues too. Yaris678 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree that it appears to be blatant WP:COPYVIO, and rather bad at that. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm not finding anything to actually suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is no article. It could be rewritten from scratch as sub-sub-section on Delhi Technological University. –Be..anyone 💩 08:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Copyvio, notability, and RS problems. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article seems to be about a specific programme offered by a particular university, and not about the "discipline" in general. There are already well written articles about Computer Science and Mathematics. The programme the article refers to is not notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. At best, a single line mention in the article of the university may suffice. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a linguistic conflation rather than an encyclopedic concept, which is why the proffered references are university course pages, rather than proper WP:RS, with analysis and review of topic, and why the article itself says the topic has been labeled differently by other universities. Also probable WP:COPYVIO as noted. Nothing here to salvage, and even if references could be found, WP:TNT applies, and there are extant articles e.g. Theoretical computer science. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (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. If requested, I will restore the article to someone's private draft space so that they can work on improving it. MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book market of Bukhara[edit]

The book market of Bukhara (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)

An interesting text, but unfortunately it is original research published in wikipedia by a newcomer who does not understand our rules Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - Again, no notability, no sources, no WP:GNG met, userfy and resubmit via the wizard if they can adapt. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy I'm not sure if this will ever meet WP:GNG, but we can try. The editor who created this has many of his articles flagged for speedy or proposed deletion, mostly due to original research. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable article which looks like an essay. --Ochilov (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Userfy as I would encourage this user to save us some time, familiarize himself with Wikipedia and take his time, instead of submitting these articles which still need improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy unless seriously rescued: Indications are that the subject might be notable from a glance at GBooks, and it seems likely that there would be additional Arabic and maybe other foreign language sources (Farsi, Russian, Turkish, ...). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - if Userfy works or another user improves, could become an article that passes all standards. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see evidence the subject is notable. This subject should be developed within the Emirate of Bukhara article and the spun off. Sadly, it looks like the author doesn't converse in English and likely won't make the needed changes. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userify -- This is a bad article on a notable subject. I am not convinced that this is so bad that it needs TNT. We are encouraged DONTBITE to new users. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2016 (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. If requested, I will restore the article to someone's private draft space so that they can work on improving it. MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embroidery centers in Surkhandarya[edit]

Embroidery centers in Surkhandarya (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)

An interesting text, but unfortunately it is original research published in wikipedia by a newcomer who does not understand our rules Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - No sources, no notability, doesn't seem to meet any WP:GNG guidelines. I'd userfy it to the author's Sandbox and have them submit it via the WP:WIZ if they're able to adapt it. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Userfy if needed as simply none of this actually suggests an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability and sourcing problems. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy. The sources are there, they just aren't inline, and the notes in the notes section should be integrated into the text. It's going to take some editing. The embroidery tradition is covered in sources here, here, and I suspect that it will be necessary to search on variations of the place name since the original is not in latin alphabet. If you send the user to AfC I will help out. I haven't got the time right now, but will make changes over the next few days if I can. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2016 (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 as a G3 obvious hoax. If this chap was indeed the first man to walk on the moon, I trust that another admin will correct my error. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan McCreath[edit]

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

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

This is a clear hoax and easily qualifies for WP:G3. However, a second user has removed the CSD tag, albeit without a reason. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at once. Big joke. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. The 321 kiddo (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but provide sources, otherwise delete. Spiderman's Companion (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reba Monica John[edit]

Reba Monica John (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)

My searches are finding nothing better than expected links at News and WP:INDAFD and this still seems questionable for the applicable notability with it simply seeming that it's too soon for a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has got significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Passes WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because it's a stub article doesn't make it delete-worthy. There's enough external sources to support WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR, also Reba Monica John played a role of having 3-5 min.s within her debut movie. As on the reviews of her debut movie, their is not even any mentions about her name. [8], [9], [10] also the Manorama Online clearly mentions on their review that "Reba Monica John as Chippy has very little to contribute to the whole" See: [11] JackTracker (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep gained WP:GNG by the references and got notability as appeared in news feed in popular News Articles.--Helper V1 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to a young actress starting out, and has appeared in a notable film and with (some) coverage. Jeppiz (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable, sourced, and verified links. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR. Uncletomwood (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft: Per WP:UPANDCOMING. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:NACTOR 122.174.242.34 (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No solid source. According to WP:BLP and WP:NMODEL, this person is not notable. All primary sources talk about her role in a film, where she is not a lead. Nairspecht Converse 10:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable, Reliable references and meets WP:GNG.--188.49.165.140 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without objections. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurs' Organization[edit]

