< 17 April	19 April >

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

The result was no consensus. The recent cleanup seems to be a reasonable place to start improving and WP:TNT no longer applies. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raising for Effective Giving[edit]

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

This article was created by Ruairi Donnelly, a blogger for the organization. He has also been the primary contributor. The article has a promotional tone, and the organization doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Most of the sources are from the organization itself. Pawg14 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerned that a lot of sources are blog posts and apparent comments in poker forums but will hold back a bit for consideration of any other sources, if they exist. Noted that there's an Aftonbladet article but I don't read the language. Tages-Anzeiger also has what looks like a legit piece. However these may be the only two citations in the article that are not poker blogs, podcasts, individual blogs, SPS or other non-RS. - Brianhe (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to also be an NPR piece and this piece by Bluff Magazine, which is about poker, but looks like an actual magazine and not just a blog. NeatGrey (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one paragraph by what looks like an actual magazine. This looks like an interview by a German TV channel. I don't speak German, though. NeatGrey (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. "a community of professionals who aim to have a positive impact on the world", as the lead sentence... wow. I'm tagging this with newsrelease and COI, since those will have to be fixed even if the article is kept. NeatGrey (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I agree with the concerns about promotional tone (and will try to edit if I have time), the notability seems to be there, especially with the large amount of coverage in mainstream poker news outlets. Tempo mage (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Want to notify @Parg14: (because this has been the reasoning behind several deletion requests by you) and readers that notability is not determined by the average citation. Statements like "Most of the sources are from the organization itself" might indicate poor article quality, but not a lack of notability. See "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as the key qualification in WP:GNG Tempo mage (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I will make some edits now, I think the organization is sufficiently notable to keep the page. Archie2247 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Archie2274 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The sources that are substantially about the subject are few, and that's without looking at whether they are RS. There are blog posts and youtube videos, and many references are the organization's own web site. Some of the links to poker sites that I looked at did not mention the charity. It will be hard to assess this unless the article is purged of all of the non-RS, which is the majority of what is here. Otherwise, reviewers have to wade through a lot of cruft to make an assessment. As an example, the entire section called "Representation at 2014..." is about the poker players, not about the charity. That whole section should be removed. Then, an evaluation needs to be done of the remaining sources to see if they can be considered reliable. As an example for that, the Lee Davy articles in calvinayre.com is not under editorial control, as per the disclaimer that follows the article. It would be useful if those advocating !keep would indicate which of the sources they consider to be reliable, so we could narrow down the discussion. The only realistic option I see is TNT once reliable sources are identified. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:TNT. Agree 100% with LaMona, although it may be notable, this article is unworkable and the best solution for the encyclopedia is to start over. Brianhe (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess. In the mess of press releases and poker blogs, I don't see anything that looks like a reliable source with non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original, but give it a serious cleanup. If that doesn't work (and it doesn't seem like anyone has really given it a go), I'll agree to WP:TNT. Adrianrorheim (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Update: I've had a go at cleaning up the intro in line with people's comments here; will do some more edits in a couple of hours. Adrianrorheim (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but for me this doesn't amount for the kind of rewrite needed. The poker blogs and so forth are just too much. Sticking with my delete !vote. - Brianhe (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been slimmed down to such a degree that it no longer has a promotional feel to it. Have a look and see if anything more needs to be done at this point. Adrianrorheim (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)— Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete at best for now as the current article is still questionable and I'm not convinced any improvements would make this better thus Delete for now and wait for a better article later. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & continue improvements.--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Few or no other edits"(?) Before this sudden rash of deletion proposals from a new editor who has now reverted to a previous username, my immediately preceding edits were on Giulio Regeni, ‎Pál Prónay, Jonas Savimbi, Otto Ohlendorf, Switzerland during the World Wars, Quantum superposition, the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown... (etc)‎--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this note is necessary, but FYI I removed the SPA tag from Davidcpearce, as the account clearly has many other edits. No comment on the subject and other issues going on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. Wildly out of compliance with our content policies. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I unstruck a few stricken comments. Jytdog, NeatGrey is about to be cleared of wrongdoing, though it is strongly suggested they brush up on their German and place a note on their old and new user pages acknowledging their connection. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more financial info and removed more promotional-sounding/superfluous text. Would be great if someone could have a look and see if the article is nearing an acceptable standard (Disclosure: I am affiliated with REG's parent organization, EAF, and I'm doing these edits in my spare time.) Adrianrorheim (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. We are not a webhost for various charities. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 25 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 SNOW Keep (NAC) as I see no needs to continue this when there is currently 6 votes. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Krayem[edit]

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

Due to a previous large controversy about merging this article to the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, I have decided to open this to settle the matter once and for all. As I said before in my merger proposal, Krayem fails WP:BLP1E and is notable towards the bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is WP:GNG. Good sources. This should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This guy is a major Swedish-born terrorist, who's going to be in the news for a long time. Just today it was determined he was present at the apartments from where the Paris November 2015 Terror Attacks originated. So this character is an accomplice to at least three separate terror attacks in Paris plus at least two bombings in Brussels. These events span across 2015 and 2016. Plus, his criminal career includes entering Europe via Leros (Greece) as a Syrian asylum refugee. Any deletion is way premature. XavierItzm (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may well be notable, but entering Greece with false papers doesn't contribute to that notability. It's a pretty minor crime in comparison to those of which he is suspected. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GNG. He is one of the two perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings that are still alive. I believe he is notable as an individual since he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, especially in Swedish and Belgian media. I don't think he fails WP:BLP1E, since the event is significant and his role in it is both substantial and well documented. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notoriety well established by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG. Both notable and notorious.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is reliably sourced, subject meets notability standards per WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 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 per discussion. there is a link to this person in Brussels ISIL terror cell, making a merge unnecessary.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abrini[edit]

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

Due to a previous large controversy about merging this article to the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, I have decided to open this to settle the matter once and for all. As I said before in my merger proposal, Abrini fails WP:BLP1E and is notable towards the bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is WP:GNG. Good sources. This should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GNG. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and he is one of two of the perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings that are still alive. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support notoriety of this criminal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is reliably sourced, subject meets the standards of WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per nom. This man is only notable for his role in the bombings and there is a real risk of content forking if the articles continue in parallel. Will a specific article for one of the perpetrators of a notable event be relevant to our readers in 20 years time? I doubt it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced. this person has been featured plenty in media in his own "right".. and is definitely notable enough for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Try-CybSI[edit]

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

Non notable part of one particular probably non- notable initiative of a professional society. No third party sources (computer.org is part of IEEE) and all sources are press releases, DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing at all suggesting the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not every project of IEEE is notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 25 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Exchange & Commercialisation (KEC)[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is a a meaningful concept, rather than a trade promotion. The introductory sentence describes it "an umbrella term which describes a broad range of activities ..." and goes on to list them: they include essentially every area of entrepreneurship and a good deal else also. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just managerial babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Retain. I would disagree - the term has a specific meaning within public sector research, and is often used in this context but without explaining what it actually is: examples: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] therefore my reasoning for including this page is it is useful for anyone looking to further explanation or seeking clarification. It is an umbrella term but similarly to how Marketing includes PR, Advertising, Sales Promotion, Brand etc. ReetGoodOnion talk ~~08:14, 19 April 2016 (GMT)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReetGoodOnion (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Not a dictionary. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

Comment. The article creator is fairly obviously inexperienced, and I am not at all certain that this is a suitable topic for a standalone page - but the nominator and the one editor so far recommending deletion (neither of whom, I believe, are British) both seem to be missing some important features of the topic (which admittedly have been glossed over or more probably missed by the article creator). I largely tend to agree with User:Xxanthippe that this is managerial babble, but even though I can not recall meeting this particular gem of a phrase before, I am totally convinced by the sources provided that it is managerial babble with significant consequences (when one works in British university administration, one recognises the style). What is happening here is that, for at least a couple of decades, British government policy has been that, beyond a relatively small proportion that goes to pure research topics, government funds for academic research should be aimed at projects with potential commercial applications. The British research councils therefore have policies that make this a condition of most research grants - and one or more research councils have therefore labelled their policy about this as "Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation", British universities and related bodies have chosen to copy the terminology, and they are employing people and/or contracting with companies to ensure that grant proposals are in line with the policy or at least look as if they are. No doubt, in a few years, the relevant research councils will revise the policy and adopt another term for it - and with a lag of a few more years, British universities and the relevant specialists will follow suit. But we have some more or less usable content here - the article looks like a reasonable account, if rather naive and partial, of the current working of the general policy in a sizeable area of British scientific research (something that currently seems to be completely missing from, for instance, Research Funding in the UK and Research Councils UK). Finally, some hopefully friendly advice for User:ReetGoodOnion: if by any chance you are (or ever have been) employed by or closely associated with PraxisUnico, while you are quite welcome (and indeed encouraged) to create Wikipedia articles on topics like this one, your should look at WP:COI and generally avoid mentioning PraxisUnico or recognisably referring to its activities when writing articles. PWilkinson (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the references use the term, I didn't find that any are about the topic itself. What we have here are the strategies (or marketing promotions) of different organizations that use the term, undoubted, as said above, since the UK government seems to be tying funding to it. Essentially we have research organizations declaring their "commitment to KEC". The link to PraxisUnico is very WP:COATRACK (and the information that it is used to reference would be best taken from a non-promotional source), and since the same editor created both articles I'm afraid that's what this is. I also think that the topic is covered in other articles on Knowledge transfer, Technology transfer, and Public private partnership. It may make sense to add this particular government campaign into one or more of those, but I don't see it having enough new content for a stand-alone article. I don't turn up anything more in searches. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is still questionable for any improvements and Draft at best if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems to be a very specialised term which I doubt is notable enough for the subject of an article. Perhaps a merge could work if required. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 27 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Mounts[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:COMPANY. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some references covering the products ([4], [5], [6], [7]) in what appear to be industry-related websites. Might be reprints of press releases, and even if not, there may be a lack of independence. -- RM 14:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - the products have been reviewed in many publications, so they seem to be notable, while the company doesn't seem to be. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, yes of course, I don't know what I was thinking. delete. -- RM 14:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the company doesn't seem to make WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Certainly the article needs improvement but the product is certainly notable. Anybody attaching GPS, phone, tablets, fishfinders, depth indicators etc etc to motorcycles, aircraft cockpits, and to boats, etc etc, very likely will be familiar with Ram Mounts - one of the best known ways of securely attaching portable electronic equipment to vehicles. Please don't delete because the article needs work. Help improve the article. I know this is by itself not a compelling argument, but it does carry some weight: there are many many articles at WP on devices which do NOT lead their market sector. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Once again if the products are notable then there should be an article about the products, but this article is about the company, and it seems to not be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what others have said. The products themselves seem to be notable enough for an article, but this is about the company itself, which has been covered by few reliable, independent sources. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:32, 27 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" 11:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caverswall China Co[edit]

