< 8 January	10 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Knowledge Ventures[edit]

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

I believe that the value of this VC is overvalued. No sources --Gruznov (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another investment firm. This one managed to create a buzz in 2014 by having some news outlets mention "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors". Smart marketing, but that's about it at this stage. This firm may become notable in the future, but does not make the cut now. Olivier (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Article written by a bunch of SPAs with COI. Citobun (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After digging a bit, I have found that there seems to be quite a web of SPA sockpuppets working on subjects related to the founder of this firm. User:Deepknowledgev, who worked on this article, also created the article Dmitry Kaminsky, which was deleted, recreated, deleted, recreated, and then deleted again. Then the article Dmitry Kaminskiy was created. Slightly different spelling but appears to be the same person, and is linked from Deep Knowledge Ventures? Not to mention the single-purpose accounts User:Biokhimik, User:Adyod, User:Georges Medawar, User:The dank tank. Seems like a web of COI self-promotion using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. Citobun (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and restore to an edition with external sources and rebuild the article. I noticed that this company continued to make financial news well into 2015 [1][2] so I think it has just about enough persistent notability. Der yck C. 21:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the last clean version in the article with the reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this suggests a better solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  The article notes:
  
  The existing structure of Deep Knowledge Ventures is already shrouded a bit in mystery—the company is led by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, who cofounded the Center for Biogerontology and Regenerative Medicine (VITAL analyzes only companies involved in regenerative medicine)—but the rest of the board consists of “five anonymous partners, all high net worth individuals from Hong Kong, Russia, and the UK,” according to Highland.
  She says that the board will only put money into companies that VITAL’s algorithm suggests are a good bet, which isn’t too different from any other company using some proprietary analysis software or equation to make decisions.
  ...
  So far, VITAL has helped the VC firm invest in two companies, including Baltimore’s InSilico Medicine. Alex Zhavoronkov, InSilico’s CEO, told me that he does not “talk” to VITAL, but that in his dealings with Deep Knowledge Ventures, the company has acted as though the algorithm is a real human.
2. Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  The article notes:
  
  A Hong Kong venture capital fund recently appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors, claiming to be the first company of its kind to give a machine an "equal vote" when it comes to investment decisions.
  The firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV), which invests in companies researching treatments for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine, uses the algorithm to analyze financing trends to make investment recommendations in the life sciences sector.
  "We were attracted to a software tool that could in large part automate due diligence and use historical data-sets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying topline data," said DKV senior partner Dmitry Kaminskiy when the company announced the board "appointment" in May.
3. Wile, Rob (2014-05-13). "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors — Here's What It Actually Does". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
4. "Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  The article notes:
  
  A venture capital firm has appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors.
  The program - called Vital - will vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not.
  The firm it will be working for - Deep Knowledge Ventures - focuses on drugs for age-related diseases.
  It said that Vital would make its recommendations by sifting through large amounts of data.
  The algorithm looks at a range of data when making decisions - including financial information, clinical trials for particular drugs, intellectual property owned by the firm and previous funding.
  According to Deep Knowledge Ventures, Vital has already approved two investment decisions.
5. Taylor, Jordyn (2014-05-13). "V.C. Firm Names Robot To Board of Directors". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
6. Dormehl, Luke (2014-12-01). "Your job automated". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Earlier this year, Deep Knowledge Ventures a Hong Kong investment house, announced that it had appointed an algorithm to its board of directors. Given the same powers as the human board members, the piece of software weighs up financial and business decisions to assess investments in biotechnology and regenerative medicine that could be worth millions of dollars. The algorithm's strength, its creators claim, is its ability to automate the kind of due diligence and historical knowledge about trends that would be difficult for a mere person to spot.
7. Raven, David (2014-05-16). "Investment firm hires COMPUTER as new boss to sit on board of directors". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) will be working for medical company Deep Knowledge Ventures, which specialises in drugs for age-related diseases.
  It will sit as an 'equal member of its board of directors'.
  Deep Knowledge’s senior partner, Dmitry Kaminskiy, said: "The prospect for utilising this approach in portfolio management is very attractive.
8. Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Hong Kong based venture capital fund Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) “has appointed VITAL, a machine learning program capable of making investment recommendations in the life science sector, to its board.”
  ...
  We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.”
  Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a “natural person”. So its “presence” on the board is cosmetic.
  There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? If VITAL crashed, would that constitute failure to disclose? Those questions come before we ponder whether VITAL has the ability to cast a vote, never mind raise its hand to show which way it has voted.
  A stunt then, albeit an unsettling one: software is on the march and often challenges human expertise. At a guess, VITAL is what previous generations of business intelligence hype called an executive information system, a tool that offers high-level analysis of a business beyond purely operational matters. It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deep Knowledge Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice article provides substantial coverage about Deep Knowledge Ventures: that it was founded by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, "shrouded a bit in mystery", has a board of "five anonymous partners", and has invested in InSilico Medicine and a second company through Vital's help. The Register calls a Vital a "stunt" and explains in detail why. Although Vital is likely a stunt, it has given Deep Knowledge Ventures significant coverage in reputable publications, allowing it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The sources are from the United States (CNN, The New York Observer, Vice, and Business Insider) and the United Kingdom (BBC, Daily Mirror, The Register, and Wired UK). Although the sources are primarily about Vital, there is enough material about Deep Knowledge Ventures itself to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wait. An investment company is using a computer to help make investment decisions AND it is "shrouded in mystery" and has five anonymous partners. Big deal! They managed to get into a few media and are now pushing really hard to have their name in Wikipedia, with the help of an army of sockpuppets. Let's remember WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Olivier (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article about its founder Dmitry Kaminsky has already been created and deleted 3 times since September 8, 2014. The lookalike Dmitry Kaminskiy has been created 3 times and deleted twice since November 11, 2015. It is now tagged for speedy deletion. Olivier (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Deep Knowledge Ventures' using a computer to sit on its board of directors to make investment decisions likely is a publicity ploy. But since BBC, Business Insider, CNN, the Daily Mirror, The New York Observer, The Register, Vice, and Wired UK consider that worth covering, per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia also should cover it.