Entrepreneurs' Organization (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)

An advert for a nonnotable organization. No independent sources despite being tagged since 2014. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Note that this source in the article at the time of the nomination (diff) from the New Straits Times is independent of the topic, as is this source from Inc. in the External links section. Also, how does the article read as an advertisement? It does not contain promotional language or weasel words/phrases extolling the greatness or virtues of the organization. It is actually worded quite neutrally, and provides an objective overview about the organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while the article needs improving, its notable enough and has reliable sources. I would tag it for improvement instead. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional female costume in Surkhandarya[edit]

Traditional female costume in Surkhandarya (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 appears to be entirely original research, with no sources available upon which to build a valid article. Since Surkhandrya is a relatively small region of Uzbekistan, it is not clear that an article covering the traditional female dress of the women in this region is of sufficient global interest to be encyclopedic. An article on clothing in Uzbekistan, or even a section on this topic in Culture of Uzbekistan would be a better, more general starting point. The fact that this article is written in a largely unintelligible English (I suspect a WP:MACHINETRANSLATION) does not help its cause: even if we chose to keep an article on this limited topic, we could not salvage the present text but would need to start over from scratch (i.e. WP:TNT applies). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, little value in its current state--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I hate to say "delete" as this is an encyclopaedic topic, even if it is best covered in a general Uzbek national costume article, but I agree that it looks like a machine translation or original research, and WP:DYNAMITE seems the only way to handle. Mabalu (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - while the article may indeed be topic-worthy, there's not enough sources or details to support WP:GNG. I'd hate to blow it up unless absolutely necessary, my 2cents. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Userfy as none of this actually suggests a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & merge - I can't see how this is notable enough for its own article, but may do well if the key components were placed on an article related to Uzbek culture. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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. This AfD is malformed, please follow the instructions to set it up correctly.  Sandstein  07:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (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. This AfD is malformed, please follow the instructions to set it up correctly.  Sandstein  07:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Riordin[edit]

Kathy Riordin (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)

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO - reliable third party coverage is scant save for brief articles noting her original appointment and her subsequent dismissal from her post as commissioner. (NB - the article misspells her her name and editors searching for sources should search on "Riordan", with an 'a'.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. I got much of the same information searching. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this actually suggests any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough sources to argue notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom; regardless of only two sources, neither assert notability of any kind. I do not know if two sources make a subject notable, one concerns her resignation. Donnie Park (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A local animal control board is not an office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, and none of the sourcing here suggests any reason why she could possibly be considered more notable than the norm for the purposes of WP:GNG — and no, the fact that she's the daughter of a former mayor of the city doesn't give her an inherited notability freebie, either. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SalesLoft[edit]

SalesLoft (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 fails notability, and notability (organizations and companies) guidelines, and the primary contributor has a conflict of interest. Company is not a significant company, but an Atlanta-based Startup and the page is written as a corporate resume. A reference list is included, but individual article components are unreferenced, making independent verification of article tedious. Article's most active editor was User:SalesLoft, but that editor is an unregistered user and was likely a paid editor or employee. Article was nominated for speedy deletion in 2012 for failing WP:CORP and WP:GNG, but banner was removed by an unregistered user/IP address. Absent significant editing to make the article objective and properly referenced, I propose deletion. Stiche1775 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Stiche1775 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and get an admin to topic ban User:SalesLoft. This needs a major rewrite, which I will start, but it is actually notable, searches came up with good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I found some decent sources for this article. Business Insider and entrepreneur.com both have articles for this company. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches are finding nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but add tags - there are plenty of sources and it is notable. But the article itself needs to be severely improved. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2016 (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 - blatant hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius of Dendrinata[edit]

