< 18 August	20 August >

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

The result was delete. For the record, there is a discussion on WT:CSD whether a hospital, church etc. is an organization and thus eligible for A7, although it doesn't matter for the outcome here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charnock Hospital[edit]

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

Non-notable hospital. The references given at the talk page contain only trivial mentions. Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete hospitals are corporations and the speedy should have been allowed to stand instead of being deleted by the nom here. whilie it is good the nom at least followed through with this afd, this is a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they appear to be classed under both organisations and buildings, so who knows? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability in the article, doesn't meet relevant guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The A7 was valid: a hospital is an organization. (they are located in a building, but the hospital retains its identity no matter how many buildingsit may move to, just as a commercial business does, however it may change its location. Inany case, there is no indicate of notability or even significance. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 25 August 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 as article was deleted for reasons unrelated to this AfD. (non-admin closure) Geogene (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nawaja massacre[edit]

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

Not finding sources for Al-Nawaja massacre, WP:NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to something more neutral such as "Al-Nawaja bombing". The incident is described in the final paragraphs of this ABC News story. More extensive coverage in Arabic language media is highly likely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 20 August 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. (non-admin closure) Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bleviss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced biography. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article, adding references showing that he is notable. The peak of his career was from the 1970s to the early 1990s, but the sources I have found show that he was a top tier voice actor in those years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. If anyone wants to speedy close this, I'm fine with it. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 20 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Calle[edit]

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

Not at all clear how he passes WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The basic requirements for notabilty of people says that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." All the listed sources are primary. --Drm310 (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill, local newscaster and blogger. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 23 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furqan Khan (Wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler - the PROD for the same reason was deleted by the original editor. There is a claim for a silver at the Common wealth games but I can find no evidence for it (when? I presume wrestling). Peter Rehse (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look here : http://www.izsf.net/en/album/215?p105=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrannandla (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of competing at the highest level (world championships or Olympics). Appears to lack the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 23 August 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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Yahweh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject was a non-notable purveyor of WP:FRINGE THEORIES. Cited sources are fringe and fail WP:RS. A Google search yielded extensive coverage from fringe websites/media but nothing from reliable sources that even comes close to ringing the WP:N bell. Subject fails WP:BIO and the article fails WP:V as well as WP:PROFRINGE. An examination of the previous AfD left me profoundly unimpressed with the rationals presented in most of the KEEP !votes. Though in fairness I believe that many current guidelines did not exist at the time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add discussion of such to our project pages as an example of a classic WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS (specifically, I'm referring to this televised summoning of UFOs which is the rationale the teeming masses gave back in 2005 for the misguided "keep" consensus). jps (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources are nutjob websites. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spent a while going through page after page of search results. A whole mess of terrible sources, but the only decent one I found was his appearance on some CBS News program. That's certainly not enough, especially given the guidelines at WP:FRINGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can only agree with all of the above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per above. Neutrality^talk 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete i did the same as Rhododendrites earlier today. Killer thing is that there is nothing but COPVIO versions of those news reports left anymore so we can't even link to them. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources involved in this article pass the reliable source test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is apparently a lack of independent secondary sources on the subject, as required by WP:GNG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I followed the prophet's instructions on how to call a UFO. They said we should delete it. Rhoark (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was substantially shortened prior to nomination, though all the missing content was worth deleting. I think what remains is a useful short article about someone who claimed to summon UFOs that were really Mylar/foil helium balloons. I admit WP:GNG is an issue; there are many poor-quality sources but few good-quality ones. Still, this person attracted criticism from evangelical Christian UFO skeptics as well as the usual sort of UFO skeptic. A short article is warranted, if for no other reason than to deny it the "banned from Wikipedia" badge that fringe supporters are looking for. Roches (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single report from an ABC-TV affiliate in Las Vegas has been regurgitated in odd places on the web. That's not enough to build an article on. I'd say WP:ONEEVENT definitely applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's abundant coverage of this guy in the high-end tinfoilhatosphere -- Coast to Coast AM, [http://www.wnd.com/2005/05/30544/ WorldNetDaily] and so on. True, those sites aren't paragons of factual accuracy. But they are for better or worse substantial media outlets, not just blogs or some guy's website. Coverage in such venues doesn't mean the Prophet's claims are true, but is enough to demonstrate notability. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- With sourcing like that, it will be very difficult to write an article that adheres to the spirit and letter of WP:NPOV. I think this is the reason that WP:GNG refers to WP:RS. Coast to Coast and WND can be used as sources in the right contexts, but I would hesitate to use these sites as something which can confer notability onto a subject because if those are the only sources available, there is basically going to be no way to write an article without falling into WP:NOR traps. The best we can do is to look at those flashes in the pan found from the 2005 TV appearances, but those seem to be WP:NFRINGE lacking (news of the weird stories in mainstream outlets intentionally do not reach the threshold for fringe articles). It may be that someone in the future finds it worthwhile to write the tell-all biography of this interesting person, or maybe his experience will be referenced in scholarly articles about UFO religions, but right now I see only sensationalism, biased accounting, and a sincere lack of the high-quality sourcing that would be necessary to write even a decent stub. jps (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the two keep votes. I concur with jps. As best as I can tell, the two !votes seem to concede that the article does not meet our guidelines and standards but suggest we should ignore that because the subject is somehow still notable. Alas, he is not. Given the dearth of RS sources we cannot keep this article without shredding WP:BIO and WP:NFRINGE. That's really what it boils down to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never reached our standards of notability, even around the time of his greatest fame. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really, what is the argument otherwise? Bearian (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sources unreliable. 2005 AfD votes were "interesting" to read. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness activism[edit]

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

This topic (either "consciousness activism" as in the article title or "consciousness acceleration" as in the first line) does not appear to be notable. Searching either of these terms does not provide any relevant results in Google. Even the one cited reference does not mention these terms. This article appears to be nothing more than a vehicle to promote the external link. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. shoy (reactions) 19:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. "a form of activism that in itself awakens people to what is wrong with society"? "workshops to accelerate or awaken the sleeping minds of the masses"? Entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Looks to be part of a series of edits to promote St-Imier 2016. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't an established concept in reliable sources. The Google results seem to be unrelated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:PROMO. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 15:36, 24 August 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 deleted by Widr. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 19:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Computer Institute Of Technology, Padera[edit]

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

Nonsense article. Note that the so called director is actually a child! Ies (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nominated for speedy deletion as blatant hoax, but if that doesn't work it needs deleted this way. PamD 18:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agile tooling[edit]

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

Unsourced, unencyclopedic essay. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recently coined WP:NEO. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:03, 23 August 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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Reclosed as Delete voiding inadequate NAC per policy and reflecting the policy based voting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Akhter[edit]

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

The article text implicitly asserts that Mr Akhter is notable "for his role in television drama serials" Yeh Zindagi Hai, Kitna Satatay Ho, Deewana, and explicitly asserts that Mr Akhter is notable as he "has been the face of many product brands".
I think that an actor and model of this purported significance would have at least some significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. I have not been able to find them.
It would appear that this article fails the WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL/WP:ANYBIO tests for notability.
As always, more that happen to be proven wrong. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official page of Deewana_(TV_series) Serial by HUMTV http://www.hum.tv/ma/deewana/ which has name of Junaid Akhter mention in the cast. Further more please check this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5n0jq-9iEg Advertisement Video from YouTube that shows Junaid Akhter as a lead. --Fosterzone (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- subject has not had significant roles in television series therefore no press coverage by reliable third party sources. Does not warrant a bio page at this stage. --Saqib (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 19 August 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 07:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yaser Birjas[edit]

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

The subject appears to fall below the relevant notability guidelines. There is some material written about him on blogs and discussion forums, as well as in self-published books lacking editorial oversight and Wikipedia mirrors. None of these are reliable sources. There are a few reliable sources mentioning the subject in passing for some obscure situations such as him leading the funeral prayer for the victims of Hasib GhulamRabbi. However, I don't see this as being sufficient per WP:GNG. Also, the subject fails both criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Saheeh Info 20:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline A7 speedy. Article contains no suggestion nor evidence of notability via WP:PROF, WP:GNG, nor any other criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein, a borderline CSD A7 case, nothing to indicate passing of any of the relevant notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oj Kosovo, Kosovo[edit]

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

This song lacks wp:Notability. I can't find any source discussing the song itself. There are numerous news reports about various persons singing the song, but nothing about the song itself. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 12 August 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 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a brief press coverage on an incident involving drunken youth singing the song (among other Serbian patriotic songs) in Pljevlja, Montenegro [1], but really nothing of lasting significance. And lyrics translation is probably a copyvio to boot. No such user (talk) 07:21, 26 August 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. There is consensus that any high school that have been confirmed to exist is notable for its own article. If you wish to contest that notion, I would suggest taking this issue elsewhere. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gajol H.N.M. High School[edit]