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

zero evidence for notability besides a Royal Warrant .hat they sold some china to the Royal Family is not notability in any rational sense. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing, local company with nothing convincing for the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. About the most interesting thing I could find was this. Not convincing. -- RM 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Cannot find anything online other than the two cited references about the company acquistion. Congrats to the company that got a nice royal warrant and was then sold, but that's pretty much all that anyone could possibly say about the article's subject, and it may be all that has been reliably published. Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 24 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 List of rail accidents (2010–present)#2015. Merge to the extent desired. Sandstein 20:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Heimdal train derailment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this article as well as 2015 Galena train derailment for the same reasons as the first AfD. For some reason the first discussion was closed as "no consensus" even though there were 9 votes in favor of deletion or merge including the article creator who changed his vote, and only 2 keeps. The article was instead redirected to List of rail accidents (2010–present)#2015 for almost a year with no objections until one particular user seemed determined to reignite this debate recently. There is also a merge discussion at Talk:List of rail accidents (2010–present)#Merger_Discussion, however the page seems dead. There is no reason this event should have it's own article as both events are already mentioned at List of rail accidents (2010–present)#2015. This event was already considered unnotable last May. Today, no one even remembers this event as it is ancient history.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge as per nom. These types of articles are only notable if catastrophic damage had occurred. No deaths and minimal damage in this accident makes it not notable. Nordic Dragon 07:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail accidents (2010–present)#2015. A merge there could be considered, but there is already a mention here (a small one, but that's all that it warrants). I guess the "no consensus" in spite of the absence of relevant keep !votes was due to the split between "delete" and "merge" recommendations (if deleted, the content and edit history go down the sink). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as still questionable and unlikely better for its own article. Certainly not seriously needed for deletion, so Redirect. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with deleting it all together because no one is really searching for it and the article traffic is dismal. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/#project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=2015_Heimdal_train_derailment TL565 (talk) 07:14, 24 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" 11:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Lee (comedian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSIC. Sources are almost all local entertainment rags, which are more local entertainment calendar than news. Works do not appear charts, and landing a role in a pilot does not establish notability. Being mildly - or even moderately - successful does not make one notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Scr★pIron^IV 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Scr★pIron^IV 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears as a promotional for someone trying to make it in show business. Article was created by a now-banned user, it is constantly being edited by anon-IPs. While a few editors have worked diligently to convert the initial mess of the article into something worthwhile, it might be worthwhile to pull the plug on this WP:TOOSOON and wait for some reasonable level of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically entirely a promotion. Not surprising to see the SPI. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too soon. There is quite a bit of news coverage. Much of it strikes me as ROUTINE: even though it is written as in-depth coverage, it is written because he's going to be performing a particular show, which qualifies more as an announcement of an event. I'm concerned about independence since the sites promoting it stand to benefit. -- RM 14:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- has a ton of legitimate press that authenticates his shows and career

Also, has various different careers that are mentioned in various press articles, Notable person with three careers, impressive- SRB

Keep - Sources are real press coverage,with alot of bio and information on subject.

He has articles in detail about himself, as well as upcoming venues. Subject has multiple music albums(CD Baby) and has performed many comedy shows (YouTube) . Very talented and multifaceted person. - LLW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.111.243 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's some coverage here of course but simply nothing actually confidently convincing. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kahan S. Dhillon Jr.[edit]

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

Subject does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion as per WP:BIO. TOW 21:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An impressive resume, but I didn't see anything to meet WP:BIO. Also too promotional by half.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 24 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 per policy based rationale this passes GNG based on sources provided. The article has also been improved significantly. (nac) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Brussels[edit]

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

Belgium–India relations are notable; embassies themselves are often not-notable buildings. Nothing in this article to lead one to think this one is in itself notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article merely confirms it exists. Otherwise it's actually about foreign relations which is covered in other articles. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a building. The Embassy of India in Brussels serves as India's Embassy to Belgium, Luxembourg, as well as India's Mission to European Union. If there can be article on a Mission like Mission of Canada to the European Union or an article on an Embassy like Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels, then surely the article in question deserves to be there, coz it's an Embassy as well as a Mission. As far as the article is concerned, I'l be making some changes to it in next few minutes to make it more deserving. Netstar1 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I beg to differ from u. What you are saying is something like "I will delete the wikipedia article on India, even if all/most other countries have dedicated articles on Wikipedia". There are hundreds of articles on embassies on Wikipedia, so please dont say that articles embassies are often non-notable "buildings", that dont deserve to have articles. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there so that garbage articles are not created on minor pretexts, and I donot think that my article is garbage. I believe that the topic (India's Embassy to Belgium, Luxembourg and European Union) is important enough for an article to be created on it. And I think the matter that I've written on this article is decent enough. I've made some changes to the article since u nominated it for deletion. I request u that some other established editor shud be allowed to decide on this matter. Regards. Netstar1 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And many embassy articles have been deleted too. LibStar (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and more references are available. Keep with a 'needs help' banner. VanEman (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and all the references are primary. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge and redirect with the articles written on the same subject that the author has mentioned above, eg. Indian Embassy to Luxembourg, Inidan Embassy to EU Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of diplomatic missions of India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GEOBIAS on display:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Oslo (Withdrawn by nominator as it was heading for speedy keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Dublin (keep)
- There are dozens and dozens of articles on British, American, Canadian etc embassies. Why are the ones from Global South countries always targeted? AusLondonder (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

because they fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under your strict interpretation, they fail as well. Systemic bias is the reason. AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to actually demonstrate any sources to fulfil WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per precedent of Category:Diplomatic missions of the United States (90 pages) and Category:Diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (50 pages) AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. many embassy Articles have been deleted or redirected. can you point to actual coverage of this embassy? LibStar (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No US ones that I am aware of. AusLondonder (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to actually demonstrate any sources to fulfil WP:GNG for this embassy. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've had 9 days to find any evidence of coverage. Presume you can't. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of India. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see where notability has been demonstrated. As already noted, the specified sources fail to do so. Saying "it's important" or "some other embassies have articles" does not show notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You guys are using WP:INDAFD to help with verification and notability, right?--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think embassies are generally speaking notable. News hits come up for them too, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The coverage is all somewhat in passing, but I think there is enough of it that it all adds up to notability SJK (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

none of the 5 sources you supply show the Embassy as a subject of the source and thus is not in depth coverage. All the sources are about incidents where the Embassy had commented or been involved as part of their usual role . GNG specifically requires Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail . These sources do not. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Also Pedersen, J⊘rgen Dige (1993). "India and the EC in a new world order". Contemporary South Asia. 2 (3): 265–284. doi:10.1080/09584939308719717. ISSN 0958-4935. discusses their significance in Indian history: "The establishment of the first institutional link came through the opening of an Indian Mission in Brussels in January 1962 in an effort to—in the words of the then Indian ambassador to Brussels—'contain the threat and utilize the opportunity for wider benefit'" (p. 267) SJK (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This source discusses them in detail: Pascaline Winand; Marika Vicziany; Poonam Datar (30 January 2015). The European Union and India: Rhetoric or Meaningful Partnership?. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 178. ISBN 978-1-78347-039-6. In Brussels, with 60 staff, the Embassy of India to Belgium, Luxembourg and the European Union is small, relative to European embassies and some Asian embassies... SJK (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And this source also directly discusses the Indian Embassy in Brussels. Alexandra Fanny Brodsky (2007). In Pursuit of a Dream: A Time in Australia. The Radcliffe Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-84511-315-5. SJK (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire 10th chapter of G. V. Ramakrishna (2004). Two Score and Ten: My Experiences in Government. Academic Foundation. p. 107. ISBN 978-81-7188-339-4. describes the authors experience as the Indian ambassador at this embassy (1989–1990). As such, it spends a far amount of time discussing events which took place at the embassy during his time there. SJK (talk) 08:16, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Mama Bye bye[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with very little content. Don't believe this is notable as the real-life event that it's derived from appears to be a redlink too. CaptRik (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the topic the film deals with is notable (the article's link should go to 1977 Yokohama F-4 crash instead), that is not justification for having an article about this film (per WP:INHERIT). As for the standalone notability of the film, the only sources I could find were websites dealing specially with anime films, which does not constitute the sufficient independent third-party sourcing needed to pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. As far as I could tell, it was not widely reviewed by critics, is not historically notable, and has not received any major awards, and is therefore non-notable. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The movie is based off of this book: [13] (パパママバイバイ) doing a further search yields results in Japanese print media, [14] as well as a mention in The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition. [15]. The entry is also present over at other wiki Japan. [16] If this is kept then it needs a good translator to make sense of it all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The movie does appear in MADB, but most articles point to the crash event. [17] Both the book and the adapted anime film can be redirected there with sections and infoboxes as it is difficult to tell notability for the book and film separate from the actual event. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to 1977 Yokohama F-4 crash as mentioned as this is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Affimity[edit]