Athanasius of Dendrinata (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'm bringing this to AfD because I think it bears the hallmarks of a hoax, but isn't blatant enough for CSD. I declined a speedy for this reason, after Googling unsuccessfully. I reckon it's a university student hoax, and quite well put together. Whatever, it's been unsourced since 2009 anyway and doesn't show any particular notability for the subject. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for spotting this goes to SwisterTwister, by the way. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete basically as searches easily found nothing and this has never been improved likely because it's non-existent. Certainly another example of no one caring for noticing this was actually fabricated. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches found the same results as above. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. No references whatsoever found for this subject apart from Wikipedia and mirrors. Any authentic ancient Greek philosopher of any notability would have some references in some reliable source - otherwise, how would anyone know of his existence? Calamondin12 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pretty much the same as above. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I see why you were conflicted about a CSD on this one.. It almost looks plausible, but it's still a hoax. Honestly looks like a snow close here is indicated. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the hurry? Article has been here since 2009 ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 15 April 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Brooks Auto Center[edit]

Ellis Brooks Auto Center (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)

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

Non-notable local company. SSTflyer 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:CORP. Despite existing since 1939 gets hardly any coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertisement. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ellis Brooks Chevrolet was a very high-profile dealership. A detailed Automotive News story from 2012 notes that it was "a downtown landmark for decades, with the dealer's name on the roof in neon and visible for miles", and goes into detail about the company's history, including Marie Brooks becoming one of the first female GM franchisees in the country after her husband died in 1963, as well as Penske's recent repurposing of the original building. "How Roger Penske wooed and won Frisco's grande dame of auto retailing and revived a 7-story downtown jewel". When Brooks gave up its Chevy franchise in 2008, it was notable enough to earn a feature story on NPR's Weekend Edition. "Auto Dealing Family Feels The Pinch". Coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle includes "Those Merry Oldsmobile Days Waning / Demise of Auto Row has been tip-off" ("A whole generation of children from San Francisco can recite the Ellis Brooks jingle"); "It's painful to watch passing parade of change"; and a bunch of others that can be found readily by following the Ellis Brooks Chevrolet find sources links above. Given the national coverage plus the extensive local coverage, I think this passes GNG as a San Francisco landmark. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's simply a local car place and it's still questionable for solid notability here at Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I do know a bit about this one and there is actually a historical aspect to this dealership. This one needs a lot more work to make it acceptable. 11:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm coming across more and more about this dealership. I have no doubt in my mind that it is not only historical but notable as well. I'm almost thinking that Marie Brooks may be notable herself. It think that I'll just create a section in the article for her. I'm going to put in some work on this article over the next few days to improve it. It needs much work. Be nice to have some help though. :‑) Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is notable in its own right as a high profile dealership. It has coverage in several reliable sources. That said, I would trim the article significantly. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks to be of historical significance, and there are enough decent sources. Edwardx (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have done a bit pre 13 April 2016 and will do more over the next few days. There is a lot of info about this dealership. You just need to know where to look for the refs and info. Karl Twist (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIMON Short Film[edit]

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

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

Very premature. There is currently no no coverage of this project in reliable third-party sources. This is to be expected: the film is still in pre-production, it's a short film (so less likely to be the subject of in-depth coverage in any case) and it's written and directed by a pair of filmmakers that do not appear to be notable themselves. (Note that an earlier PROD tag was removed) Pichpich (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Also obvious COI, see User:Polexican and User:LeslieHarro , both which have not made userpages but wrote this article and are mentioned in it. Also, this short film doesn't have a title yet... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for any notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

• Delete for being (at kindest) TOO SOON. The two individuals Adam Kowalik and Leslie Harro appear to be names otherwise related to films but I can find nothing connecting them to a SIMON short film. There is a film by this name but with different cast & crew that made the rounds in 2015, but nothing by Kowalik and Harro as a predictive for 2016. Short films always have a tough time, but completely lacking any type of sourcability, smells a bit HOAXEY. If it ever becomes notable the topic can always be revisited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - they can try again when they have sources and notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - NOT anyone with a conflict of interest. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Mhhossein (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, no indication of significance, and G11, entirely promotional. I'm reprotecting. that an article has been accepted at AfC is not sufficient reason for protection to be removed without a discussion with the protecting admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZippCast[edit]

ZippCast (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)

Seemingly NN web site, repeatedly created (and salted) as a marketing piece. Except for mentions on obscure websites like "Prepper Network," nothing to pass GNG.