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

Purely promotional article of no significance. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 02:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep obviously per long-standing precedent as documented in OUTCOMES and evidenced ny several 1,000 AfD closures. However, contact the author, and help him/her clean up the article per WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Move to Draft space, improve then back into mainspace. Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 10:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: @Necrothesp: I agree with you. But as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. I cannot find anything reliable in the searches I have done in web, news etc except the schools own website. And as per the author, he is facing sockpuppet investigation and the it was confirmed that the user have multiple accounts. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks reliable independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The longstanding consensus of the community as reflected in WP:NSCHOOL (a guideline, not an essay) is that schools are held to the same notability requirements as other organizations, namely, that they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Cf. WP:NRV ("The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."); WP:OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD ("[N]otability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources."). Topics that do not meet the notability requirement "are not retained as separate articles." WP:FAILN. See WP:WHYN for an explanation of why this is.
In this case, there is virtually no qualifying coverage of the subject, so the article must be deleted. Rebb ing 07:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, proof of a secondary school's existence is usually accepted as proof of notability. That is the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kudpung: @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: And here we go. Listed on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education website. Definitely exists. Definitely a secondary school. Accredited by a state agency. Clearly meets the consensus requirements for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - And if that wasn't enough, here's its profile on the website of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability determinations are to be based on the criteria established by the broader community in the guidelines, not the whims of an active cabal of AFD participants. The notion that proof of a school's existence satisfies notability is flatly contradicted by the NSCHOOLS guideline, the plain intent of the community ("The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."), as well as the reasoning behind our notability requirement. If it were acceptable practice to find notability based on our own criteria, even when those criteria are contradicted by written guidelines, I would be voting "keep" in a lot more discussions. Rebb ing 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You really don't like this consensus thing do you? WP:BURO. WP:IAR (that's a policy, you know! Given your obvious love of guidelines, you should love that even more!). Almost no AfD on a verified secondary school has ever been closed as delete. If that's not a consensus, I don't know what is. I note you conveniently forget that little sentence that ends WP:NSCHOOL: "But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES..."! That's a clear proviso to the guideline being set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do like consensus, which is why I have a healthy respect for the consensus of the broader community, not just the historic successes of AFD activists. Neither BURO nor IAR stand for the proposition that guidelines may be disregarded at will. BURO suggests that guidelines can change and that the intent of guidelines is more important than the letter. In this case, the intent of all of the notability requirements is obvious: to ensure that we can write useful articles that comply with our content policies, there must be actual evidence that subjects have received significant independent attention. BURO encourages amending guidelines; if the consensus you allege existed, it would be trivial to update NSCHOOLS to say: "Schools are notable when they can be shown to exist and be accredited." The fact that no one has done so strongly suggests that you know the wider community does not have your back on this. IAR is about exceptional cases, which this is not; it's also not license to disregard our guidelines whenever you disagree.
        The footnote at NSCHOOLS to SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't contradict NSCHOOLS' plain wording; SCHOOLOUTCOMES says only that schools are usually kept; it does not say that schools should be kept. The introduction to OUTCOMES further reaffirms this point: "When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. . . . Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as 'Notability is only an optional guideline' or 'We always keep these articles.'"
        The fact that most school-related discussions may have closed as keep doesn't mean anything. SCHOOLOUTCOMES only says what has happened; it doesn't say what should happen. Also, CONLEVEL (policy) supports the view that established guidelines trump informal consensus from AFD discussions. (Were it not so, all of our content policies and guidelines could be disregarded by the "consensus" of the multitude of nonconforming articles.) If your consensus exists, go rewrite NSCHOOLS to say so. Rebb ing 09:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And for the perfect illustration of the consensus, see this very well-discussed AfD (in which you actually took part as one of the few dissenting voices)! It was obviously fully discussed by those with an interest in the subject. It came to the conclusion that even a school whose existence can only be verified by a few official web entries should be considered notable. Even though it was actually closed as no consensus (mainly for procedural reasons), it is obvious that the majority of contributors were in favour of this illustrating notability. If that does not illustrate consensus, what are you going to accept as so doing? My suspicion is nothing that contradicts your own point of view on this subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how a discussion that was closed with no consensus can be perfectly illustrative of a consensus, Necrothesp! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, and there was... no consensus, so that illustrates nothing. Incidentally, the closer explained that both your and my views are valid, but, per CONLEVEL, the precedent from individual discussions, even collections of discussions, does not override the guidelines. I will accept as consensus a change to NSCHOOLS (or any notability guideline) to say that schools are presumed notable when they're verified to exist. Rebb ing 10:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep = 17, Delete = 8. No consensus? Really? Come on, be real here (and don't give me any of the standard dissenting rubbish about AfDs not being about numbers - it doesn't wash in this instance). As I said, the no consensus close was clearly for procedural reasons. This was the most fully discussed school AfD in ages and it came out as a clear majority in favour of keeping. And that was only a school whose existence could only just be proved! How much will it take to convince you of the consensus? I refer you to my previous comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relist. OK, so this article was deleted as a G11 promotional article by Just Chilling (talk · contribs). Less than 2 hours later, it was recreated as a stub. That stub was moved to Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School a day later. The notability issues discussed here apply just as much to the new version as to the old - so I'm going to WP:IAR this. I'm relisting the debate and adding Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School to the nomination, as if the original article had just been turned into a stub and moved. This is, I think, a better option than re-nominating the new article based on the notability concerns raised here. If an admin wants to overrule me and close this, fine - but note that the admin who G11'ed the original did not close this debate, which is why it's sitting at WP:BADAFD a day later. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just Chilling did close it, Ultraexactzz, with this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True - but then reopened it here once it was recreated. So a better phrase on my part would have been "closed and reopened", I imagine. It also suggests that they agree that the AFD here applies there. And now I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for better or for worse, it is policy that we keep all high schools if verifiable, to avoid this kind of long argument every time. Despite the difference of spelling of Gajol/Gazole, it appears clear that this secondary school exists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It exists, so we keep it per consensus on secondary schools. If only all the energy expended here had been put into improving/sourcing the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's easier said than done, VMS Mosaic. There don't appear to be any reliable sources available online that cover the school in any depth, so what would we use to improve the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We wait until offline sources have been researched and added. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but finding sources about this school offline isn't something that I could realistically do instead of posting here, so "If only all the energy expended here had been put into improving/sourcing the article" doesn't really apply in my case - and I suspect the same is true of everyone commenting here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 21 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Value Research[edit]

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

Non notable company with no reliable sources. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability and my searches do not turn up anything substantial beyond PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:34, 19 August 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 FreshGames. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZenGems[edit]

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

The game does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Also, the existing sources does not show notability. Redirect to FreshGames, since there is a mention about this game. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom - I also could find no references. Yvarta (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:41, 25 August 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) 10:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Belarus[edit]

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

Simply put, Belarus was never involved in any wars. This list goes to 14th century or so, but it makes about as much sense as adding let's say some medieval European wars to the list of American wars (because some descendants of people who lived in those countries eventually became American). There was no independent Belarusian country till the breakup of the USSR. There was some fighting in the time of the Russian Civil War/Polish Soviet War involving Belarussian SSR, but it was not independent state - it was part of USSR. Ditto for any WWII. Anyway, there is also the matter of fact that this article is and likely will remain unreferenced, as no serious scholarly sources will talk of "wars involving Belarus". Again, there were none. Nor were there any Belarusian uprisings, insurgents, any sort of Belarusian military before 1993. Without them, there can be no participation in any military conflict. PS. I am not denying that traces of Belarus culture can stretch centuries back, but simply put - no country, no political organization even - not a belligerent in any conflict. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the predecessor of Belarus. The main area of the state extended mainly in the areas of today's Belarus and the population consisted primarily of Belarusians. Also Old Belarusian language was the official language of the country. Just because the state did not bear the designation "Belarus" it does not mean that it should not be added to the list. The List of wars involving Ukraine does also list the conflicts of the Kievan Rus'. The article entry states that this is a list of military conflicts in which Belarusian military forces participated, not conflicts where a Belarusian state participated. During the Second World War there were pronounced Belarusian military forces such as the 1st Belorussian Front or the Byelorussian Home Defence.--Der Rationalist (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as original research and unclear criteria for inclusion, i.e. should Grand Duchy of Lithuania be included or not? In another example, the list contains "Uprising of the Belarusian Black Cats". The so-called "uprising" maybe involved a group that may or may have not existed. Lastly, the article also contains 1st Belorussian Front, 2nd, 3rd as combatants, while these were designations only, i.e. the "Western Front" was not made out of "Westerners". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Uprising of the Belarusian Black Cats". However there are conflicts such as the Slutsk Defence Action that cleary occured.--Der Rationalist (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. This article is an unhistorical fantasy. As noted, the various "Belorussian Fronts" were simply the designations used by Red Army army group-level commands based on the regions in which they were operating in. There's a long history of such names being used - eg, the British Army of the Rhine wasn't made up of Germans serving with the British, and the Nazi German Army Group South Ukraine wasn't made up of Ukrainians. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the Byelorussian Home Defence was made up of Belarusians. Therefore it was a Belarusian military force.--Der Rationalist (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete or prune. Belarus is a relatively new polity. Boundaries between Russian, Polish and Lithuanian territory have fluctuated, so that it is hard to tell what side the present republic was on. The final column is this WP:OR since it assumes that Belarus was on one side or the other, when in fact its territory was being fought over. It might be possible to prune this into Medieval wars within the present Belarus. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Makes no sense indeed. — JFG ^talk 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have reviewed links provided by Der Rationalist, and there may be a single conflict which can be attributed to Belarusian state as a proper faction, i.e. the Slutsk Defence Action, in which the Belarusian People's Republic fought (in fact, the Slutks "action", or better to say, conflict, was a part of a larger struggle that does not even have a parent Wikipedia article, see also Belarusian_People's_Republic#Military and Stanisław_Bułak-Bałachowicz#Failed_uprising_in_Belarus). There is however the question of whether a list can be composed of a single entry (even if it could be expanded to one parent entry, i.e. conflict name, and its battle-level entries, like the Slutsk one). @K.e.coffman, Nick-D, Peterkingiron, and JFG:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, no. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A one-item list may be a mathematically valid list but not a wikipedically valid list. The conflict you discovered may well deserve a page, though. — JFG ^talk 09:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- If (as some have suggested) the basis of this list is the wars of the Medieval Lithuania, the appropriate course would be a redirect to a list on that or to rename and repurpose the article as relating to that state. However, I would point out that I used to see an Atlas that called this area of USSR "White Russia", which I understand to be a translation of Belarus. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me why the Battles of the Kievan Rus' are listed in the List of wars involving Ukraine, but the Battles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can not be added to this article?--Der Rationalist (talk) 13:08, 26 August 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 Stagecoach Sheffield. Consensus is that the article can't stay as-is. Both redirecting and merging has been suggested, so going for a redirect to preserve the history in case anything is mergeable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Terrier (bus company)[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, The entire article's been unsourced for the past 10 years and I can't find anything at all, I'd imagine there's perhaps a few sources offline however I don't have access to these and then there's the problem of not knowing what to look for, Anyway that aside I can't find any shred of notability, Also I have no objections if anyone wants to merge to either Yorkshire Traction or Stagecoach in Sheffield, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'm nearly speedying this as it is, none of it comes close at all for actual substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stagecoach Sheffield where it is mentioned. Not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 26 August 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White Nights (badminton)[edit]

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

It would appear that there is no such badminton competition under the auspices of the Badminton World Federation (BWF) known as "White Nights". It would also appear that the website "bwf.tournamentsoftware.com" has no association at all with the BWF, and is in fact an unrelated sports results software site. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shirt58 for your interesting about my article White Nights (badminton). Here i can prove that White Nights is under the auspices of the Badminton World Federation (BWF). This is the official websites of BWF with White Nights tournament BWF:White Nights 2016 and also there was a link from BWF websites linked to "bwf.tournamentsoftware.com" BWF: White Nights