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

Article might not meet notability standards for websites. Article was created by the Digital Marketing Specialist working for the company. TOW 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and am not convincing how this shows the applicable notability, too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based upon available sources, not the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete: The sources offered and that I've found cover almost entirely the public offering and not much else. There's one source that's comprehensive. And the others are interviews of employees. The entire article isn't properly cited, on top of it, and still reads like promo text even after Northamerica1000's edits to the page. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of high quality sources. SJK (talk) 06:08, 30 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" 11:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda Emirate in Yemen[edit]

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

The article looks duplicating an existing one - Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is virtually duplicates the one linked by the nominator. Any relevant content contained in this article that is not present in the other existing article can and should be merged there.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Panam2014 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support a merger between the two articles. --Donenne (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contents could easily be included in other articles, seems to include WP:OR and WP:SYNTH too. Gazkthul (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I see nothing to convincingly keep especially considering the other article. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 24 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, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Resilience movement[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I find no pertinent, independent coverage of this in reliable sources. A Google search returns mostly results with punctuation, at least, between the two words "art" and "resilience", along with a couple of wiki articles, a couple of blog posts, and one event listing. It doesn't strike me that as an artistic movement it's achieved notability. The entire description of the movement is from the perspective of the participants' motivations behind it rather than in terms of any objective explanation of what it is. (Frankly, I'm not even certain that Ksenia Milicevic is notable, based on how little Google returns for her name, but I haven't run a full study on that.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this currently suggests it's not independently notable yet, thus should not be kept as its own article yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from some coverage in La Dépêche du Midi, a reliable source, no other sources seem to exist. Mduvekot (talk) 15:16, 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 merge to Hamilton College (New York). -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamilton College Spectator[edit]

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

Student newspapers are not notable JDDJS (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into Hamilton College (New York), doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own, but useful to the other article. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as mentioned as this is not seriously needed for deletion but it is also still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:CHEAP and common sense. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above that notability requirements have not been met. WP:CHEAP doesn't talk about merges; cheap disk space is not a reason to keep information. In this case, I kind of go along with the WP:MERGEWHAT essay. Unless someone is volunteering to merge the info now, it doesn't seem worth the pain. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:12, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Tait[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability criteria for MMA fighters since he has no top tier fights. Second tier titles have never been considered enough to show notability. Coverage appears insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon for now, not yet convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bertman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is written as a purely promotional topic TJH2018 talk 17:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (struck per following discussion) The article was probably started by a COI SPA, but there is enough meat to warrant keeping it. Bertman appears to meet notability requirements and the coverage is neutral. We're simply reporting why he is known, not promoting his ventures. Meters (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this article via a Pushipedia alert, it finds articles with unusually high levels of editing. Before it was nominated, it was being vandalised by several new accounts who introduced BLP violations, so I have deleted those revisions, indef blocked the accounts, and semi-protected the page for seven days. Fences&Windows 19:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was kept at AfD in 2010. Of the three articles two are now deadlinks, but that doesn't stop them being valid. Some additional sources: http://www.fastcompany.com/3009104/how-to-use-frustration-to-create-something-amazing; http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/technology_news/2012/11/hub_based_pri_med_buys_amazing_charts; http://www.inc.com/profile/amazingchartscom Fences&Windows 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of sources that mention him that can be used. Meters (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to actually suggest a better article for this physician, entirely questionable overall. Asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline notability, and the combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism can be dealt with. If his background in electronic health records isn't enough for notability then clearly this should be deleted. There are lots of reliable sources showing his connection to and recognition for his medical records work. I thought that was enough, but I admit I wasn't sure. Glad to have other eyes on it. I'll strike my support. Meters (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few sources cover him but I don't feel what covers him is enough for notability. SJK (talk) 06:11, 30 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. While the delete arguments had a numerical majority, many of the delete arguments were not policy-based or were even contrary to policy. The "keep" arguments demonstrated the crucial factor, the availability of sufficient reference material, and the suitability of such references was not disputed or even questioned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Berenis[edit]

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

No indication of notability, using Wikipedia as a reference. Laber□^T 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:GNG, no cites, no notes, no nothing, barely even an article much less a complete thought, completely base. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the page has been BLPROD'ed for no refs on a bio article. Looks like it might be deleted one way or the other. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps merge into article about his band if such is not already present there. Dkendr (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- Fails GNG, cites no references, and has no context. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Neutral -- Crh23 makes some good points, so I am neutral. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'm not convinced of a failure to meet WP:GNG. A quick search brought up lots of articles from a couple of sites, quite a few interviews, as well as some more mainstream coverage in non-celebrity focused sources (more: [18] [19] [20]). I think this is a case where he is a bigger deal in Lithuania than in English-speaking countries, so anglophones are naturally biased (by the lacks of English refs). With that amount of coverage (I have taken a maximum of one article from each source, and have excluded things that look like simple DBs), it looks to me like he passes WP:GNG. (Granted, the article needs some work!) — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that notability in Lithuanian doesn't confer notability in English - otherwise we'd need stub articles for this subject in Urdu, Faroese and Cantonese as well. Dkendr (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion has no support in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. See WP:RSUE, which only deprecates non-English sources when English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. If such sources are not available then non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. This is an encyclopedia of the whole universe that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the Anglophone world. The Urdu, Faroese and Cantonese Wikipedias set their own guidelines for article inclusion, so may or may not wish to have an article on this subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we are talking about my opinion and what informs my opinions in AfD discussions. My vote on these subjects is not subject to disqualification or revocation because it's not founded on official doctrine. It only means that it can't be used as a justification for a unilateral action. Dkendr (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the whole nature of English Wikipedia so that it becomes only an encyclopedia of the Anglophone world then you need to propose a change to policy rather than just express an opinion at a deletion discussion. These discussions are held to decide whether article subjects conform to our current policies, not the dumbed-down policy that you are proposing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a rule that our sources must be in English — as long as our article is in English, the sources can be in any language so long as there are Wikipedia contributors who have the ability to read and translate it if needed. We can't stop you from having opinions, true — but if your opinion contravenes Wikipedia policy, then policy wins and your opinion carries zero weight. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:GNG, where it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Move to Draft instead if needed as this would still be questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, could you please try to put your deletion rationale into plainer English, with some kind of justification for your opinion based on examination of potential sources. You may be right, but such comments that you make in very many deletion discussions don't make it at all clear what you actually mean, and what evidence you base your opinions on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "Solidity", as in the state of an article (?), has nothing to do with the notability of a subject on Wikipedia. See also WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per North America. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to Merge - Notability appears to derive primarily from the band, Žas. But of the four members, only this one has a stand-alone article. Delete to merge with band's article. X4n6 (talk) 05:07, 1 May 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 sourcing isn't sufficient to show notability. If at a later point in time sources do become available, the article can be created and evaluated in draft space. —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Periya Nambi[edit]