The article includes references to sites that criticize youtube, but don't mention ZippCast and lots of facebook and forum references. Article heavily edited by COI WP:SPA editors, resulting in an article that seems like nothing more than advertising.

I recommend deleting as NN and salting again. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and if anyone cares to put an A7 on it I wouldn't argue, since any assertion of notability is tenuous at most. Video-sharing is a high profile, well-covered field, and this has no coverage I can see; (the only sources in the at-first-glance-impressive reference section that aren't self-references appear to be about unrelated sites and not to mention this one at all as far as I can see). ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I've removed some of the more questionable material, since Wikipedia article space is not the place for YouTube and a YouTube wannabe startup to fling legal threats at each other, and certainly not without sourcing considerably better than their own user forums. The image will need to go as well, since I can't imagine the SPA who uploaded it really intended to put their own corporate logo into the public domain; Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZippCast Homepage April 2 2016.png duly created. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note that this is the thread where the SPAs are being recruited, so expect a few more newcomers to "stumble across" this article. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could hold some value to readers. It does hold some pretty interesting information. It appears the statement made above "YouTube and a YouTube wannabe" by Iridescent is a bit biased. After roaming their forums the discussion started with a relatively new user discussed changing a draft page. Official staff of the website simply stopped by the thread and gave a simple "thank you". I didn't know that could be a reason to remove a topic here. Toddst1 claims that these accounts were created for a single purpose. In another words he's stating that users are not allowed to create an account to provide information unless they're planning to edit a thousand other topics. Makes one wonder how Wikipedia even started. GenManEdit 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — GenManEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Until I cleared out the worst of the cruft, this spamvertorial explicitly said that this site was modelled on YouTube. What part of "YouTube wannabe" are you disputing? ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 13 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elhachem[edit]

Elhachem (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)

Possible COI and Manual of Style Issues TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While COI and badly written pieces can be fixed, this is not notable. I think it's just a common last name in Lebanon. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - as a history buff, I'm sympathetic. It could be a worthy article if it were sourced. But its not and is also poorly written. It is, in truth, the name of a family that once held regional power. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete -- This has the feel of a badly written family history tract. I would reconsider my position if the article was greatly improved, including references and links. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Fails WP:V, and it's quite difficult to source because searches only seem to turn up people with that name. GAB^Hello! 21:34, 17 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Tuttle[edit]

John Tuttle (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 the notability test for musicians - WP:MUSICBIO. No significant press coverage, recordings, or awards, etc.  —Waldhorn (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/john-tuttle-emc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto2020 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage.Not notable. Bruriyah (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 7 recordings, significant coverage, significant awards. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/john-tuttle-emc/ Toronto2020 (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - if independent sources were provided I'd change my mind very quickly. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Desperately needs sourcing improvement, but the Canadian Encyclopedia link provided by Toronto2020 above singlehandedly slamdunks this by itself — it's a key principle of WP:GNG that one solid entry in an external encyclopedia (presuming, of course, that we aren't simply copyvioing it) counts for as much by itself as five or six news articles. And for added bonus, the "suggested reading" section at the end of the Canadian Encyclopedia entry lists four more potential sources right off the top — and while they won't all be usable sources, ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies coughs up 235 more hits. Keep and flag for reference improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia which establishes WP:GNG and provides further references. freshacconci talk to me 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. I'm unable to access two of the sources below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product requirements document[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced. It's probably an important topic, and googling finds some possible references, but they look like coming from various commercial sites that offer training or services, and it would be much better to have actually reliable sources added by somebody who knows the topic professionally. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is indeed an important topic, and it could be sourced from twenty textbooks at least. (Google search "Product requirements document", click on "books".) The document is the basic expression of what a product is supposed to do, which everyone can easily see must influence every other software engineering/systems engineering document down the line. You are also right that the article ought to be sourced, but that isn't a concern here: our concern is that reliable sources exist, and they do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources need to be added in, but other than that it is notable and important. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although the titles of the references presented by Northamerica1000 seem suspect, upon closer investigation they seem to be RS, so there is quite some coverage. Past the WP:DICDEF line. Esquivalience ^t 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohini_Raaj_Puniya[edit]