Poke Florentyna, KGirlTrucker81

--Stvbastian (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See also the interwikis. --Florentyna (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is one of the three regular, BWF-sanctioned, international badminton tournaments organised in Russia – other two being the Russian Open & the Russian Junior White Nights. Badminton World Federation's official website is www.bwfbadminton.org. And one can see the tournament calendar at its so-called 'Fans Website', e.g. click here for the 2016 tournaments. Although BWF is poor in keeping its old record, one can check the White Nights' details here: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016. BTW, as BWF has now created a new website, White Nights' latest results can also be found on its 'Fans Website' – 2014, 2015 & 2016. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:46, 26 August 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GMA The Heart of Asia[edit]

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

Promotional term only. I can't see any proven and more reliable source at this point. Plus the tone of the articles here is based only on Facebook page, and not on the secondary or tertiary sources. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the lack of reliable sources and poor writing are the reasons the article is being considered for deletion, wouldn't tagging the article with ((refimprove)) and ((cleanup)) be more appropriate? EddieWow (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Keep it - I don't think would add the Facebook that concern from nominated deletion, such as programming blocks Adult Swim. Oripaypaykim (talk) 23:30, 20 August 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 indicates that the sources offered are not independent enough to satisfy the independence from the subject criteria in the notability guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Beasley[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —swpb^T 13:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of those situations where we need to "stack" notability but when we do we get to WP:N, combining artistic accomplishments with academic work and social welfare outreach work. His film credits alone are borderline, but adding what else he has done: This individual appears to be a notable instructor in the field of MIDI orchestration and film scoring. I do not have HighBeam access, but putting together these two snippets, this is one example of significant coverage of his work with troubled adolescents: [2] + [3] (the Daily News article; the other two don't appear to be anything); in addition, I am finding a number of sources linked to his work on electronic orchestration, including this, A BMI workshop, a video series, and his is an instructor in film scoring at UCLA, with info here, ( and more links here), here, here and there are some bios of him [ https://www.thescl.com/Fletcher-Beasley here], and this minor bio, the last admittedly weaker as it looks like content copied from WP, but notes he's a trainer for a major program. Montanabw^(talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times do you need to be told that non-independent and trivial mention sources like these do not stack. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no "either or". There is no leeway in GNG, or anywhere else in WP:N, for this idea. There is no policy, guideline, precedent, or anything else that agrees with you, and you know that very, very well. One more to a growing documented list of misrepresentations. —swpb^T 17:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from "you" statements and further personalizing the debate. I am looking at WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..." that's what I mean by "stacking." Also, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria." In other words, adding up everything he has done, we get to notable. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You conveniently ignore the word "independent" in that passage, which we clearly do not have. —swpb^T 13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find too much of significance in these references beyond what one might expect from someone doing their job in industries that credit individual contributors. Most are far from independent sources. I also note that this article was started by the same more-or-less single purpose account that created his wife's article, Danielle Eubank. The only thing going for it are the inbound links, but then again someone had to write the music for video games et al, but without some critical reviews, or awards specifically for the scores, is this significant? Derek Andrews (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 20 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Dream (game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. I cannot find any reliable sources except for [4], and I'm not 100% on that reference either. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, please move the article to the proper title (no disambiguation was needed) before bringing it to AfD—it's a lot more work to change the title when the AfD is in process, and if it isn't changed, it becomes harder to find previous AfDs on the subject czar 14:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 14:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by David Gerard under G11 (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Corp[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The creator has posted on my talk page asking for me to reconsider, and pointed to a news source ([5]). In light of that, I think this merits a fuller discussion here, through I still think the coverage is not sufficient. One short mention in the news (that the company is doing some charitable work) is, IMHO, not sufficient to constitute coverage substantial enough to make it notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm not seeing significant independent coverage in RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. Content is strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I googled and CSS Corp is involved in few more CSR initiatives found a few references [6] , [7] & [8]. They were also in the News recently for a change in leadership [9] and news of an imminent takeover [10]. User_talk:Nj1208 . With regard to advertorial nature I think we're clutching at straws with that argument - half the articles on Wiki are of the same nature —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Most of those mention the company in passing and [11] is a press release. Please read about WP:RELIABLE and at WP:GNG/WP:NCORP about in-depth coverage requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although I've speedied as G11 which is what this is exactly, I'll comment to analyze the sources listed above; they are all PR or consisting of usual business activities, none of that amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 25 August 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MonteCristo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural renomination because of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 2; I did assess that the consensus was to allow a recreation with an AfD discussion including the new sources that weren't present in the prior deletion discussions. I have no opinion on the merits of this article - one sensible suggestion though would be to assess the merits of the article without considering its history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know the history of the article but it seems to pass WP:NPERSON to me. shoy (reactions) 13:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include:
- A Daily Dot article that is solely about the subject.
- A PCgamer article covering an ownership scandal involving the subject.
- An ESPN article that covers three peoples' dispute about pay for being a broadcaster including the subject of the article.
- Judge bio for esports industry awards while not independent per se (they are acting has his employer in this case) the fact that he was asked to be a judge is indicative of his importance in the field. It also gives biographical detail.

There are other solid sources in the article, but those by themselves, are above the WP:N bar IMO ... Hobit (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PC Gamer article is an in-depth source from a respected source, and combined with other sources is enough to meet the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:20, 23 August 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Adelle Clark-Coates[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only few of the sources mention her name, but isn't given significant coverage in them. The article may also be promotional, and one editor may have a COI, evidently by the style it's been written in. Class455 (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment'. A related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#The_Mariposa_Trust. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She is mentioned in passing in a few sources, but there is not much coverage about her, except written by her (ex. [12] is called an ïnterview", but it seems to be 99% an essay by her). There is a bit of coverage of her winning awards, like [13], [14], but both the coverage and the awards seem niche. In other words, the awards don't seem to establish notability, and their coverage is news as normal. It is also low quality coverage, each of those articles seems at least half based on quotes by her. This is really low quality journalism, and overall I don't think she passes WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think her notability is close to marginal, but it is over the threshold to me, with coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject. A WP:HEY might help. Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or second choice Merge with The Mariposa Trust. As a recipient of Points of Light and British Citizen Awards, she would seem to clear WP:ANYBIO. There are lots and lots and lots of news sources, but they seem to pretty much overlap the charity, so it might be better to have one good article rather than two "meh" ones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete a merge or keep are both reasonable IMO. Awards probably push her into the notable range, but those sources that are independent aren't great and so it's debatable if we should have a standalone article. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"'don't delete'" or return to draft if that's an option? I'm happy to continue to edit this in draft space or otherwise. Being new to this, I'm just not as quick as some of you. If the consensus is to merge with The Mariposa Trust I'm happy to have a go at that too. CASGMT (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR, the merge is still not convincing since there's nothing to actually merge if it's all still only PR; none of this comes close to becoming convincing as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Iy is essentially PR< and neither award is significant enough to imply notability DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio. BethNaught (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITYUTA[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG imo. WP:COI involved. Jianhui67^T★C 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - plain copyvio of the two sources cited. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:G12 as a copyvio. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:07, 19 August 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 Giant deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annam (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Giant deities. BOZ (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after a trim. No indication of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Boz. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete however this page is no different than the many, many other articles about other deities. In fact the entire category of D&D deities and associated lists are pure WP:FANCRUFT and should be in the D&D Wikia, not Wikipedia. None of them satisfy WP:GNG and all the sources are primary.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 25 August 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) 10:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Umberto of Savoy-Aosta[edit]

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

Obscure 7-year-old child whose only claim to fame so far is his position to succeed his father. This article relies heavily on one source as this child is not really covered. And as there is not much information about him, it is padded out with information in which he plays an incidental part. Re5x (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future heir to a royal house. The fact Italy is now a republic is irrelevant. Many monarchists will one day consider him to be their king. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we grant notability to the line of succession in an active royal line that actually holds title in a country that's actually a monarchy, nothing in Wikipedia's rules extends that to the line of succession for a title which exists only on paper and holds no actual power over anything in the real world. If and when he actually holds whatever now passes for the throne, there might be a legitimate basis for an article to be created, but being an heir to a paper throne is not enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While actual claimants to a throne might be notable, possible future claimants if they outlive their predecssors are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that monarchists will one day consider them their king assumes A-he will outlive his father (which is admittedly fairly likely), B-the monarchists will not be so alienated by his actions that they desert him (which could happen, although in that case his actions might make him notable) and C-there will still be Italian monarchists after the death of his father, something that we do not know will be the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:26, 20 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FC Dallas Development Academy[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; there doesn't appear to be anything worth merging here either; I wouldn't oppose a redirect to FC Dallas or something Spiderone 08:01, 26 August 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. A Train^talk 15:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Sounders FC Academy[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the academy system for a professional club, not a league, and has decent local coverage and some passing national mentions in the media, mostly focusing on graduates/products that eventually signed with the Sounders. Sounder Bruce 04:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article should be using the local coverage then, since 95% of the references in it are just external links to rosters or articles on the official website, with only one third-party source used. The nomination post also brings up good points, which I agree with. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable as an academy for a major club Atlantic306 (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is absolutely irrelevant as it's neither a youth league (or a league at all, for that matter) nor a local chapter of a national organization. No valid reason was offered by nominator for deletion, hence this should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reserve team, not youth team and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above arguments. Academy of a major team that has produced notable players. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is not an independently convincing and notable team; there's nothing suggesting there's the needed convincing from the team itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 31 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Sports World[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, no other notability criteria can apply here Spiderone 10:32, 23 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Texans Soccer Club[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of detailed, independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. As the nominator says, the onus is on proving notability. Spiderone 13:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 26 August 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Red Bulls Academy[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a "youth sports league" or a "chapter" of a parent organization. This is an organized, multi-tiered development system that feeds in directly to the professional teams of the New York Red Bulls. The sources provided here, and the ample sources that are available elsewhere, clearly establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has rs coverage, notable development system of the New York Red Bulls Atlantic306 (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is absolutely irrelevant. This is not a league, youth or otherwise. And it's not a local affiliate of a national organization. It's a development academy. So neither of the reasons stated in nom make sense, and we have no real choice but to keep it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:36, 26 August 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RMA Group[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to meet WP:COMPANY. Re-created by WP:SPA. Note: the original incarnation, created by now-blocked User:MarketingRMA, was speedy deleted. Drm310 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- no indications of notability; self-sourced and promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, no independent sources. shoy (reactions) 19:22, 19 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expertus[edit]

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

Clearly promotional (created by SPA), no evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Sources mostly primary, user-generated, bloggers or fail verification. Thicket of minor non-notable "awards", including from blogs. Tagged since 2014 without anyone doing anything to fix. PROD removed by IP without actually attending to problems. Google searches show other companies called Expertus; hits on this company appear to be mostly old press releases nobody in RSes took up on. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far there's not much to be going on with. David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still entirely PR, I nearly actually speedied myself. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've a reluctance to speedy things a couple of years old, but that's about all holding me back - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TOOSOON -- the company is not notable yet. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 26 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Tyler Lambert[edit]