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

Very poor referencing even if the article was not subject to BLP. Could also be a test edit but I'll be lenient here. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've actually had this watchlisted because I planned to nominate, nothing at all for better context, notability or improvements. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, appears to be translated from some site, nothing noteworthy here. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hard to even determine in what context the individual would be notable in - the only references are personal blogs. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I am revising this article because this person is important to Sri Vaishnavam. Miffedmess (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books and scholar return many results for "Periya Nambi" or "Perianambi" and even more for "Mahapurna". So far the best source I have found is a book called The Complete Works of Swami Ramakrishnananda, Volume 2 which in section 2 "Life of Sri Ramanuja" has many mentions of "Mahapurna". These are sources in English. Yet my understanding is, the best sources on the topic would not be in English. Anyway, for a person who died roughly 1,000 years ago, I find this rather impressive. Clearly notable. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That book is published by lulu.com, a known WP:SPS and non-WP:RS. See admin Utcursch note here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify this please? I would assume this is neither the only, neither the first edition of Swami Ramakrishnananda's Life of Sri Ramanuja, a book which I imagine is in the public domain. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Biwom: Please check your assumption. I read a few pages of the lulu.com version yesterday. It read like some hagiography (a genre of mostly fiction, some facts found in Indian and non-Indian religions, often written decades or hundreds of years after the scholar's death, where we find allegations such as babies being born out of the palm of a woman post immaculate conception and sun rising in the west or north on the birthday, because it was a special day. etc). I agree with admin @Utcursch; we should keep away from lulu.com and other WP:SPS in wikipedia. The burden of WP:RS is on the person who wishes to add content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have checked my assumptions and found them to be correct... Nevertheless, I agree 100% with you that this book is, quite literally, a hagiography. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very little is known about Peri Nambi, also known as Mahapurna, except for inconsistent mentions of his name in a few hagiography of Sri Vaishnavism. He does not meet WP:Notability, and is at best just shy of being a borderline case. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and particularly, the wiki guideline, "Genealogical entries. (...) Less well known people may be mentioned within other articles", I lean towards delete vote. FWIW, I have already mentioned Mahapurna in the Ramanuja article, quite a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyanathan Ramaswami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I spent some time cleaning up this aticle, and now that is is clean, it is very thin indeed. After removing links to his daughter's bio, text about where his successful kids work, and lot of peacock language, all that is left are a few industry and academic awards. All in all, I'm thinking he does not meet notability requirements. Note that he was an academic for four years, followed by being a Bell labs researcher, and is now an industry researcher. Ah, and now I see that this is the third time around at AfD. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GS h-index of 32 in computer science passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
CommentXxanthippe, just a note to say that WP:Prof#C1 specifically says that h-indexes are of "limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied", and that "They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted..." HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject has authored a number of highly-cited works, so I think WP:PROF#C1 applies. However, the entire article is uncited WP:RESUME. With the exception of the "Distinguished Alumni Award" from Purdue, none of the article is referenced to reliable secondary sources. It seems like a rather absurd suggestion to reduce the article to the BLP-complaint single sentence: "In 2011, Vaidyanathan Ramaswami was named a Distinguished Science Alumnus by Purdue University". Sławomir
Biały 17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the BLP is WP:RESUME then edit it to improve. Don't delete it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As I said, the article would then read "In 2011, Vaidyanathan Ramaswami was named a Distinguished Science Alumnus by Purdue University." That doesn't seem like a basis for an encyclopedia article, and is borderline A7. Sławomir
Biały 14:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think he does pass WP:PROF#C1 (fwiw, it was a little tricky to get a Google scholar search that would list all his pubs and not be confused with other people with similar names — here's what I used). The problem is that other than the alumni award we have essentially no sources. I can find enough online to convince myself that the basic facts of his education and employment history are valid, but they're low-quality sources and provide no other details. I think that's too little to use as the basis for a biography here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionably better for any improvements, best deleted and restarted if better later. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment / Move to draft - I myself, am not a fan for deletion. This article does need much work for it to be suitable for the main-space, and needs to have the formatting fixed and references fixed, with additional references. Instead of deletion, how about moving it into draft stage, and having the user submit it via AfC? If it is not majority agreed on to move it to draft stage, I would say delete. Cheers, and best of luck. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the original condition of the article (Bloated with details on his children's successes, COI and POV problems), I don't see how working with the user would help any. Check especially the low-quality references used by the article creator. The life section use to have this text, replete with references for the kids' biographies: "Their immediate family members are: daughter Dr. Priya Baraniak (Rooster Bio Inc.), son Prem Ramaswami (Google), son-in-law Dr. Andrew Baraniak (Independent Patent Agent) and daughter-in-law Shruti Ramaswami (TechSoup). The Ramaswamis have three grandchildren: Kiran, Sahana and Veer-Krishna." I think this is likely an attempt by the children or a friend to memorialize the article subject's career. If this was someone truly notable, yes let's go the extra mile-- but that's not the case here. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per HappyValleyEditor's comment. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 22:28, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of India, Chicago[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the WP:ONEEVENT in the article truly gives this subject notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the necessary signs of its independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 22 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" 13:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jizzy Mack[edit]

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

Being part of Floyd Mayweather's entourage does not show notability since notability is not inherited. The only sources are passing mentions in lists of people in Mayweather's entourage and clips of him being knocked down by a beginning boxer in a few seconds. Besides being embarrassing for a supposed bodyguard, the clips fall under WP:BLP1E. Nothing in this article shows that Mack is notable by WP standards.Mdtemp (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. I have other issues with the article mainly that it claims to be about a mixed martial artist with a record but there is no mention of him in Sherdog or doing MMA in any of the references. Not quite ready to call it a hoax (containing untruths) but he surely does not meet WP:NMMA.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article has just undergone major revision by original author - deleting all mention of mixed martial arts.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ITSA -- Notability is not inherited. Just because the subject works for somebody who is famous, does not mean the subject themselves is notable. I also support deletion due to lack of context. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic material - fails WP:BIO per nom and comments above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria, notability is not inherited, and passing mentions are insufficient to meet the GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all convincing of the necessary solid independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 24 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Embree (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Kickboxer with no significant independent coverage so the GNG is not met. Results reporting is just routine sports coverage and doesn't show notability. Fails to meet the notability standards for kickboxers (WP:NKICK) since he has never fought for a world title of a major organization and never been ranked in the world top 10. A North American and an interim international (whatever that means) title are not enough.Mdtemp (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the kickboxer notability criteria at WP:NKICK. Since all of the references are just reporting of results, WP:GNG is not met by routine sports coverage. He may become notable, but he's not there yet. Article was created WP:TOOSOON, but I have no objection to it being saved in userspace. Papaursa (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on many of the Kickboxers that are listedList of male kickboxers his wikipedia page should be kept as he has more notoriety than 45 to 50% of those Kicknoxers. There are links to references that are not just fight results including a Kickboxing magazine article. As someone who reports on the sport of Kickboxing for a living he is definitely one of the top fighters in the super lightweight division. If you look at reference 1 he is currently ranked 15 on the official WBC website. Before his recent 1-2 run he was ranked number 10 in the world which qualifies him. There are also references that are not just results. Strikingfan (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Strikingfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support the number 10 ranking - which publication?Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matt Embree is a notable fighter that has competed for several titles and is recognized as one of the top fighters at 140lbs in the world and top five in North America. He is a great addition the List of Kickboxers on Wikipedia. Nakmuay007 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Nakmuay007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those who support keeping the article should provide evidence that he meets the kickboxer notability criteria at WP:NKICK. So far no evidence has been presented and my search didn't find anything. The only non-results source provided is to an article that lists possible North American fighters "to lead the next generation" and gives only a few sentences about each. That would seem to mark him as a prospect and not yet notable as well as insufficient coverage to be considered significant. GNG requires several reliable sources showing significant independent coverage, not routine sports reporting. Claims that he's better than other fighters who have articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and appears to be more WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and wait for better later as this is still questionable for notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not keep an article just because brand new editors come along to assert that the topic has fame and notability — we keep or delete articles based on whether or not reliable source coverage explicitly shows that the person has passed an objective notability criterion. Nothing here shows that, however. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually achieves something that clears the bar, but it's reliable source coverage, which verifies an objective WP:NKICK pass, or bust. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys you all are pretty knowledgeable clearly. Can someone explain to me why an article like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ross_(kickboxer) hasn't been flagged for deletion? It is basically the same thing but with a different kickboxer.Strikingfan (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kevin Ross actually meets WP:KICK (barely) because of is Top 10 ranking with Combat Press (WBC rankings are not independent). But even if he did not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you could always bring him to AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went on the internet way back machine and found these rankings from Muay Thai Authority (They are references on a lot of Kickboxers wikipedia pages. They are one of the top if not the top website for Muay Thai and Kickboxing. Matt Embree has been ranked by them, here are the links https://web.archive.org/web/20150914023234/http://www.muaythaiauthority.com/2013/10/updated-super-lightweight-rankings.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20141112224719/http://www.muaythaiauthority.com/2013/07/updated-north-american-p4p-rankings.html I messaged them about their rankings and they said they are working on a new system currently but that they should be out soon. By the way guys thanks for helping me learn quite a bit in this discussion, appreciate it. Looking to contribute more to wikipedia now that I understand it better. Strikingfan (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:34, 28 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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion G5. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kotoka Shiiba[edit]

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

Pro wrestler with no major accomplishments. Fails GNG since there is no significant coverage of him and no supporting evidence he meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Mdtemp (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestler-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he won the open the brave gate champion and he was part of the stables (Windows,Millenials, and currently VerserK) and he is a Dragon Gate and he should have is article like every one in the Dragon Gate roster.

User:Puron123 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Puron123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he won the open the brave gate champion and its just a matter of time until he wins a major title.

User:Gaterlover 17:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Gaterlover (talk • — Gaterlover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete -- I am very suspicious of the users above, who voted to keep Maybe sockpuppets? Anyway, this article should be deleted. It fails WP:GNG from what I have seen, and only cites two primary references, and does not fit Wikipedia formatting. Try AfC. Cheers, CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:53, 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" 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematic modeling of evaporators[edit]

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

PROD removed by author. Ill-digested and largely unintelligible chunk from a textbook on what does not seem to be a particularly noteworthy use of mathematical modelling. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:DYNAMITE spring to mind. TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evaporator, better fit there. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wish there was salvageable content in that essay, but I do not see it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be any novel cited content to salvage for merger. Probably part of a school project (see also Stefan tube involving overlapping set of new accounts having no activity outside this fluidics/physics garden). DMacks (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still currently questionable for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 24 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 and redirect to Forward in Faith. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forward in Faith North America[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article reads as a WP:PROMO of a religious organization. Any relevant information is already on the Forward in Faith article, although the relationship between the two is unclear to me. No reliable sources are provided on the page, and no assertion of notability has been made. Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to main Forward in Faith article, these two appear to be synonymous or at least closely related. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. VanEman (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORG (as I could find no evidence of independent, third-party notability outside of that which is already dealt with under Forward in Faith), and for flagrant violation of WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:ADMASK. As SanAnMan stated above, a redirect to said less-POV article makes sense. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources available in HignBeam search to improve article. Otherwise merge or redirect to Forward in Faith. Redirects are cheap and deleting this article would unnecessarily create redlinks. ~Kvng (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, only two or three of those articles have any information at all about Forward in Faith in North America. They seem to both consist of a single sentence. Not sure that's substantial coverage. The redlinks you fear are two or three mainspace articles that have a "See also" at the end of the page. I don't see any article that actually uses this organization in the body of the article, so I do not see this as a required redirect. There anyways already is a Forward in Faith article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we're not looking at the same What links here report. The more disruptive (potential) redlinks are in the biographies of people involved with the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The promotional nature of the article content comes from it being a copy of the organization's mission statement. Use of the first person is a dead giveaway. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Forward in Faith, while salvaging any usable content. The current page is a copyvio and improperly referenced, and I can't find (m)any reliable sources of which the North American branch is the primary topic (see description on WP:GNG for significance). Ajraddatz (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as I also notice this seems closely linked to the other article, currently questionable for its own. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Redirect: deletion does not leave a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article and creating a redirect in its place make a valid option when the search term is plausible but the content should be nuked. The current article is copyvio and spam. A deletion or a revdel makes sense. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. I've changed mine accordingly. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is one of a number of movements within the American Episcopal Church seeking to oppose liberal tendencies, which are opposed by certain other churches within the Anglican Communion. AS such it is an emerging denomination. Forward in Faith appears essentially to be a party within the English Anglican Church, so that a redirect or merger is in appropriate. I would however be happier if some of the presidents listed here had linked articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect to Forward in Faith. Copyright violation. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP, as suggested. FWIW, I used to subscribe to FIF. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 27 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. nominator removed AfD template (let's call it nomination withdrawn). Also WP:SNOW. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neureut (Karlsruhe)[edit]