Mohini_Raaj_Puniya (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)

Poor references Desertedtense (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subject fails relevant guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no good sources whatsoever. Desertedtense, do not use "Poor References" as your reason. Although you nominated a article that should be deleted, that is not a valid reason and no one will vote for it. Please make your reason lengthier, and see WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - currently no reliable sources, but considering her prominence in Indian, and now international culture, there likely will be some soon. DaltonCastle (talk)
• Userfy in creator's userspace or move to draft per DaltonCastle. Likely to meet GNG so no sense trashing all this person's work. Just park it outside article namespace. Also, is Glamanand Supermodel India at all notable in any way? Possible merge? Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement between multiple editors on whether WP:BLP1E applies to this article, in particular, whether this is a biography. Let us try again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Lyne[edit]

Murder of Ingrid Lyne (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 per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to fail WP:GNG, as well. Further noting that since the article was nominated for deletion, the article creator has changed the name of the article, possibly in an attempt to circumvent 1E (see his comments on 1E below). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF, not circumvent but article improvement. According to that logic, the Boston, Massachusetts article should be deleted because the article was changed to Boston. The editor, WV, has previously been reported to ANI as a drama seeker and problematic editor and has been blocked before. I am sorry there is still daily misbehavior by WV. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: As of today, ten days after the murder, the news cycle on the murder has died to a slow crawl. Both Yahoo and Google searches find only a small smattering of updated news stories online (mostly local from the Seattle area), the rest are days old, in most cases, 4 days old and older. This shows how the incident is little more than a news story, certainly not an ongoing one, and that fact further bolsters the argument that the article is not encyclopedic, rather, a news item. This again brings up how Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As such, the article has no enduring, encyclopedic value and should be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is reason to delete the President Rutherford Hayes article because no news stories on him for decades. No! Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merge, or userfy - It is too soon to tell whether or not this case will make headline news. However, by userfying the article, it can be easily resurrected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since Lyne worked at Swedish Medical Center, this article can redirect to it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a horrible crime, however it's something that isn't necessarily notable. The crime is horrid, but not every crime, or every victim, is notable enough for an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree that we should mention her as a notable person or employee at Swedish Hospital in its article and give the explanation there. That, and/or mention the crime in Wikipedia's current events (daily news section) for the day it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.153.31 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep because it meets the requirements even though this person is not famous - There are currently 20 citations in the article that come from 7 countries. A Google search show 134 citations from at least 10 countries. The nominator says it fails WP:GNG. Actually, it meets it by a wide margin. Specifically

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

Y "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

Y "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Y "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]

The usual Wikipedia custom is to rename the article "Murder of Ingrid Lyne". But that is not a deletion, merely a rename. If Ingrid Lyne were a TV episode, then Wikipedia custom is no question keep.

Wikipedia is not a vote so this careful analysis shows it should be a keep, even a speedy keep. If we don't want Wikipedia to be the porn star, video game, TV episode, high school, big murder website, then there needs to be a systemwide discussion. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see articles, some noting unique information, without doing an exhaustive search from