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

There are very few reliable sources for creating biography and the name of page creator seems possible auto-biography. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While the organization may be notable, its student co-founder is not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above that that sources might be there for the organization, but not a biography. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vice-presidents and/or presidents of organizations don't get automatic inclusion rights on Wikipedia just because they exist, but nothing written or sourced here suggests that this one is more notable than the norm. An article about the organization might certainly be possible, but even if one is created notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the organization having an article still wouldn't exempt its individual executive members from still having to pass an actual notability standard on their own steam. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Not all company vice-presidents should be included in Wikipedia except if notable. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not at this time notable. He may parlay his current political involvement into actions at a level that would make him notable, but he has not done so yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:52, 20 August 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie R. Cassileth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable researcher in alternative medicine. Current article lacks any reliables sources. A quick Google search for sources turned up several that mention Cassileth in passing or use a quote or two, but these lack in-depth coverage. Delta13C (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator There was already a closed AfD several months ago. I forgot. Delta13C (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:10, 19 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu Americans[edit]

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

This is another article in the same pattern as Hokkien and Hoklo Americans and Hakka Americans. There needs to be significant coverage to show that this is an established identity. I am unable to find any discussion about this. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this a joke? The article simply states the concept does not exist. I concur, no hits in GScholar, GBooks has only one - from 1872. Too fringe. Through this does raise the question of whether Category:American people of Manchu descent can exist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over 10 million Manchu in the world, as the creator of the article, I just simply can't believe that there is no record of Manchus in America at all. It doesn't help that when you look up "Manchu" "American" on google, it brings up information about Fu Manchu stereotypes.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might end up supporting deletion on this one to be honest. But still, how in the world is this in the "same pattern" as Hokkien and Hakka Americans, Manchu are a completely distinct group from the Han.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only content in an article is content saying that no information is known about the subject of the article, then that article should not exist! If actual information in sources can be found, the article can always be recreated. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that we have absolutely no reliable sources saying anything about them. It is unclear if the listed people considered themselves Manchu. Just because one had a Manchu parent does not mean they are Manchu. Anyway, from My History of China from 1644 to present class at Wayne State University back in early 2008 I learned that at present the Manchu are not really distinguishable from the Han in China. We might as well have an article on Hugenot-American Russians, it would make as much sense. That would be nationals of Russia who have ancestry that was Hugenot in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Perhaps Lemongirl942 should have marked this for CSD. The prose of the article itself fails GNG for this article, we dont even need to put any arguments. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:03, 27 August 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 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deshvani[edit]

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

Fails general notability criteria. No third party independent sources. The search results in Hindi version also don't show any result. This is a new non-notable newspaper. And the article claims that it's the most read newspaper in North Bihar which is promotional. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No sources to establish / verify the claims made. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Corday[edit]

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

Google offers no significant coverage in RS, or any other suggestion of passing any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. —swpb^T 12:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. The only two sources in the article currently are interviews with Corday, and thus do not contribute to notability; I can't find any better sources either in google or news.google. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing, so yes there are few but established sources for this person. It is obvious that she is established. I am leaning towards keep here per the fact of sources that is claiming notable career.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate indicia of notability. I'm finding plenty of independent RS sources: Los Angeles Times, Autostraddle, [15], [16], [17], [18], (this one's a blog), [19]. One of the easier ones to find good material on. Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, your google-fu is clearly better than mine. The Autostraddle and PNT TV articles are both interviews, so they're no good for notability. Some of the others look more promising, though. I must run now, but I'll have a look later and check that they hold up, and if so change my !vote... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've had a look at the rest of the sources. SDGLN has another interview. pride.com hosts a video (I imagine; whatever the media is, it isn't working for me) of Corday presenting something. Neither of these seem to meet the "independent" criterion for the GNG. Then there are two webpages which simply announce that she is playing at some event (GayTuscon reports that she is playing at Tuscon Pride, WIMN announces that she is playing at the National Association of Music Merchants trade show). An article about a music festival, which mentions that she is playing. I am unconvinced that any of these meet the criterion of "significant coverage". That leaves this LA Times piece.

Between the LA Times piece and the few other mentions, she might barely scrape through the GNG, but I think the case is borderline at best. Unless any more independent sources can be produced, though, I'm inclined to continue to think that notability isn't really achieved here... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG. And if "borderline," the presumption is in favor of keeping. Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG. Not by my reading of GNG. WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources", not "significant coverage in a reliable source and WP:ROUTINE mentions elsewhere". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed—your reading of GNG is correct. But Montana knows that. —swpb^T 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the more I think about it, the more I think that the LA Times piece is itself routine coverage. It's just an article about her playing in local school assemblies in a local paper... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still mulling the case overall but between the write-up about her activism and the separate full-length review, I don't think the LA Times coverage is merely routine. It only counts as one source (WP:WHYN, fifth bullet point), but it's an instance of substantial coverage. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally. What Corday says about herself in the Autostraddle interview does not go toward notability, but the three paragraphs of secondary source commentary that precede the interview can, as can the fact of Autostraddle taking notice of her. Interviews#Notability And Autostraddle is a pretty major LGBT outlet, so that counts for something in my mind. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has plenty of coverage and a full review from the LA Times. I've added some sources to the article (which is a mess.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess whether new sources support the notability claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again, we have a situation where quality of article and notability are confused. The LA Times article alone is "significant" coverage, a thorough review and a good sign that someone has "arrived. Adding this to the many reviews in the LGBT press, we have "significant" coverage in multiple sources and as none are her own web site, nor does she control them, they are independent of the subject; to exclude sources from the LGBT press as somehow not independent is an erroneous assessment. Montanabw^(talk) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please identify for us all one source, other than the LA Times piece, that you believe is both reliable and significant in coverage. Don't assert that something exists if you can't prove it. No one is going to take your word for it. And no one said anything about quality, did they. —swpb^T 17:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BASIC applies. The LA Times alone is significant, and the others are all reliable and independent. This is a performer in alternative music and with a following mostly from a minority (LGBT) community, so it takes a bit more work to pull together the sources, but they supplement the LA Times. I view the Pride video as significant converage. The Gay Tucson site is a reasonably strong niche, regional news outlet, and though that one is mostly a press release, it notes her awards and is outside her usual venue of Southern California. What I can add to the above is that she has won awards within the LGBT music community, including RightOut TV, and an OutMusic Award. Considering the specialty press, we have an activist artist who meets BASIC. Montanabw^(talk) 06:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there's no reason at all to discount LGBT sources (!) and indeed they could help us cover a topic that can be hard to source. On the other hand I don't think the argument that she's "arrived" helps the case here. As far as I can tell, all the sources we can scrape up are years old; it's not an instance where an artist has broken through and we need to have an entry because we have reason to believe they're going to continue to be covered. To me it's a question of whether the sources we have from the time when she was getting notice suffice to write a balanced entry that's not just from one perspective (again, WP:WHYN). Innisfree987 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete' Not my field, but I notice that the only strong source is from her debut recording in 1997. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 31 August 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 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Parambol[edit]

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

Non-notable up-and-coming actor, plays bit parts; article created by s.p.a. which may or not be subject or somebody connected to him. Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 25 August 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 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Puerto Rico 2016[edit]

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

Unnotable and unreferenced beauty contest. The article was previously reduced to a redirect but subsequently restored by an IP. Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep beauty is important in Puerto Rico. 2607:FB90:768:B9D9:562B:487B:2E91:140E (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 25 August 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 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Russel Micnhimer[edit]

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

Lacks independent evidence of notability. Of the six sources cited within the article, four are interviews with the subject, the other two are advertisements for his books. Maproom (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 01:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing the reliable sourcing to prove notability. The claim of poet laureate status remains unsourced (as well as the redlinked conveyor of said status.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uranophobia[edit]

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

Another dubious phobia, with (as usual) appearances only in the usual lists and with no trace in medical literature. Maybe this was Chicken Little's problem. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt no MEDRS sources see linked search. Just more Fun With Greek. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannophobia[edit]

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

This case is why all these faux-phobias have to be nominated separately. I do get a bunch of hits on this in scholarly literature, but they all address it as a political impulse, not a clinical phobia. Looking at these I am dubious that an article can be written about that. As a "real" phobia it has the usual problem of no medical literature. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt no MEDRS sources see linked search. Just more Fun With Greek. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theophobia[edit]

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

This gets lots of scholarly hits but with the exception of some fellow trying to characterize medieval Europe as one big madhouse they all refer to aversion to public discussion of religion, or literal (and non-clinical) fear of God. And the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, they say, but there's no source for taking this as a real phobia. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The question that ought to be asked is whether the topic is encyclopedic. The answer is yes. The next question is, are there any search returns to substantiate this as a genuine term. The answer again is yes. Hence an obvious keep to me. Any problems with the content should be dealt with by alteration, not by deletion. Laatmedaar (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in Ecclesiophobia's AFD. That is, a "phobia" need not be medically substantiated to have a Wikipedia article. I used the example of Hoplophobia in that AFD, but even our Homophobia article discusses how it's not a clinical diagnosis. If it's got lots of scholarly hits, as the nom admits, then the clear solution is not deletion, but recasting it so there's no confusion as to whether it is or is not a legitimately recognized mental illness. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The above keep arguments are invalid. For "non-clinical" meaning we have a well-established concept Fear of God. And clinical meaning has no valid reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single source only supports the notion that this exists (like thousands of other phobias); no material to elevate this beyond a dictionary definition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and is only one no hits in PUBMED No reviews in pubmed so no MEDRS sources. There is one (!) ref from an Encyclopedia of Phobias, about which its editors say clearly: "...we wanted to be inclusive rather than restrictive, and thus we were quite liberal in choosing entries. For example, some entries (such as fear of voodoo, magic, etc) are sociological in emphasis rather than psychological, in order to present a broad perspective.... The [book] is intended for lay readers and health care professionals." In other words, "we included a lot of garbage that circulates on the internet so we could sell more books." Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stygiophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even by the standard of other so-called phobias this one has no significant trace. In the first go-'round people pointed to Hadephobia as a synonym but even if it gets three more GScholar hits, they aren't any more medical. Besides, there's nothing irrational about fearing hell, if it exists. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I acknowledge that the sources for the term are lackluster, anyone with a minimal amount of engagement in social media will notice that the concept, even without a widespread standard term for it, is prominently discussed as a phenomenon. Laatmedaar (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable coinage. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to elevate this above a WP:DICTDEF. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and is only one one primary source in PUBMED - a pop culture "historical psychoanalysis of the poet Samuel Coleridge. No reviews in pubmed. There is one (!) ref from an Encyclopedia of Phobias, about which its editors say clearly: "...we wanted to be inclusive rather than restrictive, and thus we were quite liberal in choosing entries. For example, some entries (such as fear of voodoo, magic, etc) are sociological in emphasis rather than psychological, in order to present a broad perspective.... The [book] is intended for lay readers and health care professionals." In other words, "we included a lot of garbage that circulates on the internet so we could sell more books." Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have nothing new to add that hasn't already been said. —PermStrump(talk) 22:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidonglobophobia[edit]