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

No importance Computermaster111 (talk) 12:31, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a populated place whose documented history dates back 700 years, this should meet WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated, legally recognized places -- including city boroughs -- meet WP:GEOLAND; with its long history and population of 18K+, it's easily notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I note that the nominator's account seems to have been created solely to delete "Neureut," first via a declined speedy, now this. So you're in for a bit of a disappointment, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover and over, "no importance" isn't much of a rationale and I'll be interested to see if the nominator continues in his efforts to remove content on this location. WP:BITE is one thing. It doesn't excuse WP:Pointy behaviour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure how a nom's feeling that a topic is of "No importance" to them is a rationale to delete an article, but as the others have said, it's a documented city borough with a long history and is inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD and Shawn in Montreal's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:21, 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 per consensus. WP:NBOOK "keep" argument fails. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of the New Jack Era[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NBOOK -- the references are not supportive of notability, and neither is google; neither author has an article, and New Jack City only makes a single mention of the character supposedly based on the author of this book. The "#1 Best Seller" line on the cover image appears to be a total fiction. Add to that an unencyclopedic tone throughout. —swpb^T 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My own search also turned up only trivial mentions of the book. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the key criteria in NBOOK is that it's the basis for a notable film--in this case, it's more complicated. But I would say the principle holds: the autobio of the principal subject of a famous film is notable. It's something that people could well expect to find in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor DGG: The criterion in WP:NBOOK I think you're trying to use says: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture..." 1. This book did not exist at the time the movie was made, and so cannot be said to have had any contribution toward it; 2. Nothing here even comes close to a reliable source; and 3. The film is a work of fiction, considered by the Writers Guild of America to be based on an "original story and screenplay" by someone with no association to this book. The claim by this author that he is the subject of the film is therefore extremely tenuous. Alone, any one of points 1, 2, or 3 would completely sink your argument; all three are true. I get that you're a retentionist, but by the guidelines, you've got an awfully weak case here. —swpb^T 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claim on the book cover that this book is a "#1 bestseller" should be some kind of clue that this is all highly suspect. An ISBN search via World Cat and other sources doesn't indicate that it even really exists as a published work. No reliable sources at all. We're obviously not going to keep an article based solely on its own extravagant claims. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, So, were author "Gerald G. Money" (abandoned Facebook page here [28]) and his "book" a hoax? Sounds like it [29] was. Admittedly, if it was a hoax, it was an elaborate one and I'm not sure what it was all in aid of. Would have guessed movie promotion, except it's an old movie. At all events, found no sources to establish that it's a real book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per mentioned criteria at NBOOk per user DGG reasoning. It holds.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor BabbaQ: Did you read my dissection of DGG's argument above? Would you care to respond to it? If not, you're not adding anything to this discussion. Remember that AfD is not a vote. —swpb^T 18:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't really find anything to show that this book is notable or that the claims in it are ultimately true. I kind of get the impression that this was likely self-published via a vanity publisher, which would explain why it's not listed on any of the regular websites like Amazon, who will sell anything as long as it's submitted in some format. Now as far as the film claims go, that's a bit difficult since there's also a lack of reliable sources that actually back up the claim that G. Money is the basis for the character "Gerald "Gee Money" Wells". It might be that he's telling the truth or it could be that he's someone who either named himself this after the fact or believes that the character is based on him. Without some sort of confirmation in a reliable source (newspaper, DVD commentary, etc) we have to err on the side of caution and assume that he's likely not the basis of the character. I did try to find sources and it was admittedly difficult because of so many false positives, but so far the only thing that has been confirmed is that the Chambers Brothers (gang) was a source of inspiration for the film. There's already a draft at Draft:The Chronicles of the New Jack Era, so the best outcome here would be to let the editor continue to work on finding sources and add them to the draft. Offhand this is the type of thing that'd be best served as a one sentence mention in the main article for the film, since the gist of this could be summed up fairly quickly. However before we can do that, we have to confirm that his claims are legit - and so far all we have are interviews in non-mainstream sources that wouldn't be considered RS per Wikipedia's fairly stringent guidelines for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:17, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Greenland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced (could not find sources conform WP:RS, only related) The Banner talk 12:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was quite difficult finding sources about the competition since it began in 1987 and ended in 1992, running only for five years. This was about as best as I could find: [30]. The 1990 Miss, Sascha Nukaka Motzfeldt, happens to be Nukaaka Coster-Waldau. We should possibly thus Redirect there? I added this source there since there was a citation needed for the 19th placement and added a short sentence about the competition. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found a source for the years 1987 through 1992 and have updated the article to reflect this. Also, the pageant had served as a feeder to two major international pageants. Thus, this article is part of a series of national-level pageants and can be kept on that basis, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. It is this article that must prove that this article is noteworthy. The Banner talk 23:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG; I have just added 13 ((Cite news))s. Despite being 25-30 years ago, all years were sourceable from online sources. Pageant is said to be revived this year. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Article has changed quite a bit and with the added notability from the revival in addition to the large number of sources it's now looking very keepworthy. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:57, 25 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UN Youth Ghana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Exclusively promotional article of dubious veracity for organistion lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP with nothing suggesting better notability and improvements so I watchlisted it, simply none of this is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might be a good organization, but this promotional article has no independent sources, was created by a now blocked sock puppeteer, and I was not able to find sufficient sources to justify keeping/trimming. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Please foundation[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like it could be the India affiliate of Operation Smile and may just be a stub that needs a better name and better references.VanEman (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We certainly can't keep an article on the (entirely unfounded) supposition that this is a misnamed local branch of a more notable entity -- and if so, a redirect, not a keep, is the appropriate response. Nor can we keep an article on the equally unsupported belief that references might exist. WP:V and the GNG both require that such sources be demonstrated to exist, and no such evidence has been proffered. Ravenswing 13:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. All I could find as far as sources go was their facebook page and their very barebones website. The single source given refers to it by a different name, so I'm not even sure if it is the same organisation (but if it was it would still be insufficient). — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 13:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Facebook is a self-published source, which can't be used to establish notability. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting at least minimally better for better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 22 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 Franciscus Henri discography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Dance (Franciscus Henri album)[edit]

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

This album fails the notability guidelines for albums. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands (I had a quick look and couldn't find evidence of album-level noteworthiness), redirect to Franciscus Henri discography (which maybe could be expanded with track listings etc) - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gerard. Its not one of his ARIA-nominated/winning albums. I also had a quick look and found a review here, but on its own this not enough to go forward with.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently solid. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 24 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" 18:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Masse[edit]

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

No external sources. Only claim for notability is starting a "webzine". Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LK (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Webzine isn't enough for notability. VanEman (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not currently convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 24 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" 18:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Murphy[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor-leaguer with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 24 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" 18:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cirelli[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away, and an unreferenced BLP into the bargain. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and wait for better later as this is still questionable for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 24 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" 21:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neva Leoni[edit]

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

Minor actress, with exceedingly bad article, which has not been updated in near 6 months. Fails to assert WP:NACTOR scope_creep 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing for Wp:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither asserts nor meets WP:NACTOR. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:13, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Haigh (coroner)[edit]

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

To me, it looks like the real topic here is the death of Jeff Astle, and so Andrew Haigh may be an entry on the page Jeff Astle. Andrew Haigh, as it reads now, has no other notable reason for being on wikipedia. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this would be much better as a section within Astle, non notable, fails WP:BIO Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not even sure this is a relevant section for the page Jeff Astle, as it's such an minor and inconsequential detail. Really falls under WP:ONEEVENT, and isn't close to meriting his own article. Otherwise, there's a bit of reporting mentioning him in the context of a few cases, but nothing enough to assert notability. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 24 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 per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator agreed with GB's argument and failed "to advance an argument". (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bagheri (Iranian commander)[edit]

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

Reza Amper (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reza Amper, You need to explain on this page why you feel this article should be deleted. If you do not explain the nomination will be closed a a Speedy Keep per reason #1. -- GB fan 11:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article of Mohammed bagheri has been deleted a Speedy in Arbic Wiki see here by Arabic Manager سامي الرحيلي (Sa:mi: Arræ'hi:li:) due to he is not important in compare to following:
In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour;^[1] or
Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
Played an important role in a significant military event; or
Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them; or
Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