Retaining the article is not necessarily good for Deep Knowledge Ventures' reputation. Wikipedia can include the information from The Register article that reflects negatively on the firm's use of the computer Vital to make investment decisions:

a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.”

Cunard (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The BBC article is essentially saying "The idea of the algorithm voting is a gimmick. It is not different from the algorithm making a suggestion and the board voting on it". Period. That's not exactly the "significant coverage" requested by WP:GNG. Olivier (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I listed BBC's "Algorithm appointed board director" article here to demonstrate that the Hong Kong company Deep Knowledge Ventures was the subject of an article by an international source. The article "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Two more detailed articles are from Vice and The Register, which provide significant coverage of the company and its motivation for having the computer Vital on its board of directors. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the international source says: "we have a tiny article, but really there is nothing to say about it, it's just a spin", then it is a massive stretch to say that it addresses the topic in any detail. It just hints at savvy PR firms pushing material into media in order to justify a Wikipedia entry, which will further justify new articles. Let's not propagate an empty spin. WP:NOT#SOAP. Olivier (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice and The Register have longer articles than the BBC's article and cover Deep Knowledge Ventures "directly and in detail". WP:NOT#SOAP says:

[C]ontent hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

This Wikipedia article "can report objectively" about "advocacy" "as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". It is possible to accomplish this with sources like The Register. I have incorporated The Register's content into the article:

Simon Sharwood of The Register said there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". Quoting Thomson Reuters, Sharwood noted that "the board comprises all of the directors of the company” and "A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group." He said that VITAL cannot be a "natural person" so it is merely a "cosmetic" appointment to the board. Sharwood further argued that corporations frequently purchase directors and officers liability insurance to indemnify them but that it would be improbable to get such insurance for VITAL. Sharwood wrote that were VITAL to be hacked, any misinformation it outputs could be considered "false and misleading communications".

Cunard (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have conveniently selected one out of the 5 points of WP:NOT#SOAP that is not applicable in the case here. The following two are relevant. Wikipedia is not for:

4. Self-promotion

5. Advertising, marketing or public relations

Where are all the sockpuppets gone? 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article cannot be considered advertising with the inclusion of reliably sourced negative material about the subject. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really negative there. The new paragraph simply says that the company is quite aggressive at marketing itself... which it is, indeed! Olivier (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Knowledge Ventures wants readers to think that it added the robot VITAL to its board because VITAL actually makes decisions for it. The paragraph is negative because it disputes Deep Knowledge Ventures' story, calling it "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion", which puts the company in an unflattering light. It means the story is no longer about VITAL but about the stunt. The company's statements will receive more scrutiny in the future, and people more will be more predisposed to dismissing their seemingly surprising announcements as merely stunts/promotion.