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

No GScholar hits, only 9 GHits and one of those is on How to Win Friends and Influence People. I'd almost believe this is something someone just made up one day. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt This is not only gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and there are no MEDRS sources in pub med but this also is connected with the recent vogue in "sensory processing disorders" (see Misophonia) that is overrun with neurotic people on the internet. On top of that per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about the subject or anything verifiable to reliable sources in the text. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Methyphobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Shouldn't that be "ethylphobia"? Anyway, the usual results for these fake-clinical phobias: a handful of useless GScholar hits, nothing showing real clinical interest. Using "potophobia" (fear of things fit to drink?) doesn't improve matters. Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even etymologically, this does not make sense. Ethanol -not methanol- is the drinkable type of alcohol. If this phobia existed, then it would make more sense to call it either alcoholophobia or ethanolophobia. In any case, no hits at all in pubmed, so very likely fails WP:MEDRS. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and there are no MEDRS sources. Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has a lack of sources. I could not find any in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Nothing appears when searching PubMed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophobia[edit]

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

Most uses of this are for generic non-clinical fear of bigness. Take those out and what's left are the usual lists of every Greek root plus "-phobia" unreliable sources. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. I have added some sourcing which seems to give the term a bit more credence. Laatmedaar (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)~~ Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete utter nonsense. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial sourced material beyond a WP:DICTDEF. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and there are no MEDRS sources in pub med. There is one (!) ref from an Encyclopedia of Phobias, about which its editors say clearly: "...we wanted to be inclusive rather than restrictive, and thus we were quite liberal in choosing entries. For example, some entries (such as fear of voodoo, magic, etc) are sociological in emphasis rather than psychological, in order to present a broad perspective.... The [book] is intended for lay readers and health care professionals." In other words, "we included a lot of garbage that circulates on the internet so we could sell more books." Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the reasons already given. —PermStrump(talk) 22:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koinoniphobia[edit]

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

The usual phobia case: nothing but lists from non-clinical works, except for one homeopathic instance. But they define it too, and that's all you'll find anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It mentions about historical uses. Planet Star 02:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Journal of Homeopathy is not a reliable medical source. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep. Laatmedaar (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)~~ Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete archaic unusable coinage, a neologism that sizzled. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and there are no MEDRS sources in pub med. Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Excluding the "example in popular culture", this article is only 70 words long. The main problem, however, is that the article does not contains any reliable in-depth coverage of the phrase. Searching in PubMed does not return any articles about this phrase, for example. There are currently a couple of instances cited where it has appeared in published works, but the examples included are not sufficient to establish notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what everyone else said. —PermStrump(talk) 23:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climacophobia[edit]

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

All material comes from an SPS; there's no trace of this in the medical literature. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel that this was nominated lazily. A quick glance at specialized search engines all came up with returns. At first I assumed this might be merged with bathmophobia since they are very similar, but then I realized climacophobia has roughly twice more traction. Clear keep in my opinion. Laatmedaar (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There ~~already~~ is a phobia covering stairs, called Bathmophobia. ~~I also found it a bit peculiar that usually the prefixes aren't sourced from English but this is.~~ Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems it's from Greek after all, from "klimax." I find it odd that klimax means a ladder or a staircase and bathmos means a step. The two seem to really overlap... Who came up with these? Which came first? Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable medical sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and there are no MEDRS sources in pub med. Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there are no reliable medical sources current used in this article. This is the sort of phrase that appears in "lists of phobias". Historical examples might include Kristol Irving's commentary on superstition from 1948 or this 1950 bmj book review. But there isn't any in-depth coverage presented here. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetophobia[edit]

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

Another apaprently made-up phobia, with no real clinical literature. Note that kinesiophobia is a real thing, but refers to reluctance to move because of pain. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mango that the sources largely negate this as a medical or clinical phenomenon. However, I think the appropriate subsequent course of action is to remove any tags denoting it as such, rather than wholesale deletion. Laatmedaar (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While sources appear to support that this exists, none of them provide anything resembling depth of coverage to merit and article about this; belongs in Wiktionary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. There is indeed a term Kinesiophobia that unfortunately has "phobia" in it and is closely related - it is used in rehab medicine and physical therapy to define people's fear of movement causing them pain - something that hinders the therapy and actually prolongs their suffering. This "kinetophobia" is gobbledegook "fun with greek". Delete and salt to prevent this garbage from coming back. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Xiaomi[edit]

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

Unnecessary timeline which simply states the events in the main article in chronological order. In the same boat at Timeline of Valve Corporation. Also nominating the following articles too:

-- Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Timeline of online food delivery could be merged to Online food ordering. Its content is not in the Online food ordering article at all, nor is it a chronological representation of the article. This will serve to significantly improve the merge target article, which is only at start-class. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically give the short history of the above, these timelines amount to forks of the history section of the main article. Spshu (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AfD on the Timeline of Xiaomi should not be bundled with the AfDs on all the timelines. They do not meet any of the following 4 examples:

A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.

A group of hoax articles by the same editor.

A group of spam articles by the same editor.

A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.

As such, bundling the articles violates the WP:MULTIAFD guideline: "For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy."

Facebook has a detailed history section as well as a separate history page, and yet it has a timeline. There are more examples one could give. Denver has a history section, a history page, and a timeline. Simfish/InquilineKea (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reason for deletion given. "Unnecessary" is a synonym for "I don't like timelines". Timelines are in fact a valid sort of list on Wikipedia; see WP:TIMELINES. "In the same boat" is an argument not to make in AfD per assumed outcome and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Each article should be considered on a case by case basis. For instance, Timeline of Intel is well-sourced, and a WP:BEFORE style search shows many sources for timelines and chronologies of Intel and their products. Given the apparent lack of research into notability per WP:BEFORE, no apparent consideration of alternatives to deletion per WP:ATD and WP:IGNORINGATD, and a seeming attempt to establish policy against the WP:MULTIAFD guideline, I must recommend keep for all of these articles. After this AfD is closed, if the nom so chooses, we can consider each article more carefully on a case by case basis. --Mark viking (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and nominate separately with a valid rationale for each, if desired. For example, the Timeline of online food delivery article does not correspond with the deletion rationale provided atop at all (see my comment above). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 19 August 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) 10:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Calcano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christian Calcano

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

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:55, 3 August 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 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Meets the subject-specific criteria here (200+ pro points)Tazerdadog (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't even know the basic biographical details of this guy: date and place of birth, for example. For someone who's supposedly "notable" that's a red flag. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth added, I'm not sure why place of birth is even in the template, it seems pretty random. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable gamesman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that there were significant procedural errors in this nomination. In addition to not being properly transcluded in the log, the find sources template did not refer to the correct person and has only just been fixed. This may have obscured relevant sources to the commenters above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because of the errors in listing, it needs longer discussion DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it might be good to create a list to merge these players into. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:44, 19 August 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. There does not seem to be evidence that WP:N is met here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CivicSource[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- (change from delete) This is a leading source, it's a business that is established and well known enough in the area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchinit (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG from sources given and those I have independently found online. DarthVader (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. Also, I seem to have accidently relisted a few hours early. I'll just keep the relist up, since someone else will just have to relist it in a few hours anyways. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' -- entirely promotional and coverage is either local or PR like. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 26 August 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matloob Inkalabi[edit]

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

Non-notable person with only one unreilable source. Delete. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He clearly passes the notability guidelines for politicians as he is a member of the legislative assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, a top level sub-national assembly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is unreliable about a Pakistani government publication as a source for who is a member of a legislature in a territory controlled by Pakistan? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I thought was obvious from my and others' comments above, but it seems that we are into vote counting here rather than consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 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. Sandstein 07:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Sun[edit]

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

Website seems to be a blog, and there is only one single source from an obituary that fails to establish notability. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite several hours of research, I haven't been able to find anything about this newspaper beside the brief mention in Washington Post obituary of its publisher, currently being used as the article's sole source. According to the Library of Congress, there was a newspaper called the The Washington Sun published ca. 1914–1919, but I can't tell if it has any connection to the subject of the Wikipedia article. The African American Newspaper: Voices of Freedom, while hardly exhaustive, doesn't mention it. I'm afraid I wasn't able to find any sources, reliable or otherwise, about the newspaper. Considering my distance from Washington, D.C., I'm afraid spending time in the library here wouldn't be fruitful. Perhaps an interested editor in the D.C. area might expend the energy to find some paper sources, but until then I'm afraid it isn't notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat lists the newspaper diff, but in the link there to Wisconsin I only see the date 1992. I wouldn't agree that the problem is notability, but verifiability. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a presumably defunct Afro-American newspaper. The WaPo obit is dispositive (therey would not have been wrong about the existence of this man/newspaper. I can confirm it with this 1992 WaPo article "Joseph C. Cooke, 68, general manager of the Washington Sun community newspaper," [20] (Primary Scare Has Jarvis Running Hard in Ward 4: [FINAL Edition] Henderson, Nell. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Washington, D.C] 19 Oct 1992: d01.). And with an obit from The Washington Informer. (IN MEMORIAM: Joseph Clinton Cooke * 1927-2008, Washington Informer [Washington, D.C] 31 Jan 2008: 32.)[21] It describes him in a long, detailed, laudatory obit. there used to be a lot of black newspapers, I've created articles on a few I've come across before. Definitely worth keeping @Unscintillating and Marquis de Faux:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm still puzzled that we don't have a record at the Library of Congress. The WaPo obit states, "He hired many young people to distribute his newspaper and offered scholarships to a number of students to complete their college education." But WP:Verifiability#Notability, the policy requirement of WP:Notability, is satisfied with the two new sources. Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries, like librarians, are wonderful, they are essential to civilization, but they are not perfect. not even the Library of Congress is free of error. You can take my word for this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books gives a few more mentions. I don't think anyone doubts the accuracy of the article and the Post source. A published newspaper should be notable. Borock (talk) 06:14, 19 August 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 21:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wo India ka Shakespeare[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, with no assertion of notability, or reliable sources to verify content. A movie without basic IMDB page and no mention anywhere other than their own paid websites. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment simple search result tops with youtube videos and news search results don't show anything about this movie. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:00, 27 August 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) 07:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Gantela[edit]