Reza Amper (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Some awards, such as the Légion d'Honneur, are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. (Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades)

Comment - Reza Amper a couple of points. The deletion of an article on another language Wikipedia means nothing here. Each Wikipedia language is independent and have their one rules. Next the part you quote above is from the English Wikipedia (here) not the Arabic Wikipedia so the article there was probably not deleted based on our notability guideline. If they did use our notability guideline, they misused it as he clearly passes point #3 in your list as he is a Major General and according to that article "major general is the highest available rank for current Iranian commanders." -- GB fan 12:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GB fan I don't think so. The Lieutenant general (Spahbed) is the highest rank after deleted General officer in Iran. Reza Amper (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

let's wait for what سامي الرحيلي will say. Reza Amper (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you think we need to wait for? Are you asking for me to wait from discussing the article until someone else comments? -- GB fan 13:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think what? That "major general is the highest available rank for current Iranian commanders."? That he clearly passes point #3 in the list you posted above? If it is the first one, the article major general needs to be fixed, but what the highest rank is does not make that much difference. If it is the second one, we have a very big difference of opinion as he is a general officer. -- GB fan 13:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - GB fan look:

Rank insignia of the Iranian military
Islamic Republic of Iran Army
زمینی و هوایی	دریایی
General officer (Deleted)	Admiral
Lieutenant general (Empty)	Vice admiral
Major general (highest degree)	Rear admiral
Brigadier general	Commodore (rank)
سرتیپ دوم	دریادار دوم
Colonel	ناخدا یکم
Lieutenant colonel	ناخدا دوم
Major	ناخدا سوم
Captain (armed forces)	Lieutenant (navy)
Lieutenant	ناوبان ۳، ۲ و ۱
Warrant officer	ناواستوار ۲ و ۱
Sergeant	Petty officer
Corporal	سرناوی
سرباز ۲ و ۱	Matrose (rank)
سرباز	Matrose (rank)

this list--Reza Amper (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are right.

Keep: passes WP:SOLDIER #3 as a major general. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently in Iran major general is highest military rank and all Iranian chiefs are major general such as: Mohammad Ali Jafari (commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), Ataollah Salehi (commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army), and Hassan Firouzabadi (Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces). Therefore, he has highest rank and confirm WP:SOLDIER #3. Also, in this source introduced him as a member of IRGC command network. In another words, Bagheri along with three other commanders take critical and important decisions and were participated in the several battles in the Iran-Iraq war (WP:SOLDIER #5).Saff V. (talk) 05:40, 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 keep. Consensus is to Keep, Any Merges should be discussed on the talkpage (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binibining Pilipinas 2016[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article almost completely based on related sources. Adds little or nothing to the already existing information in parent article Binibining Pilipinas. The Banner talk 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussion and this seems much notable. ApprenticeFan ^work 10:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I love to see how you always completely ignore the nomination reasons. The Banner talk 13:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you have found a new shortcut to show off... The Banner talk 13:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ad hominem replies, rather than addressing the sources I presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Year-specific articles for national-level pageants are well-accepted by the community. See, for example, the many, many such articles for Miss America and Miss USA. And the subject pageant is notable, as it is a national-level feeder for (I believe) two of the four major international pageants. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:18, 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 A bit of a mess. User:doncram's well-intentioned move during the discussion has changed the focus and topic of the discussion part-way through. The consensus I discern is that there should not be a list of people in the article, as Wikipedia is not a memorial, but there is (generously) no consensus against deleting an article about the memorial itself. Therefore, I have blanked the list of memorialized people from California Firefighters Memorial but left that article in place; anyone wishing to nominate the article for deletion may do so straight away. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cal Fire firefighters killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This list is solely intended as a memorial page Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the items on the list don't pass WP:GNG, which they should per WP:NLIST. Additionally, coming close to WP:MEMORIAL. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article contributor User:Reddgroom might be interested to know that articles about firefighting memorials/monuments are allowed. Perhaps this could be moved/renamed to be about a Cal Fire memorial? See Category:Firefighting memorials. --do ncr am 19:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although move probably to California Firefighters Memorial, and revise accordingly. The CFM sits on state Capitol grounds, includes sculptures and a memorial wall, was created in 1990s, cost $2 million, and there are numerous sources about it. An article about it can certainly include external link to list of fallen firefighters. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. do ncr am 19:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Funds were raised by a special license plate and also I think by a check-off box on the California state income tax form, and for these there were various state legislative bills. So there exists extensive coverage of its creation. I hope/assume refocusing article this way would be accepted by article creator and it certainly would be nicer than outright deletion. --do ncr am 20:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is neither a web host nor a memorial. Article content seems barely relevant to the Memorial itself; I do not see a move as appropriate. Content can be restored if an editor wishes to use it to create the Memorial article. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning no disrespect, I am selectively picking up on your point that a Memorial article could be created using the existing article with its edit history, and going ahead with that sooner rather than later (see Comment, next). Thank you for your view, which is constructive also. --do ncr am 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than debate the merits of deleting this then restoring it to revise into a refocused article, vs. moving this article, I have just wp:BOLDly gone ahead and moved/renamed the article. It is unusual but allowed to move an article during an AFD. Given no support so far for keeping the article as it was, I think this is helpful in saving the contribution, and in saving our time. If the AFD concludes that the article should be saved in its original form, it can be moved back and restored to a previous version. --do ncr am 18:48, 25 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Comics Fandom[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. DMacks (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. The publisher, Freelance Talents, is also at AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Note that some of the references in the article (in particular, the comic-book database and writers.net) are user-generated sites. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and wait for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, barely. Also !voted same at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freelance Talents. Prhartcom (talk) 23:39, 24 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taste Over Internet Protocol[edit]

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

This seems to me like a work in progress and perhaps not suitable for inclusion at this time. Since the idea was novel, it looks like it got a sudden burst of media coverage. But since then, nothing much seems to have happened. Google scholar yields only 1 result. (A newscientist article). In addition, the title of the article "Taste Over Internet Protocol", is something which seems to be derived from media reports, since IETF doesn't seem to have this (or any similarly named) protocol on record. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are real, but fail under WP:ROUTINE. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stale now. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I knew tasting the Internet was too good to be true. Then again, it probably tastes like dirty socks. WP:TOOSOON. There aren't enough good sources to show notability at this point. clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 24 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 11:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duende Literary[edit]

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

Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources apart from a review in a blog (not a reliable source) and a brief mention in a list on Blavity (not clear whether that is a reliable source, but in any case, just a list, no in-depth coverage). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not finding any independent and reliable sources that would make it meet WP:GNG or any indication that it meets [WP:NJournals]]. Found a few republished press releases, but no in depth coverage. the blog mentioned above does have an in-depth review, but doesn't constitute a RS, as it is self-published. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a new journal with more limited notability than some, however I believe that it still meets the basic requirements for a stub. My reasoning is centered around the addition of another literary magazine / Folia to Wikipedia's list of literary magazines, which doesn't appear to have any more significant sources that what's provided here. As another point, Duende has additional notability due to its most recent issue, which published an essay by Mumia Abu-Jamal - one that had been previously published. LockedHalo (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but arguments using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS don't really count. And it's not all that important what Duende publishes, it's what others publish about Duende that counts. Reprintiong an almost 2à-years-old essay really is not that big of a feat... --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does however provide an additional source of notability, at least within some margin. Apologies for not handling my point regarding Folio correctly - I did take that article's level of notability as a general guideline for what would be considered acceptable notability in this specific case as well, assuming that there was some sort of general rubric in place for what meets or doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in the wiki - this is obviously my failing as someone new to wikipedia editing. Jumping back to my earlier point though, I believe that the inclusion of said essay and the Duotrope listing both amount to credible sources for notability in this case, with an argument to be made for keeping the page a stub until more sources appear available. If not, no biggie. Can this be added to my userspace if it does get denied, so I can tinker with it on my own? LockedHalo (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin can certainly "userfy" this if the decision would be to delete the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No better sourcing found. Since the name of the magazine is apparently simply Duende rather than Duende Literary, suggest moving to "Duende (journal)" or some other reasonable disambiguation if the article is kept. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 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" 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people born in 1990[edit]