 Belgium
 United States
 Brazil
 Australia
 India
 Romania
 United Kingdom
 Italy
 Canada
 Republic of China (Taiwan)
Sorry for the flags but that is a Wikipedia tradition. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. All three show how this article is rightly being considered for deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. WP:1E is for a person. This is an event, Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Not news does not prohibit news. Otherwise the 2016 Brussels Airport bombing would be deleted because it is news. Too soon is not applicable because it meets GNG. Sorry, I do not make the rules. But we must follow them. Need to change the rules if you want your way. I will help you if you have a reasonable method to change Wikipedia.. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable. The article is a biography. Sorry, I don't make the rules, either, and policy is not only clear on this, but the article is very likely to be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Whiskeymouth. Caden ^cool 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whiskey's analysis is spot on. Over time, the article will get longer but for now the name change resolves the BLP1E issue and the numerous references and external links make it crystal clear that this topic has already garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Whiskey has added a good deal of sourcing to the article (both local and international). Also added has been coverage from near and far of (a) this case as an archetype for the dangers of online dating and (b) coverage of public officials' reactions to the outpouring of "recycling" jokes. It's all getting significant coverage in reliable sources David in DC (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:David in DC, do consider moving this comment to the bottom of the page, or repeating it there (since someone has already responded to it here). This keeps the debate roughly chronological, very useful to subsequent and closing editors, who need to see how opinion in an AFD shifts as evidence is added, sources added, and article expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage does not an encyclopedia article make. Wikipedia is not a news source nor is it a website that regurgitates and compiles what news sources report. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, that is a truly bizarre argument. OF COURSE Wikipedia articles can be created based on "what news sources report".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG. NOTNEWS does not apply, as Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on news" and WP:NOTNEWS is completely different. An article only stays on Wikipedia based on its enduring notability. It is too soon to determine how notable this murder is, considering how recent this is and there have been other run-of-the-mill murder-and-dismemberment cases in the recent past (like the San Diego case that I mention below). Parsley Man (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the reasons stated already; this is becoming a very heavily-covered story in the media and the trial will likely become another media-event. 68.19.7.65 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavily", how, exactly? Other than a few things trickling out in the local Seattle news as follow-up (and the wire services mirroring same) the story is pretty much widespread-dead for days now. Trial will probably be covered, but no one can know how big it will be, and we shouldn't speculate, and can't predict per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a news-story article that isn't likely to get any bigger or go much further. Hence, the reason why WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM, as policies, exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You know, a similar murder happened in my hometown of San Diego, where a woman was murdered and cut up, with the body parts being stuffed into a suitcase. Now, I would like to know why that doesn't have an article while this one does. Parsley Man (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that case, beyond a few days' news cycle, wasn't any more notable than this one? (I assume you question was rhetorical) :-). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Also, I would also like to add that the San Diego murder was also recent. Parsley Man (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think remember reading something about it a seek or so ago. See? Like most news stories of this kind: shocking but soon forgotten. Which brings me to another thought about why this article shouldn't exist:WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego murder has no article as it is not notable. Notamemorial bans memorial articles. This is not a memorial article. Are you trying to ban the 9-11 article because it memorializes it.....NOOOOO! For some reason, this event is covered in many countries, even non-English speaking countries while many murders are not. Maybe because it is notable by Wikipedia standards? Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or because it's gruesome and shocking news sells. clpo13_(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego murder was gruesome too. Why no article there? Also, Whiskeymouth, you're not making a very good case for yourself. Just because multiple countries are covering doesn't exactly mean it's that notable by Wikipedia standards. Parsley Man (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am surprised by how many articles there are on this. It's a nasty crime, but, at the risk of sounding insensitive, not particularly unusual as far as murders go. Dismemberment isn't an uncommon way to dispose of a body. clpo13_(talk) 05:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean lone victims who were dismembered? Or serial killers who dismember their victims? Parsley Man (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fairly rare, the first one probably moreso (though many serial killers are unknown). But still many cases, in sheer numbers. All very uncommon next to billions of butchered breakfast animals, and all lacking the grisliness/gruesomeness/newsworthiness of human torsos where humans buy breakfast. The facts are sketchy, but that doesn't stop Sweeney Todd from being an article. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the reasons stated already.