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

Does not meet the basic notability guidelines of English Wikipedia. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although unarguably devout and worthy, the subject does not meet standards for Wiki notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced, not sufficient to verify the claims made in article. The lack of reliable sources means that notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and not notable, which of course is enough; I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the writing looks promotional, but in a way that is common enough when people write about their own religious leaders and that probably isn't blatant enough for G11. Despite that, I agree that this fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 24 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkes Mkrdichian[edit]

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

Not recognized by United States Golf Association and International Golf Federation Marvellous Spider-Man 05:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable golfer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGOLF. Tewapack (talk) 13:01, 19 August 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) 07:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeployNow (software)[edit]

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

Possible promotional content from www.opexsoftware.com Marvellous Spider-Man 05:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take any interest in oldest page patrol. We need more people in this area. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a software product. My searches are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 22 August 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 Closed, wrong process. This probably was meant to be a nomination for Sobha City instead, not for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobha City (which would be subject to WP:MFD if anyone wanted to delete it). Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobha City[edit]

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

Advertising/. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 19 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Information Technology Development Center[edit]

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

This mostly promotional piece still has no viable references after 8 years. A number of other recent articles on subunits of this University have been turned into redirects, merged, or deleted, and this one seems no different. As a subunit, it is unlikely to have attracted independent notability (and in fact appears to have not done so; see Wikipedia:College and university article advice for more on this). Please avoid using WP:LONGTIME for any Keep votes, yes? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is basically an academic department in a university, nd such departments are not notable unless they aretruly world-famous, which this is not. Furthermore, it's essentially their catalog page, with a full lists of course and similar detail, and hence inappropriate for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete it almost looks like an advert for this unit. not to mention the sprawling lists and external links. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 22 August 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) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VSA Partners[edit]

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

No evidence for notability -- the articles are not about the firm, but about various projects in which it has been engaged. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the mentions in the press seem to be stories about other companies that have engaged them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- corporate spam on a non notable marketing agency. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 26 August 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, which defaults to Keep. A Train^talk 15:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omran Daqneesh[edit]

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

While the photograph of the subject is certainly wildly circulated, at this time, it is not evident if this coverage will last (WP:NOTNEWS) and it does not seem this subject satisfies WP:ONEEVENT. The article can always be recreated at a later date. Opted for AfD, really, rather than a speedy (what I initially opted for) or a prod, because I realized the deletion maybe isn't as uncontroversial as I initially assessed it to be. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:26, 19 August 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 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pft. Felt like I was forgetting a step. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Omran Daqneesh is not yet sufficiently notable to justify a wikipedia pageSassmouth (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, clearly meets general notability guidelinesOrangepeel88 (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC) ~~Blocked sock. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)~~ A comment by a sock, struck when the sock was blocked, struck by another sock, now blocked...jeez. Vanamonde (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant page Pivox (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: the three !votes above do not give a strong argument for their position. As for the subject meeting WP:GNG, while the image has been reprinted widely by many major news outlets, the coverage is largely similar description of the same information, and then more general coverage about the Syrian Civil War. Much of the in-depth coverage doesn't address the subject directly, but rather uses the subject as a platform to address a related topic in depth; I do not feel this counts toward notability. The event happened only on Wednesday; Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it is not our job to report on everything that captures widespread media attention. Articles are based on enduring significance, and it is currently unclear if this subject or the subject's image will have that. (For comparison, see Death of Alan Kurdi, especially Death of Alan Kurdi § Debate on the public responses to the pictures, Death of Alan Kurdi § Impact on the 2015 Canadian federal election, Death of Alan Kurdi § Legacy. Link to article at the time of its AfD.) The Omran Daqneesh images have not garnered that level of significance. The photograph and video footage has yet to garner the kind of depth that would warrant an article, either as a biography or an event, and the media interest alone is not enough to warrant an article. As I stated in my nom, if the interest and coverage continues, the article can be recreated at a later date. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given by TenTonParasol. Certainly it's imaginable that he'll continue to be in the news, and not only for appearance in one photograph (cf Kim Phúc); if this happens, then he should get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being shown in film footage is almost never alone enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The photograph itself gained a moment attention, but no in-depth coverage for the Omran is available. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even IF the photograph itself was notable as a news event (which it isn't), the subject most certainly is not. WWGB (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event / photograph / footage has/d global impact on the public opinion (more specifically, opinions concerning the Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War). Could lead to a shift in the course of the Syrian Civil War. See Category:Vietnam War photographs and Category:Spanish Civil War photographs. Stefanomione (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen any sources stating a tangible shift in public opinion or policy shifts or any other kind of shift. Though, my ability to find sources has been lacking lately because of focus issues. If there are sources, I would be glad to add them to the article myself, and if there are enough to establish notability, I would be glad to withdraw my nom. But, "could", we're not a crystal ball; an article isn't based on the possibility of notability. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I used this page on 22 August 2016 after reading that Omran Daqneesh's brother Ali had died of wounds sustained in the same bombing. Previously I had never heard of Omran Daqneesh, but I don't usually use social media. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , but it's content can be merged into other articles dealing with the civil war in Syria. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. The same photographer took pictures and happily made selfies with anti-Assad rebels, while they were decapitating a 11 years old boy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifS0fi9WB8 He had no problem with that, only with the Russians. Should we create a separate article on this later boy as well? I don't think so...--Ltbuni (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story made front-page around the world. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with some possibility of Merge or Redirect into an appropriate target page. Seems to fail WP:BLP1E, but the person and photo have been covered in many global, reliable sources such as The New York Times.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely symbol child for Syrian civil war. See this google search and other news.--Kingbjelica (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage that includes identity of individual discussed in article. Calibrador (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this actually amounts to convincing independent notability which is needed, none of this suggests it is something actually kept for both convincing and substance thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepGiven the continuing comment, and in particular the NYTimes statement that the picture will prove to be symbolic of the war, "How Omran Daqneesh, 5, Became a Symbol of Aleppo’s Suffering" [22] and that the image " stood out among all the other recent images of children in war-torn areas" [23] and [[24] DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.~~Comment~~: I assume we are talking about this picture. This appears to be the case of WP:1E. If this subject is notable, then I highly recommend that we create pages for this, this and this also (if not done already) since they also made it to the "front / cover pages" of thousands of papers, magazines, blogs, articles and other publications around the world and were very famous at their time. ~~If the other three subjects are not notable, then I recommend we delete this article as well~~. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article for the second one actually: Death of Alan Kurdi ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Converting my comment to keep vote since the other examples I quoted, two out of three pictures indeed have independent articles on them. Article Afghan Girl is dedicated to this picture, article Death of Alan Kurdi belongs to this article whilst there is a notable mention in article Kevin Carter about this picture. Please don't slap Other stuff exists on my face; this is just my opinion. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Omran and other children are a symbol for sufferings in syria. We can remember Omran and other kids with this page.
Keep - This picture was circulated world wide. It has gained similar attention to Alan Kurdi. As Alan Kurdi has a page I wouldn't see why Omran shouldn't have a page. People around the world are very interested in who this boy is and how he ended up in this situation. The picture is almost becoming the picture for the suffering of the Syrian People. No reason not to keep it. In fact I'm considering to translate this article into German. I do also want to add that this boy may potentially become the Phan Thi Kim Phuc of this generation next to Alan Kurdi. --Earlyspatz^Talk 12:57, 4 September 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. Seems like nobody here is arguing that the director is notable, even if the film King, Murray may be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Hoffman (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Non-notable person, the coverage about them is limited and falls well short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and film maker guidelines. Joseph2302 20:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His film King, Murray won the Critics Award at the 1970 Cannes Film Festival. The film is probably notable, even if the director's not. Pburka (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: King, Murray was a Jonathan Gordon's film and was the main director. David Hoffman doesn't get a critics mention, his name just appears on the credits.--Aspro (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannes website only lists Hoffman as the director. IMDB lists both. Pburka (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the category is The Cinéfondation Selection consisting of 18 student films. (emphasis mine). [25] Would any one expect an employer/client to be impressed by telling them you once won a prize in 1st Grade ? The article appears to me as simple puffery and an advertorial.--Aspro (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might if I'd won a Cannes Award in first grade. But I'm not arguing to keep his article. I am wondering if we should salvage the description of the film, and perhaps redirect Hoffman's page to his one award-winning film. Pburka (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The earliest posts on this article appear to be from a single purpose account user: Krisbeldin. This maybe Kristofer Beldin, a PR Manager (with social media skills according to his resumé).--Aspro (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:41, 19 August 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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8). No prejudice against reopening this discussion when new sources providing substantial, independent coverage of Barry are provided. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Barry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant on reality shows. That's not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- the winner usually (but by no means always) gets an article on that basis, but non-winning competitors still have to establish notability in other ways. And the sourcing here, which consists of one Q&A-style interview in a blog about his experience on one of the reality shows and one news article about denying a rumour, is not solid enough to pass WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better, but this is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Changed vote, see below.) Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It would be unusual to delete an article that meets those standards so readily, so you'd need a special argument. So if you discard the Daily Mail (which, fine), you still have a whole entire article about her in Huffington Post. Then there's a whole article about her in the Advocate, here. A whole article in the LA Weekly, here (they call here a "superstar" BTW). Las Vegas Weekly. Chron (whatever that is, but looks professional). Oh, the Las Vegas Sun. All of these are full-length in-depth articles/interviews in professionally slick and fairly widely read magazines/websites. Easily, easily, cruises right past WP:GNG and knocks it for six. Must keep. Herostratus (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which the subject is talking about themselves in Q&A inteview format don't assist passage of GNG, but may be used only for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met — and that knocks out four of those five sources. The only one that isn't wiped out by that fact is LA Weekly — but that's an alt-weekly, which is still a class of sourcing that for different reasons (not widely distributed, nor archived anywhere that we could easily retrieve the content if the article ever deadlinked for some reason) is still in the "acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts but not able to be a bringer of GNG" camp. Bearcat (talk)