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

Every entry requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group (WP:NLIST). A "complete" list will contain over 13,000 entries which is unattainable and will leave the list incomplete. This "seemed like a good idea" without realistic scoping of the content. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks like it's redundant to Category:1990 births and I can't see where it would need any more information other than what's already written on the category page. Plus there's the fact that there are currently 13,162 articles in said category... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally redundant and not giving a bad criteria in WP:LISTCRUFT. ApprenticeFan ^work 10:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lists cannot be redundant to categories, and potential size is an argument for splitting when the time comes, not deletion. But it does appear to be redundant to 1990#Births, which AFAIK is the standard way of listing births by year. Are there any other standalone lists like this? postdlf (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1990#Births, which I forgot exists. In the future it might be a good idea to split the latter page.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list at 1990 is good enough, and, combined with Category:1990 births, this article is rendered redundant, unnecessary, and, as was touched upon in the nomination, too expansive to be reasonably attainable. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1990 § Births, which presently does not have some of the entries in the list. This will improve the merge target article, per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it -- The category is automatically populated by adding a birth year category. The list in the year article is broken down by date of birth, thus adding data not provided by the category. An alphabetic list of births, will need regular maintenance to prevent it lagging a long way behind the category. A normal style merger is not a good idea because the content would need to be distributed by the actual birthdate to integrate it properly. I am not saying that should not be done, but it will be a lot of work. This article is a mere stub. Its creator would be better employed doing that than expanding this article. Most of the annual birth categories from 1946 to the early 1990s have over 10,000 articles; fewer thousands before and after. In all cases this is too many for a useful list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category for 1990 births already has over 13,000 entries, and very few people born that year are yet notable in academics, politics or business, and many more born that year will probably become notable in the creative arts. So we have no reason to think we are anywhere near maxing out the potential size of this indiscriminate list, even if it can be limited to people who have articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the other list is larger unlike this one. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Ritter[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources cited in the article either mention his name only, or don't even mention him. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and the article contains nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be references and no one has mentioned specifically how it fails to meet WP:MUSBIO and each of the subcatergories within it. There needs to be evidence that the references fail to meet the notability requirements. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided in the article do not provide any depth of coverage for Ritter. They are either mostly about someone else, or are merely credits lists. The one interview is brief, with a few quotes by Ritter but nothing else. Being a producer for notable singers does not confer notability on the producer. There's also nothing in the article that demonstrates he meets WP:MUSICBIO. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. not notable. VanEman (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a grammy nominated producer, and has produced for a ton of major artists today like Drake, Future, Travis Scott, etc. I don't know why but the guy who flagged this article flagged a bunch of other articles which had no problem with but abused it. Clearly this guy deserves to have his own page. Also, just to show how he abused it, look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desiigner this guy flagged this artist that was in the Billboard 100, and some people were disgusted by it, its been saved now but thats not the point, this guy is trouble. --User:xboxmanwar (talk) , 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete I really didn't find anything that was depth in coverage. I think the articles needs major improvement period.Peacode talk 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless they win a major award, or get in-depth coverage, music producers are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually, being Grammy-nominated would be enough to pass, but with this guy, he was nominated with a lot of others on the same entry, making Ritter insignificant and WP:MILL.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:34, 29 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. Article is references and it seems to be notable.... so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Plain[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps at best because this is actually sourced but may still be questionably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is reasonably sourced and has sufficient content to warrant keeping.--Soul Crusher (talk) 00:18, 25 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. G11, promotional (as well as non-notable) DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imthias Kadeer[edit]

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

The article fails the importance of to be encyclopedic. Also most of the details within the article didn't even have any valid references for it. JackTracker (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this may be best deleted in case it's restarted and also considering there are currently no signs of better applicable solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE with no prejudice to recreate in future if more notability asserted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:51, 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 speedily deleted by RHaworth per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byjus classes[edit]

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

This currently still suggests it's questionable for the applicable companies notability as I found some links at News and WP:INADFD but nothing convincing obvious signs of solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing self promotional on this page User:Akshaylike —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Alves[edit]

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

Poor references

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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reference is a non-RS. Also ((WP:BLP1E]] Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person does not seem relevant enough to have an entire article. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:19, 22 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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earning to give[edit]

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

Limited notability. Repetitive citations, mostly to non-notable blog posts. Some inclusions are so loosely connected (e.g. tithing) that they're close to original research. Pawg14 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I've cleaned up and shortened the article a lot and no longer think it should be deleted, though it could still be more polished and neutral.Pawg14 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pawg14 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)*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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubbify as it is almost entirely based on primary sources and non-RS like the transhumanist internet forum LessWrong. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple WP:RS about the topic, e.g. BBC, NYT. Quartz, Oxford ethics blog, Washington Post. I wouldn't call the posts by Will MacAskill primary sources. He's just an advocate of earning to give, not the owner of it. But even without his (the Quartz and Oxford ethics blog), still seems to have plenty. Tempo mage (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Tempo mage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Growing movement; perhaps add other sources? --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find reliable sources that discuss this. People have already mentioned various news stories, but there's also this book and this book (and this book and this book and this book, though I'm not sure those qualify as independent). There's also this source, this source and this source in German. Deletion is not cleanup. NeatGrey (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Tempo mage's list of sources. This definitely meets notability standards. — Eric Herboso 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 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 Keep (NAC) Tom29739 ^[talk] 05:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Rose, Darling[edit]

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, but still not notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apears to have won major prizes in its country. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: I'm Rose, Darling Nay Toe Phway Phway Heavy Phyo Yoon Yoon

Keep per meeting WP:NF despite the article needing work. A difficulty is that it was never released in English under the title "I'm Rose, Darling" (or " I am a Rose, Dear"), and I learned that under Kya Ma Ka Hnin Si Par Maung this Burmese award winner IS sourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 24 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 merge to India–Taiwan relations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in Chennai[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. and this is just a de facto consulate. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be prepared to merge this and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India page into India–Taiwan relations. Polemicista (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to India-Taiwan relations as this is not hinting at solid independent notability of a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to India–Taiwan relations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 26 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. Nomination withdrawn. Article creator has agreed to merge (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Representative Office in Italy[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and this office is a de facto embassy. gets very limited coverage in gnews for its Italian name and one hit for its name in English. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be prepared to move information on this and other pages to a new page on Taiwan-Italy relations. Why isn't the Italian Economic, Trade and Cultural Promotion Office also nominated for deletion, by the way? Polemicista (talk) 09:12, 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 merge to Riom. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliothèque Municipale de Riom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no participants in last AfD. Fails WP:ORG. Libraries are not inherently notable. I could find no in depth coverage. Note there is no corresponding article in French LibStar (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or Redirect and let me merge after) For some reason the smallish article for the town of Riom has a section titled Public library which then simply has link to our article. If you disregard the section spacing, our article doesn't have that much text. The Public library section there would be a good fit for our text. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what they also did at the French article for Riom where the section is titled La bibliothèque intercommunale. It has about as much text as our article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Riom. While the library is not notable enough for a standalone article, it is sufficiently old and its collections are significant enough to warrant a section of one or two short paragraphs in the article on its locality. PWilkinson (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as perhaps enough to mention there. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 24 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Sakr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. last AfD had far from convincing keep arguments. one argument being all ambassadors are inherently notable which is not true. the 2nd argument is that there exists a lot of arabic coverage. searching his name under gnews in arabic reveals 6 hits, and I'm not sure they even refer to him. keep !voters must establish evidence of actual sources. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I expected there would be at least some coverage about him, but there wasn't. Not notable. VanEman (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are accepted as notable for our purposes if they can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — but they are not granted an automatic presumption of notability just because they existed, if passage of GNG is not explicitly shown to be true. Delete unless somebody can find the necessary level of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all actually convincing of solid notability, nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources necessary to show WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 25 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. Michig (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Sorriso[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Minimally sourced WP:BLP. From the article: he "is an Italian and American politician and entrepreneur." He doesn't seem to be an American politician. As for the "Italian" part, he was a candidate, just like thousands of other Italians, but has never been elected in a national or sub-national legislative body. The only available source — an article from a local newspaper — is about a small town in Sicily where he was the mayor for five years. "Entrepreneur." From the article: he "moved to New Jersey with his family in 1994 and started a successful franchise of salad restaurants." I don't understand what the successful franchise is. In any case, no sources seem to substantiate this claim. Tadde0 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do believe that that the person is being confused with a Vincent Sorriso who founded some franchises and a restraunt, as some googling found this local newspaper article. Galobtter (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Basically he was involved in some campaigns, but without meeting notability guidelines. --Gmacar (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article independently of the candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become eligible. But nothing here gets him over the bar — the most substantive thing here is that he served as mayor of a town that is not large enough to confer automatic notability-because-mayor on all of its mayors, and the sourcing is not substantive enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the guy who ran the restaurants in New Jersey is the Italian politician is true, which seems somewhat likely but depends on what is said in a local New Jersey newspaper, it is not enough to make him notable. He has run for the Italian senate and lost on multiple occasions, and he has run some local franchises of an unspecified restaurant. Owners of Franchises of restaurants are very rarely notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 24 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. Michig (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto P. León[edit]

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

PROD was removed by creator. The page reads like a puff piece and has zero sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search and a standard Google search produces many high quality hits that verify that this Mexican physician held high governmental and professional society positions during his long and distinguished career. Using the word "puffery" to describe an article about such a person who was born in 1909 is not appropriate. Far better to spend a few minutes adding a couple of references to the article than to try to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have began to add sources. Sadly this significant doctor is not as well remembered today as he ought to be, especially in the English-speaking world. It is not a puff piece when the truth is stated. Leon was the leading expert in Mexican public health circles in the mid-20th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing that is not clear from the article is if Leon was secretary of health of Mexico, or held a lower position within the Secretariate of Health. Our article on that says it dates back to 1938, but only provides a list of secretaries since about 1982.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More info After a better search of sources, it appears to me that Alberto P. Leon's appointment as Secretary of Health in 1939 was an appointment to a Mexican cabinet position, so this alone would make him pass notability for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that his appointment to a ministerial position would tend to make me agree that he's notable. I notice that there is no banner on the article asking for further references. My inclination would be to keep with a "please help with references" banner, and if anyone cares, also check the Spanish language version to see if there are better references than the ones in English. VanEman (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing improvement is definitely needed here, but having served in the cabinet is an WP:NPOL pass. Keep and tag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 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. The relevant material has been merged to voltage-gated ion channel, no valuable information will be lost by deleting this, and it's been tagged as a copyvio anyway. It's an unlikely redirect, too, but I have no objection if the title is resurrected as a redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family[edit]