• Keep - Heavily covered in American national news + international sources per @Whiskeymouth:. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per rationale stated by Whiskeymouth. This article meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage in multiple local, national, and international publications and websites. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless it's turned into an article about the whole thing. Simply changing the title doesn't cut it. As the passive role, hers is smaller than her killer's, who doesn't deserve a bio from one event, either. Neither does the lead investigator, the judge, the witness, the juror, the bailiff, the reporter, the accomplice nor the sheriff. But there's potentially a place for facts on everyone here, so long as they're pertinent to the widely-but-not-deeply covered case. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your WP:HEY demand has been met, the article has in fact been moved to Murder of Ingrid Lyne, an article about a murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting closer. Still has a biography infobox, the lead still treats her as the topic and the Backgrounds section still skews the focus onto her. "Disappearance and death" subtitle implies the main title is still "Ingrid Lyne". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The guidance under WP:VICTIM seems pretty clear and on point. I'm also not seeing any lasting effect or wide-scale geographic impact that might qualify the murder under WP:EVENT. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: that WP:LASTING impact is not required, neither is "wide-scale geographic impact" (WP:GEOSCOPE). What is required is "significant or WP:INDEPTH coverage."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article fails WP:VICTIM but also WP:PORNSTAR and WP:POLITICIAN. This is because the article is about an event, not a victim, pornstar (people involved are a nurse and a homeless man), or politician (nurse and homeless man). It does qualify under event as evidenced by worldwide coverage, even in the Italian language press. Therefore, Keep. Again, I understand the frustration that some have but such frustration should be discussed systemwide in Wikipedia regarding what articles we want. If we want to no longer have murders and porn stars and video games, except for the truly historic murders and porn stars, then this is a valid discussion point but not an AFD. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was going to pass this one by, it seemed merely to be an unusually macabre boyfriend murder, widely covered out of mere ghoulishness. But then I saw the bit in the article about internet dating sites. Googled it for myself, there really has been coverage of that angle, reported coverage in places far from the murder scene [12], and close to home [13]. Plus extent and intensity of coverage really do make it more than a routine news story. passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Event" I see editors arguing for keeping the article are doing so by claiming it is a notable "event". Wikipedia guidelines on the notability of an event can be found here and are as follows:
  • "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This murder is not such and cannot be predicted to become such per WP:CRYSTAL.
  • "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections." This murder is not such in this case, either.
  • "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Does not qualify.
  • "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting." This murder does not qualify in this capacity, either. All reporting on this has been "in passing" and with the typical news-cycle, not in-depth.
  • "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." This murder has not received significant coverage other than a few mirror mentions from Seattle-area reporting and none of it qualifies as ongoing.
  • "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted...where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability." No significant national or international news coverage beyond a typical news-cycle. This murder fails here, as well.
  • "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines." The coverage does not meet the above guidelines, just as the murder does not meet the above guidelines for WP:EVENT and cannot be considered such to justify having and keeping the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YThank you. This article actually meets two or three of your bullet points! Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but please elaborate how you think it meets those points. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage, more than a 24 hour news cycle but over a week and more, featured in Time (which is mentioned as a criteria). I realize that Wikipedia has articles like these so frustration should be directed at re-defining Wikipedia, not through an AFD of an article that meets the standards. I easily found more countries where there is coverage and the coverage is different. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Whiskeymouth, BabbaQ and others. The online dating issue is a relevant angle and I think that it meets GNG based upon adequate news coverage from independent sources. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, textbook WP:BLP1E case. Perhaps this can be reassessed in six months to see if the "debate" over internet dating is still kicking along, but at the moment we have the usual flurry of routine coverage that most gruesome crimes get. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Look at the refs. On the other hand, I really regret getting involved in this page (with a casual renaming) at the beginning. It's worthy of a basic page, but it's not worthy enough for all this effort and dsicussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now as the article certainly seems informative and sourced but I still question how solid and acceptable this is for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Ambani[edit]