"Articles in which the subject is talking about themselves in Q&A inteview format don't assist passage of GNG"... I don't believe it. Show me where it says that. That would be a very silly rule. Of course an in-depth interview counts as an in-depth article. When I'm looking for sourcing, an in-depth interview article is the gold standard, for goodness' sake. There's no reason why it wouldn't be. Don't just make up random rules. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making anything up. It's standard AFD practice that Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been passed by objective third-party sourcing, but cannot be bringers of GNG — because what a person says about themselves in an interview can be, and quite frequently is, hype-inflated or self-serving or promotional rather than neutral in nature (frex, a writer isn't going to be challenged if he calls his book a best-seller when it really wasn't; an actress isn't going to get fact-checked on claiming that she's 10 years younger than she really is; Derrick Barry isn't going to be confronted by the interviewer if he makes unverifiable claims about what was really going on backstage between himself and Kim Chi; etc.) So when it comes to the notability test, interviews in which a person is talking about themselves work like a person's own self-published website or social media presence, not like news articles: they can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that's already satisfied our inclusion rules independently of them, but cannot be used as establishers of notability in an article that doesn't contain any stronger sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, she's mentioned in interviews and has a Vegas show, but she hasn't released any music, or done anything noteworthy in her time post-RuPaul's Drag Race, which is arguably where she's most known from. For a comparison, Busty Heart placed lower than Derrick Barry on their season of America's Got Talent, but is notable for other reasons. Same for Fancy Ray and Seed & Feed Marching Abominable. Each of those pages show more notability than Derrick Barry. Therefore, redirect back to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) until she actually does something warranting an actual page. Oath2order (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't have to "do anything" to meet WP:GNG. You just have to be written about. That's what the WP:GNG says. If you don't like it take it up there. Meantime we are supposed to follow the WP:GNG. It doesn't matter how many people vote Delete here. The person closing has to take policy into account. Made-up arguments such as "Meets GNG, but I discount interviews" or "Meets GNG, but hasn't really done anything useful"... those don't cut it. Herostratus (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the context in which that coverage is being given does enter the GNG equation. Local fire chiefs in small towns would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took; winners of local poetry contests would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took; president of church bake sale committees would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took; unelected candidates for political office would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took. Even I've been in the media often enough that I would qualify for a Wikipedia article if "coverage exists" were all it took — that coverage just didn't have anything to do with me accomplishing anything I'd belong in an encyclopedia for, which is where the difference comes in. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Meets the GNG. Sure, a lot of niche magazines & interviews, but still RS. The Steve 09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Delete. My coleagues' arguments have merit. In addition, I had to remove a BLP violation from the article, and... whatever WP:GNG might say, this is borderline, and really... this article doesn't enhance the Wikipedia. Delete per WP:IAR, if it comes to that. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 22 August 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) 08:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unai Elgezabal[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a decent reason. MYS77 ^✉ 02:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Alcorcón kick their Segunda División campaign off tonight. If he plays he will meet notability requirements. If not, then a delete would be in order.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liam E. Bekker: First match already played, and Elgezabal was an unused substitute. MYS77 ^✉ 02:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think playing in one game is too low a standard to make footballers notable, at least two games should be required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: You've created a lot of AfDs related to footballers, and there's no such thing as "a game is too low standard". Player notability must respect or WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY, and the latter one passes when the player appear in a single match in a division considered fully professional. Please take that in mind. Ah, and Elgezabal did not appear in any professional division during his career yet. MYS77 ^✉ 02:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdly low inclusion standards can and should be contested. One of the rules of Wikipedia is that consensus can change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: To propose a change you have to gather a consensus at WT:FOOTY. If you point is accepted by the community, then we can take this under consideration for the following creations. Until that, you'll have to respect the current consensus. MYS77 ^✉ 02:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MYS, the reason the subject specific guideline is set at one is to avoid discussions like this. Why not three matches for example? GNG is still the important guideline and there are plenty of examples of players who pass NFOOTY who are later deleted as they then went on to do very little. Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Article can readily be restored if he actually plays. I invite editors to contact me for that very purpose. Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust revising[edit]

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

I simply do not believe that "Holocaust revising" is a real topic. The article is about an unaccepted neologism, not a genuine field of study. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling it a neologism when I've supported it from a 1996 book with a 1997 review? If you have a better name for it I'm all ears but this is clearly a legitimate topic to show how views of Holocaust details (death counts, camp numbers, accountability among the populace) have changed over the decades. Ranze (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Obviously historians debate all kinds of topics, and revise their understanding of them, but that does not make, for example, Battle of Waterloo revising a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. Do your sources specifically use the term "Holocaust revising"? It does not sound like the kind of term an academic historian would use. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust is a larger topic than the Battle of Waterloo though, surely, so we can't hold that up to similar standards. Point me to an article called "revising the Battle of Waterloo" and then your objection will hold water. FKC I have moved the page to revising the Holocaust to match the exact phrase used by Ruth Bettina Birn and Dr. Volker Riess due to three people objecting to my trying to shorten it. So now what is the basis of objection? This IS a term an academic historian would use. Birn was "Chief Historian, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Section, Department of Justice, Canada" while Riess editoed Ernst Klee's 1991 book The Good Old Days': The Holocaust Through the Eyes of the Perpetrators and Bystanders Ranze (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone uses a phrase in an academic article, that does not make it appropriate to use it as the title of an encyclopedia article. One could create endless articles about other major events - "Revising World War I", "Revising World War II", etc - and they would not be appropriate either. If historians revise their understanding of something, there is no reason that cannot be covered within the main article about that topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: the main reason I think we should split these off into their own articles is size. The Holocaust is over 290,000 bytes. World War I is under 250,000 and World War II is under 225,000. Articles about changing perceptions of historians over times about these wars would also be very interesting and I would like to see that too. The primary articles about these subjects should be on the present viewpoint, not out-dated viewpoints or how we got to the present viewpoints. Primary articles should be clear and current, historiographical articles could be confusing for laypeople and shouldn't be jammed into the main articles. Presently do you see historiographical concerns even mentioned in these articles? They're big enough as it is. I don't see you trying to introduce this information into those articles, clearly it needs a narrower-scope article to contain it. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says it's legitimate but search engines don't say the term itself is legitimate. In fact it seems to be mostly used of denialists for some reason. The sources don't really establish the term either. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you accusing Daniel Goldhagen or Ruth Birn or Volker Riess or Eric Lichtbau of being deniers? The sources clearly establish the term. Holocaust revising is simply a more efficient way of stating revising the Holocaust, a phrase used by Birn and Riess to describe Goldhagen's work. Goldhagen is an example of revising conceptions about accountability for the atrocity, and then the 1992 and 2013 articles from the New York Times are examples of revising the statistical estimates of deaths or camps. Your 'mostly used of denialists' claim is an unprovable assertion. It is POV-pushing. People who oppose the discussion of revising will naturally claim that all revising is denialism, that doesn't make them reliable sources on the matter. Ranze (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does not have an article for every phrase that someone uses in an article. I am not seeing a legitimate need for an article called "Revising the Holocaust". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an article about a topic, not a phrase. The phrase is simply the best way I know how to describe the topic. Please don't misrepresent the intent of the article, it just appropriates the phrase to describe the field of study, not to wax on about the phrase. Ranze (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article may be meant to be about a topic, but I see no evidence the topic actually deserves its own article. How historians legitimately revise their understanding of the Holocaust can be covered in The Holocaust and other articles. The title "Revising the Holocaust" is completely unencyclopedic - no proper encyclopedia would use that as a title for an article. The impossibility of finding an appropriate title is simply more evidence of the lack of need for an article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Covering it in 'The Holocaust' is not appropriate, that should only be about our current view of it, not how views changed over time. What other articles? Am I missing a historiography of the Holocaust main article here? Category:Holocaust_historiography certainly exists, but which other article should I have included this information in? Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That is nonsense. The article The Holocaust, or any other article on an historical topic, can of course cover the evolving understanding of that topic among historians. You cannot dictate otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @FreeKnowledgeCreator: not attempting to dictate just observing that the article is quite big, I thought we split big articles into smaller ones once they got too big. Ranze (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm reporting what I saw: [26], [27], [28] and [29]. Maybe "mostly" should have been "often" instead because there are legitimate uses and then there are uses you can't tell whether it's legitimate or not. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Often" I'll agree with. It's similar to how 'white separatism' might often be used as more conservative language by white supremacists. Couching extremist rhetoric in conservative topics doesn't mean that the conservative topic shouldn't exist though. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe the sources used establish that 'Holocaust revising' is an actual term, or in fact use that term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine I'll move it to the bulky revising the Holocaust version since that definitely IS used to describe it. The topic exists, if you know something better to call it then please do. Ranze (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superfluous,can be easily merged into main articles--Petebutt (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Petebutt: what articles do you propose merging this content into? If that is done I would prefer if these names were redirected there to retain their page history. The main Holocaust article is too big and I don't see historiography existing there long since the focus should be on telling people what the Holocaust is currently thought to be. The focus of Holocaust revising > revising the Holocaust is meant to be how views of it have changed over the decades.Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no change in attitude towards any of the Nazis vile acts. I can only surmise that this article is trying to prise open a door for the non-believers to proliferate their misguided ideology.--Petebutt (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above arguments ----Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that this was posted 2 minutes after special:diff/735200918. I'm left to wonder if this is reprisal for removing a category not supported by the article's content. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ranze, please read WP:AGF. There is really no point in questioning Snowded's motives. Also, as a general observation, there is little point in your making individualized responses to everyone who has supported "delete" in this discussion - it's not for no reason that you have had few replies to those responses. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - An editor makes a series of controversial edits on a a subject like this (as you did) and most experienced editors will check what they are doing on other pages - I found this, read the proposal and commented accordingly. Not sure how that can be called a reprisal, all I asked you to do on the other two articles was to get talk page consensus before making such changes. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A thin little think piece. Seems like an attempt to create a POV fork so one can have a separate little forum for "discussing revisions which do not deny the Holocaust happened, only the changing views over time over historical minutiae." If there's a legitimate point to make about the scope of the Holocaust, then you'll need to make it in the main article. It may not survive there, but that's the kind of editorial Darwinism we practice. You don't get to create your own little pond. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: the discussion of historiographical issues largely doesn't survive in main articles at all, since they present the current viewpoints of subjects. This is not the history of the Holocaust it is more like history of the history of the holocaust. Why is the idea of historiographical articles being shunned here? Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is an unnecessary content fork. There are exactly two sentences providing examples of "Holocaust revising". This can easily be included in the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: stubs always start out small. Historians are always improving the study of the details of events. The idea here is to allow more historiography facts to be compiled. How many facts would someone need to find to satisfy you? You and others keep claiming that we COULD include it in the main article, but the fact of the matter is that you haven't included it, the article is already too big and creating a historiography section there would either get deleted or nominated for template:split section so creating a distinct article from the get-go saves work. But hey, I'll humor you and go do that now and we can witness what happens. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had assumed that Holocaust revising was some kind of Holocaust denial-lite, but it's merely a neologism describing the process of history. There's nothing here that justifies a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alansohn: the process of history is an interesting topic, why we can't we have more articles about it? Darwin's Century was great. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The evolving views among legitimate historians on the nature of the Holocaust can be handled perfectly well in the main article on the topic and its subsidiary articles, per the way we treat pretty much every other aspect of history (eg, we don't have a British Empire revising article). Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nick-D: do tell WHERE in the main article (or in which subsidiary article?) we cover the evolving views? Seriously, link them. Even if we did: look how big that article is. Why do we need such big articles? Big topics like that the main should be an overview and then issues like historiography should be split to reduce page load time. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reeks of WP:SYN, figures and exact details can vary source to source but "holocaust revising" doesn't seem to be a real phenomenon, at least not a notable one. The "evolving views" Nick mentions above would be better handled in the main article.LM2000 (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @LM2000: it is obviously a real phenomenon because Ruth Bettina Birn (the Chief Historian, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Section, Department of Justice, Canada) used the phrase 'revising the Holocaust' as an article title. How is the chief historian of a country's DoJ War Crimes division not notable? Ranze (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If anything, it should be called Holocaust revisionism. Here's one of many Google hits on the subject. Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's Holocaust denial - the "Institute for Historical Review" is notorious for this. The intention of this article was to cover the historiography on the topic by honest historians. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah I strove to choose a unique title since "revisionism" gets so polluted with negationism/denialism association. Unfortunately knowing what else to call it is hard. I'm thinking historiography of the Holocaust if we amassed enough content. There's so little to begin with though that I would be okay with temporarily redirecting it to a section on the main Holocaust article until it grew large enough to template:split section in which case the redirects could be "with possibilities". Ranze (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Holocaust denial. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yoninah: I can't help but wonder if you actually read the article in question. Nothing I put there involves denying the Holocaust, it has to do with legitimate historical discoveries which amended out image of it over time. Ranze (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Potential Merge to The Holocaust as a new section, "Historiographic revisions". The article cites two items where there has been a change in view, but quoted in New York Times. That is a very derivative source. If the revisions have merit, the citation should be of the academic article quoted by NYT. I do not believe this is worth a stand alone article, and if kept is likely to become a forum for deniers (which is quite different). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: as you suggested special:diff/735613764 I guess we could redirect these names there. I just figure if it grows it'd need to be split so I'd do that ahead of time but I guess I'll leave it to consensus to decide on a name if the need arises later. Ranze (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The substantive content of the article is two snippets from New York Times, which is a reputable newspaper, but not one that undertakes that kind of primary research. The article is not a fork of Holocaust denial. However if the article is to survive at all (even by merger) someone needs to find the sources on which the NYT articles are based. History is an evolving subject, as new historians identify new sources or reinterpret existing ones. Historiography is in a sense the history of historical interpretation. Revisionism is legitimate; denial of well-sourced facts is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    special:diff/735735393 as predicted. I'm all for finding the primary sources the NYT articles are based on, I only posted NYT to show the notability of those revelations in the media. Listing off:
    - "Poland Agrees to Change Auschwitz Tablets". NYTimes.com. 17 June 1992. Archived from the original on 26 May 2015. It was previously thought that four million died at the camps. More recent research has revealed the figure to be closer to 1.5 million.
      - "Kalman Sultanik, a New Yorker who is vice chairman of the international council set up by the Polish Government for Auschwitz's preservation."
        