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

This page is redundant with the existing page Voltage-gated ion channel. It is basically a copy of an external web page that is CC By-SA3, and seems to be promoting that website. Although the protein classification scheme that is the main point of the page is sourced, there are other recognized bases for classification, and no reliably sourced reason to give this one special prominence here. The main points of the page are already covered at Voltage-gated ion channel#Nomenclature, with, if anything, more than enough due weight. I have already merged all the material that is worth merging into the existing page: [40]. The page name is not useful as a redirect, and I already edited the VIC dab page for the abbreviation: [41]. Beyond that, I do not see anything else worth saving, and there is no point in keeping a content fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (what could I add, really?). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor who created the page has commented about this deletion discussion at Talk:Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge. Make this page a redirect to Voltage-gated ion channel, but keep edit history, just in case to allow merging of content if needed. Content of this page should be probably merged to Voltage-gated ion channel rather than outright deleted, because some parts of this page are written in a different and more professional way than "Voltage-gated ion channel". No wander because it was mostly taken from the corresponding Transporter Classification Database entry. This is probably the only database that provides annotated classification of transmembrane transporters. Everything seems to be OK with copyright [42]. Use of TCDB here should be encouraged. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good intentions here, but please note that I already merged content. As for being written in a "more professional way", please realize that it is not in any way a survey of the topic, but rather, a somewhat promotional representation of a classification scheme that has been put forward by a single laboratory group, that has yet to be taken up by independent secondary sources. Here are PubMed hits for "voltage-gated ion channel": over 18,000 hits. Now, here are the results for "VIC superfamily": 72 hits, all of which appear to be mismatches: search for exact phrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at our page on Transporter Classification Database, and it's sourced entirely to a single group of authors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here are the PubMed results for "Transporter Classification Database": only 16 hits, of which only 4 are independent of the lab that publishes the website. That is a disturbingly low rate of citation by independent scholars. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~How about making this page a redirect to Voltage-gated ion channel, but keeping edit history, just in case to allow merging of content if needed?~~ Speaking about TCDB, the real question is not notability (yes, it is well known within its narrow scientific field), but if the summaries of TCDB entries should be regarded as WP:RS or as something self-published. As someone who at least occasionally uses TCDB, I believe this is is definitely an WP:RS based on quality of the annotations. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a thoughtful reconsideration after my reply. I'm open to a redirect, and also open to preserving the edit history. As for the redirect, typing the beginning of this page name into "search" will immediately bring up the target page name, because they are very similar. The one part of the page name that is potentially useful as a redirect is the "VIC" abbreviation, and, as I noted above, I have already added it to the VIC disambiguation page, and it needs to be disambiguation because of the many other uses of that abbreviation. As for the edit history, when (again, as linked above) I merged what I could of the content, I attributed the source page in the edit summary, which satisfies the formal requirement. Beyond that, administrators can (or is it crats?) do things with merging page histories that I confess I do not fully understand, but perhaps the admin who closes this AfD could take a look at doing that. Another option would be to keep the page in user space rather than in main space. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish If you'd like to merge the VIC family page with the the general voltage-gated ion channel page, I think the VIC family deserves to be distinguished. Perhaps making a seperate section that describes the VIC family. I want to point out that not all voltage-gated ion channels fall under the Voltage-gated ion channel superfamily or family, thus part of my reasoning for making the family page a entity. So far, it appears as though there has been no further merger of information from the VIC family page to the general voltage-gated ion channel page, contrary to your initial assertion. In fact, I noticed that you reverted several edits I made to [43], including content related, spelling, and grammatical errors I corrected. For example, "Upon depolarization, the positively-charged residues on the S4 domains toward the exoplasmic surface of the membrane." is not a complete sentence, and "exracellular" needs a "T", etc.. This revert included changing a correction I made to distinguish the VIC superfamily from the VIC family, where TC# 1.A.1, the most important of the families under the VIC superfamily should have been included in the list. It seems as though you may be confused about the phylogeny of the VIC superfamily. As mentioned in the VIC family (the one recommended for deletion here), the current VIC family (formerly called the VIC superfamily, due to the subfamilies that fall under it) now falls under an expanded superfamily, the VIC superfamily, that includes families 1.A.1,3,4,5,10,17, 2.A.36, 2.A.38. However, I don't want to stand in the way If it is the consensus that the pages be merged. Still, I do believe that the original page ([44]) would then need to be updated and have a section dedicated to the VIC family, as is the case with all other families that fall under the VIC superfamily. User:Transporter Guy (Chat) 22:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which exactly voltage-gated ion channels that do not belong to the Voltage-gated ion channel superfamily are you talking about? Obviously, many other channels will depend on TM potential (for example Mechanosensitive channels), but I thought that Voltage-gated ion channel page was specifically about proteins that belong to VIC superfamily. Was not it? My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~should have been speedy-deleted per WP:A10.~~ per notes from nominator. Idiosyncratic classification not widely used or supported. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- I respectfully disagree, this article does not duplicate any existing English Wikipedia topic. User:Transporter Guy (Chat 23:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, TCDB is well known to everyone who works in the area of protein bioinformatics. It is also used/linked to by all major protein databases, such as Uniprot, Pfam and others. It should be used here for the benefit of the project.My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should be able to cite reliable sources. And assuming that this is true, is it recognized for the purpose of functional classification of proteins, or for the purpose of genetic phylogeny? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that is is purported to be "recommended by the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology", I found the IUBMB's website listing their recommendations: [45]. I cannot find TCDB there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-create as a redirect. Like many pages copied from the Transporter Classification Database by this editor, this contains copyright violations from the cited sources. I've now blanked it and listed it at WP:CP. I've also asked the editor not to add any more content from that source until this situation is completely clarified and consensus reached on whether or not he should do so. The editor should also have declared here that he represents or manages the database, and so has a conflict of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix a couple of minor copyright problems. This page seem to represent a legitimate, informative and well sourced sub-page of Voltage-gated ion channel and should be included as such (right now this is not clear, hence the misunderstanding). This page, Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family is about a smaller family of Voltage-gated ion channels, whereas page Voltage-gated ion channel is about a much larger protein superfamily also called by the same name. Actually, the misunderstanding probably comes from the underlying TCDB classification, where 1.A.1. is called "superfamily" instead of "family" [46] and it was described in the database as a superfamily [47] (!?). This is actually a family that supposed to be described on this page. Unfortunately, TCDB does not include descriptions/summaries for superfamilies. Hence the description of superfamily was placed to a family entry 1.A.1. leading to confusion here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a general comment here instead of trying to respond individually to each comment above. A careful reading of the source material will show that VIC is neither a subgroup of the voltage-gated ion channels, nor are the latter a subgroup of VIC, regardless of what some other editors have said. VIC appears to include some molecules that are voltage-gated ion channels, as well as some transporters and the like that are not ion channels at all. In any case, it is a classification system that comes up in PubMed searches in only 4 scholarly papers that are independent of the lab that maintains the website (cf over 18,000 about voltage-gated ion channels). It is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Given that it has now emerged that the external website contains copyright violations (regardless of its stated licensing), it is no longer appropriate to retain the edit history here. And beyond the already existing dab page at VIC, there is no reason to have a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the copyvio concerns, I just deleted the Nomeclature section at Voltage-gated ion channel. As for the material that I merged earlier to another section, I was very careful about rewording everything in my own words when I did it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tryptofish. I wasn't going to raise that possible issue until someone other than me had reviewed the listing at WP:CP (which unfortunately is seriously under-manned at the moment) or the nominated page was deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 24 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 Procedural close. Not a request for deletion discussion, but a simple move-with-redirect request. No AFD needed or desired. Article to be moved per request. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Masekela[edit]

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

Sal now prefers to go by Selema Masekela, his given name. He reverted to Selema in 2016, and all current projects reflect this. It is more appropriate to delete "Sal Masekela", migrate that page's information to a new page under "Selema Masekela", and make "Sal Masekela" redirect to this page. (VICE World of Sports page, referring to "Selema Masekela" (3/31/16) - https://sports.vice.com/en_us/topic/selema-masekela), (Selema is a partner at UXE Entertainment - current news item on UXE official website referring to him as "Selema Masekela" (4/1/16) - http://www.uxentertainment.com/voice/2016/4/1/selema-masekelas-new-show-on-vice) Soundofair (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to another name as requested. But why the hell are you requesting this through Articles for Deletion? I don't mean to attack you, but requesting a rename for the article and a redirect as well is NOT for AFD, Afd is for requesting articles to actually be DELETED. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Probably because I didn't know that was an option. Nothing to get pissy about. Yes - please set "Selema Masekela" as the main page, "Sal Masekela" as the redirect to that page, and explain how I should have done this so I can contribute more efficiently in the future. Soundofair (talk) 01:15, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sujoy Banerjee[edit]

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

Previously a contested CSD. The sources, apart from they are poorly placed. The National Geographic sources are from the WP:COI user himself who is also the article creator, another is a Blogspot, India Today is merely a passing mention of the subject. The Bangor University source is 404. Other than that, there is only one legitimate source, that of Times of India regarding an award and the other is an official site for the award. Is it me or is it that this is scrapes through WP:GNG or just fails it, not helped is the COI nature of the article and ~~a 47.6% copyvio~~. Donnie Park (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnie Park: That copyvio is erroneous - it is them copying from here not the other way round (WP:BACKWARDSCOPY). SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry abou tthat. Donnie Park (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Easily done. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He isn't notable enough to pass WP:GNG, and this just reads like a promotional CV. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, little coverage. VanEman (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is certainly close to being notable but I think we need more sources. I did find more coverage of the award, a story about nature walks and many mentions e.g. [48] but I don't think these are quite enough to satisfy WP:BIO and the award is not sufficiently recognised to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC #3. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in depth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as there's nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 24 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.