Anant Ambani (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)

All symptoms of paid editing here... There are articles on all this person's siblings and his parents. His father is undoubtedly notable, but notability is not inherited. Apart from being the son of his father, Anant's claim to fame seems to be based on the fact that he lost a lot of weight, which seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Article has a deceptively large number of references. However, most are not about this person, but either about his father or one of his companies. Those that are about Anand Ambani are short and in passing and concentrate on the weight loss, or they are blog posts. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply nothing at all for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, subject fails relevant guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sure we don't have a category of how to become notable for weight loss, but the coverage about him is extensive, and so I think people want to know more about him. Leave it with a banner asking for better references.Bruriyah (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello! While the WP:BLP1E applies here, I think other sources are relevant enough for the personality's page to be live. As mentioned by Bruriyah above, the coverage on his weight loss is extensive, and the article fulfils WP:BASIC. Please consider keeping the article with a tag for additional sources. Sonixgirl (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited. The lead of the articles tries to establish notability using his family. About weight loss coverage, to avoid WP:BLP1E, he should at least have been nominated in some records books about losing highest weight in smallest time, or something of that sorts. Till something of that sort happens, or till he does something notable on his own, the subject does not pass notability for wikipedia. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed unnecessary info about siblings from the lead section. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - may become notable again in a few years but as it stands, not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The single event mentioned here does not make it notable per WP:BLP1E, as many editors have pointed out; it may be notable in the future. Moving it into a draft for a time of six months (the general tenure) and then deleting it would be wiser. Having said that, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. If drafting is an issue, then delete. Best, Nairspecht Converse 06:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED & WP:BLP1E. Vipinhari || talk 10:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Being poorly referenced isn;t a valid reason, Obviously BEFORE wasn't followed so closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sobhita Dhulipala[edit]

Sobhita Dhulipala (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)

Poor references Desertedtense (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets all notability requirements. Remember, WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. If there isn't enough sources, add more, don't go straight to afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable. There are sources out there on her. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2016 (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 05:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Ilias Orfanidis[edit]

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

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

Does not currently meet the general notability guideline or the the sportspeople-specific guideline. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Couldn't find any sources. Non-notable per WP:ATH. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - same as above. He might become notable in the future, but not now. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not yet notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovik Kendi[edit]

Ludovik Kendi (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)

All the usual alarm bells are set off here. Started by single-purpose account LudovikKendi (cough, cough) and seeming sockpuppet Shoegal? Check. Glossy self-submitted photos and publicist's tone? Check. "Sourcing" that ranges from cruft to directory entries to personal websites to advertisements to PR materials to passing mentions in government-issued bulletins? It's all there. "Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete? Check! Per excellent analysis of Biruitorul. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources establish notability under WP:NM. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I saw this title in the AfD list, my initial thought was 'hoax!', based on the similarity to the late British broadcaster Ludovic Kennedy. I've not come across Ludovik as a Romanian name, but it seems he was born 'Lajos', which is Hungarian. As to notability, I think not. Performing under the direction of a notable conductor (Simon Rattle) is not notable unless perhaps you were one of the soloists in a big work. Being an 'ensemble member' is equivalent to being in the chorus line or corps de ballet. I get the feeling this is a promo piece by the subject to try to hasten the day when his notability will come. It probably will - he's done some roles like Tonio already. He just needs that break that even the talented need. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Biruitorul did a good explanation there. I searched for him, really nothing came up (Besides his own website and a couple other things). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if he becomes more notable in the future, reliable sources will arise and there won't be a need for a COI editor to recreate the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2016 (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 Deleted (G5) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Lafond[edit]

Hashim Lafond (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)

Apparently minor actor, with his supposedly best-known-for roles including "Carnival Patron" and "Student". Only secondary sources given are him being captioned-in-passing in a local paper as a woman's son-in-law, and being quoted about painting a mural with other teenagers in 2005. Fails WP:BASIC. McGeddon (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC and does not meet WP:NACTOR. The roles in notable films have not been significant, and general coverage is non-existent. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. imdb shows a series of small, mostly uncredited parts. imdb biography (not reliable) used as principal reference. Other references mention subject but are not really about him. ubiquity (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and my searches really didn't find much. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article can be recreated when there are more notable coverages. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as comprehensively failing WP:NBIO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing better at all for any solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as article has been G5 speedy deleted?Coolabahapple (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mdhashim24. --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2016 (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. Sources seem to say otherwise so closing as Keep

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 02:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group[edit]

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group (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)