With the critical commentary from The Register, the article can no longer be considered promotional for the company.

Cunard (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All publications in the media in some way connected with a funny story about a robot among the members of the Board of Directors. It's all. No one else wrote anything about the activities of the DKV, its transactions and companies. This is a direct indication of the significance of this fund. --Gruznov (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 17 January 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. Deleting all. The deletion of such lists was endorsed at the recent DRV discussion. MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians who died before 1980[edit]

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

Listing the remaining pages following the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2012) which is still at DRV but let's go with it. I don't agree that it's a copyright violation but I still think the remaining issues are the same. I don't think these qualify per WP:CSC.

First, regarding of the number of people who just state it, these people aren't considered notable by the mere fact that they lived to age 110. A number of independent articles on them have not survived AFD. Centenarians are based on separate notability, not just the fact that they lived to age 100 (which I think most people would considered a more "valuable" criteria than 110).
Second, the question of the accuracy of these "supercentenarian" claims is not certain or clear. There exists the GRG as a source for these people's birth and death dates but there are other reliable sources and people who's claims are just dumped over at longevity claims that may or may not be included here. Just saying "a list of supercentenarians" is not as easy as it sounds.
Third, I don't see the support to spin these off from the generic death in year X pages. Looking at Category:2012 deaths as we did for the 2012 page, we only have law enforcement killings and members of the House of Representatives as separate death categories. The House members are themselves notable so those lists make sense. The law enforcement lists are accurately split further and further by month and are at least discussed based on reliable sources. Of course, deleting or merging these to the typical deaths in year X category would eliminate all the non-separate (and I'd argue non-notable) individuals but that's because being living to age 110 isn't inherently notable. In contrast, these tables are largely sourced to the GRG's tables, which is entirely based on the individual's family voluntarily giving up personal information to the GRG before the GRG approves (or "validates") the claim (at least that's what I've been told by individuals here about the GRG since the GRG does not actually provide details on what their methods are). It's self-selecting criteria in a sense.

Finally, it's not clear to me why their year of death is a logical or useful organization of these people, as there isn't any other sources that have listings this way other than that the GRG organizes them that way. It's a list of all people who died in each year that happened to live for 110 years before that, and one could equally have similar lists by year of birth which I guess is the only other important fact about these people. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with any notable people's names to be added to the general year of death lists of course. The DRV closed as endorsed [10] , so after a full on debate x2 on the sample article, there is nothing much left to say except I 100% endorse that these lists are a full on copy vio Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lists of non-notable people, and very likely copyvios. Any coverage in reliable sources for these people generally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Pburka (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These pages are only robotically exported views from the GRG database http://www.grg.org/Adams/A.HTM.
remark 1. Using the date of death as criterion is sound, since dying was the only feat of arms of the listed people.
remark 2. In the GRG database, the most interresting part is the description of how each data piece was collected... but these details have been stripped off here, to mask the robotic copy.
Pldx1 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook listcruft, complete with arbitrary time windows unsupported by reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely arbitrary listcruft. Given how contentious this topic area is, I would like to strongly caution against a SNOW close, as it will almost certainly be challenged. ~ Rob^Talk 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per the reasons stated by other posters here, the reasons stated in the close to the test case for 2012 and the reasons endorsed when the 2012 delete decision was considered at deletion review. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maximum lifespans are a very important topic on aging research, Informing the public about the scientific reality about aging is crucial to humanity. /Longevityresearcher [11] This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- These lists are WP:RAWDATA. That's useful for researchers, but not so much for the general public, or, more importantly, for an encyclopedia. Pburka (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the argument I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2012: this appears as WP:LISTCRUFT to me - most, of course, do receive obituaries of some type, but this lies far outside of the idea of counting how many died within a particular cycle of 365 days, interest in which I do not see in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Supercentenarians who are notable for their coverage will appear in the respective "Deaths in...." article, the rest who did not meet the criteria for some other list fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Canadian Paul 16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. These lists fail WP:RAWDATA, as do not contain sufficient explanatory text to put "statistics" within the articles in their proper context for a general reader. 2. Non-encyclopedically cross-correlates supercentenarians and year / decade etc. of death, a connection of no fundamental relevancy. That's pretty obvious inherently. But it's also pointed out on the GRG site itself, from which these raw lists are copied over. If all of the GRG caveats are ported over, fails WP:NOTMIRROR, if they don't fail that already. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:06, 11 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

The history is: there was a no consensus AfD for the Wren Trophy in mid-2015, into which did a late bundling of Harry Collier Trophy and Gavin Brown Award. More recently, there was an AfD for just the Gavin Brown Award, and the decision was delete. I am now re-opening the discussion for the other two awards.