        "Jerzy Wroblewski, the curator of Auschwitz, said the text on the new tablet, to be placed at the main monument at Birkenau, which housed the crematoria, will read:"
      Lichtblau, Eric (1 March 2013). "The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking". Archived from the original on 2 March 2013. When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500.
      - lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington.
        
        “The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought,” Hartmut Berghoff, director of the institute, said in an interview after learning of the new data.
        
        The lead editors on the project, Geoffrey Megargee and Martin Dean, estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died or were imprisoned in the sites that they have identified as part of a multivolume encyclopedia. (The Holocaust museum has published the first two, with five more planned by 2025.
        
        Dr. Megargee, the lead researcher, said the project was changing the understanding among Holocaust scholars of how the camps and ghettos evolved.
        
        Dr. Dean, a co-researcher, said the findings left no doubt in his mind that many German citizens, despite the frequent claims of ignorance after the war, must have known about the widespread existence of the Nazi camps at the time.

So for the first I'm going to try looking for primary sources from Sultanik and Wroblewski while for the second I'll try to find primaries for Berghoff, Megargee and Dean. Dean in particular links into the Hitler's Willing Executioners thesis of common German civilian awareness of the Holocaust, for example, so these 2013 findings may put a(nother?) dent in the whole 'the common German people didn't know what was going on' interpretation. Ranze (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Mc: mentions the section was out of place so I'm hoping to get feedback on where in the main article it should go. If not here then hopefully it will come up on the talk page. Ranze (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the data from the research referenced in The New York Times' is already in the main article:

A research project conducted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum estimated that 15 to 20 million people died or were imprisoned.^[1]
A network of about 42,500 facilities in Germany and German-occupied territories was used to concentrate victims for slave labor, mass murder, and other human rights abuses.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Eric Lichtblau (1 March 2013). "The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 March 2013.

Above are two of the three citations from the NYT coverage. So no separate article is required. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that NYT is unreliable, but this is a subject of detailed academic research. NYT is not an academic publication: WP should be citing NYT's source, which probably is a book or article, rather than NYT. A distinction needs to be made between conscript labour camps, which were dire, but not primarily concerned with killing the inmates; and the Holocaust proper, intended to provide a "final solution" by extermination. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SYN at best; further, revision of numbers and estimates change over time in historical research without hanging a term on it. As said above, "[h]istory is an evolving subject". Kierzek (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek: could you explain what part of this is synthesis to you? I find a lot of people throw around that term without backing it up with explanation. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because the "article" uses material combined to imply that these are examples of a "term" which has no use and meaning by historians who in the natural progression of time, through research, have made revisions to certain estimates; the conclusion that the authors/historians are doing this work under the mantle of the "term" used is WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. An article on Historiography of the Holocaust might include this stuff as a very tiny thing, and we do have plenty of historiography articles. The entries in the article, however, aren't even about "revising the Holocaust"; one is the correction of a piece of Polish propaganda that was never considered accurate by Holocaust historians; the other is the discovery of new information -- in other words, just doing History. But go for that Historiography article; it's an interesting field with a lot written about it, and I think there might be enough for a Wikipedia article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the use of the phrase "a piece of Polish propaganda" (right above). The source article speaks of the Polish "Communist" propaganda from the times of the Soviet domination of Poland and suppression of democracy. Please note the difference. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: if you think historiography of the Holocaust could include this then why are you voting delete instead of RENAME ? Also, correction of propoganda seems like significant to observe. Even if something was not a worldwide mainstream viewpoint, if it had national influence and then was corrected that's a significant amendment to the historiography. 'New information', no, because there was prior information, a low estimate of camps, which they over-rode. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per FreeKnowledgeCreator. CrashUnderride 02:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to notify any observing administrators who might want to tally this vote that Crash Underride is not a neutral party here, they have been involved in recent WWE disputes with me and likely found this page by the notifier on my talk page. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this behavior. I have no vendetta against you. I read the article, it's crap and I agree with the nominator. I don't give two turds who created the article. Now please stop your crying just because I don't agree with you. CrashUnderride 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this discussion ought to be closed per WP:SNOW. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- per the "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" Snowball clause? How about we go through official guidelines and policies? Ranze (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guidelines and policies are interpreted in terms of common sense. The point of the essay is that it's common sense not to pointlessly prolong a discussion when the outcome is clear - which it probably has been for some time now in this case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:14, 26 August 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) 08:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tomlin[edit]

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

Not sure if this "self-published blogger" and "internet troll" is quite notable enough and the page's current references are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject appears to be a very, very minor miscreant whose troublemaker antics fall beyond the realm of WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys. I made this article yesterday and I am new to the site. After seeing what experienced editors say about it, I think it should be deleted. Apologies. Redro7203 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:36, 20 August 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) 09:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Ctllo[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No indication of passing WP:GNG either, as all search results seem to be social media or commercial sites affiliated with him. All of the links and references in the article are to sites affiliated with him or social media. GAB^gab 01:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I suspect looking at the article creator's name that this is WP:PROMO and self-publicity. Richard3120 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with what Richard3120 saidSassmouth (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspect does not give them the right to remove, user "SassMouth" can not support anything in absolute proof. I'm a musician and I'm on the right to publish a note here on Wikipedia and must be reviewed by an expert but not for experienced users. OscarC12 (Talk) 10:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "right" to be on Wikipedia, and we don't work on the principle of expertise. GAB^gab 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- GAB^gab, But neither you have the right to delete only for "Suspicion" and I am Mexican nationality do not understand why add a list of Mexico-related deletion discussions would add new references but does not allow me page for an alleged blockade that seems not quiren that belongs to Wikipedia, 08:30 a.m., 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I nominated this for deletion because it fails two policies (cited above), not because of any "suspicion." The "deletion discussions" link is only used to organize AFDs, not for anything in the article. Besides that, I really don't understand what you're saying, I'm sorry. GAB^gab 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete:GAB In response to WP:GNG and Non-notable musician He was nominated in the category: Best Mexican artist Premios MIN (Spain award)He appeared in a newspaper article as a musician selection http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/06/03/opinion/a10o1esp (Spanish),he is a member SoundExchange, I meet more than one of the important points mentioned. WP: PROMO I do not seek promotion, I want their fans and the general public more aware of that musical artist, ONErpm is responsible for promoting the artist mentioned in this article and is part of the artists of VEVO, this article is not intended to be promotion. which is the real reason that you want to delete?. Where is a difference between delete and make an announcement "We need more references, it helps contribute", 09:26a.m., 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarC12 (talk • contribs)
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Note to closing admin: OscarC12 is casting multiple votes. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin, I read that the votes are not for a count but rather to create a final decision, but the evaluation of previous users important points to make an argument, I explained in detail why this article artist began, but I read that people mentioned failures and do not write a valid argument. 06:30p.m., 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarC12 (talk • contribs)
- I think they should have more attention on users with Antiquity Arun Kumar SINGH, because they handle ambiguous approach, citing links arrive leave the conversation without taking a view on what is the problem? but without specifying the point of the article and alleged "failed". 06:45p.m., 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarC12 (talk • contribs)

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.