Essentially, I think most people would agree that intuitively from a football perspective, the Collier and Wren awards (for best first year player at Collingwood and best reserves player at Collingwood) are more notable than the Gavin Brown Award (for most one-percenters at Collingwood); but when viewing it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, they are equally non-notable – in that they both fail WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. This is because, like the Gavin Brown Award, both the Wren and Collier awards receive only passing mentions in references which are primarily about the Copeland Trophy; i.e. there is no significant coverage, to wit there are no independent references which "address the topic directly and in detail" or go beyong a "trivial mention". These are probably stronger candidates for a merger than was the Gavin Brown Award, but I still think the content is suitably esoteric to be deleted from Wikipedia. Aspirex (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy is for the best&fairest award for the Collingwood Reserves (VFL), which play in a different league, and has gotten coverage in the VFL website too. --SuperJew (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are separate articles talking only about the Joseph Wren Trophy and its winners. For examples: [12], [13], [14]

--SuperJew (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of those example references are independent (all are Collingwood Football Club web pages) Aspirex (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Brown Award. None of these articles have been shown to have significant coverage in independent sources. Note that the Collingwood and VFL websites are not independent. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Collingwood website is run by the AFL and BigPond. VFL website is run by Fox Sports. --SuperJew (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. But the point is the VFL website is not independent because Collingwood has a team playing in the VFL. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement that these two awards have marginally more notability than the Gavin Brown Award (from a football point of view), however, from a Wikipedia standpoint these awards do not receive independent coverage, whereby the Collingwood website and VFL website are not independent per "independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, the subject's website is not considered independent." and fails to meet WP:GNG, so I am in agreement with Aspirex's argument. Also per my statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Brown Award; there is a long list of awards at all club B&F nights and all of these awards do not need their own article. Flickerd (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Collingwood Football Club - I agree with the statement that the awards fail the GNG, so if there is no other alternative, this should be deleted. However, from the perspective of it relation to Collingwood itself, it seems that a number of the recipients of the awards meet GNG, and the material is sourced (albeit to the club). Would it not make sense to simply create subsections in the Collingwood article for each of these trophies? MSJapan (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal taste is that it would dilute more valuable content if it were merged, but I'm not outright opposed to that outcome. I think merging to Copeland Trophy would be more appropriate than the Collingwood page. Aspirex (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:03, 11 January 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkstart[edit]

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

Crowdfunding website, which is not the subject of sufficient media coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. By far the majority of the references here are to glancing namechecks in coverage of projects which were crowdfunded — the problem being that those projects, not Pinkstart itself, are the subjects of those references — and the few remaining sources which are actually about Pinkstart in its own right are split even further by the fact that half of those are blogs rather than reliable media outlets. There are just two sources here (#2 and #4) that constitute valid support for an article about Pinkstart, and two sources aren't enough if you're shooting for GNG rather than a subject-specific inclusion criterion. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the sourceability gets better. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was a draft which kept getting declined at AfC due to notability concerns. While not mentioned at AfC, it also might have had a COI issue, since the draft creator's username was "Pinkstart". Less than an hour after it was declined by a third different editor (and in the spirit of full disclosure, I was one of the three), the user account Merinix was created, and chose to bypass the AfC process. The AfC concerns can be found HERE. Those concerns are still apparent in this article. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still COI, for the record — a Google search on "merinix" brings up, as its very first hit, the Twitter feed of a person who bills himself as the CEO of Pinkstart. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I mentioned to the author this would need further coverage but it seems they added none and the first draft was not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The COI is concerning, but a secondary issue to the lack of sources. I couldn't find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. May be notable soon, but not now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 10 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Werder[edit]

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

While it is one of the older interchanges in Germany, that in and of itself is not enough to show it meets WP:GNG. It's history and other names sections are both unsourced, and the fact that it was "an important link" was not verified in any of the very few sources about this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—does not meet the bar set by WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Of the two sources in place, one is self-published, thus failing the RS prong of the GNG test, and the other is just statistics, failing the "significant coverage" prong. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A2 with template R with possibilities and option to merge Redirect to A10 would also work. This is the first of these dreiecks I've seen covered in the Polish Wikipedia. This is an historic dreieck, built in 1936. Editors puzzled about the A2 being "an important link" may not have heard of why the Western Allies wanted the Berlin Airlift. See also, Helmstedt–Marienborn border crossing. WP:Notability can be established in multiple ways, including WP:GEOROAD, but is secondary to our policy WP:PRESERVE and keeping our content contributors. Unscintillating (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GEOROAD does not cover interchange/intersection articles directly, but as these aren't articles on whole state- or national-government-maintained highways, the following would apply: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject". The latter part is a paraphrase of WP:GNG. Finally, WP:PRESERVE applies to content within an article, not to article subject which fail to meet the notability threshold. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The German name for the topic at hand is "Autobahndreieck Werder", which by inspection includes the word Autobahn. WP:GEOROAD specially identifies that it is the Autobahn "network" that we want to cover. Arbitrarily excluding named objects within the network, including refusing that readers can type "Dreieck Werder" in the search bar, is IMO destructive to the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRESERVE point 9 states, "Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". At the top of the page, which is WP:Editing policy, the nutshell states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)." If you or any other editor believes that this topic is non-notable, the fix under Wikipedia policy is to preserve the value that others have added to the encyclopedia by merging the text to a suitable target article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - not when the only content in the article is only either routine (it's situated here, it's existence since X, it connects a & b) or trivial (it used to be named Y). As it stands, the article contains nothing to show the interchange is notable, in fact, there's no assertion of notability in the article at all. If this interchange was a person, company or event, it could have been A7'd. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Knowing that a topic has changed its name is especially important information so that researchers know how to cross index information. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You say "The article contains nothing to show the interchange is notable", but our WP:N guideline says, "WP:N#Article content does not determine notability. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I looked up WP:NOTEVERYTHING:
        Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.<ref>See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404</ref>
      I've put in bold a key part of the sentence. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that we only need the summary of the topic in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The essay WP:RUNOFTHEMILL shows that the 200 dreiecks and kreuzes in Germany are the very opposite of "run-of-the-mill" cul-de-sacs and coverage of the streets of every square mile of a city. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - One point, and an important point, that I agree about is that the fix for non-notability is not a license to Merge 100%. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that "autobahn" appears in the full version of the German name does not import notability. The titles are descriptive. Autobahnkreuz translates to "autobahn cross", and it means that two autobahns cross each other. Autobahndreieck means "autobahn triangle" and just means that the two autobahns form a triangle- or T-shaped interchange, usually meaning that one autobahn ends at another in a three-way interchange. This is no more notable than calling something an "Interstate interchange" and attempting to transfer the notability of the Interstate Highway System to that structure.
        These are run-of-the-mill items though in road networks. You say that 200 of them isn't common, yet we're talking about a 12,949-kilometre (8,046 mi) network that serves a country that would rank 5th in total area if it were a US state. That's a lot of interchanges in a relatively small network jammed into a relatively small area. We can cover the autobahn network without dedicated articles on every interchange, especially when those articles fail to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 10:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "We can cover the autobahn network without dedicated articles on every interchange, especially when those articles fail to meet WP:GNG." I agree that autobahndreiecks and autobahnkreuzes can be covered without covering them in standalone articles. If you mean that, then please change your !vote so that the work of the content contributors for Dreieck Werder is available to merge to other articles, and the topic Dreieck Werder will be retained in the encyclopedia as a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete another road interchange that fails WP:GNG. interchanges do not have inherent notability and this one does not demonstrate sufficient third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being old is not the criterion for being notable; GNG is. --Rs chen 7754 20:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not an issue here, since GNG is one part of WP:N, since notability is a test to determine if an article should be standalone, and no one here is arguing to keep the article as standalone. WP:GEOROAD documents that we cover the Autobahn network. By inspection, the autobahn network includes autobahndreiecks. Our policies provide that the fix for non-notability is merger (based on the topic itself, before consideration of content issues). The other side of the same issue is that it is contrary to the basic purpose of building an encyclopedia to delete the workmanship that has gone into this article. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Find sources templates:

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Signs are part of the Autobahn network too. Should we start writing articles on those? --Rs chen 7754 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Autobahn signage falls into the category of the Autobahn network in the meaning at WP:GEOROAD. Autobahndreiecks are objects larger than a square kilometer that are no more or less a part of the Autobahn network than are the long numbered roads.
There may be things to be said about Autobahn signage, but since the topic is not obviously notable, the basic policy question becomes, is the topic insignificant? Variable-message sign (VMS) has a picture of a German VMS that is unlike any such sign I have ever seen, and on one of these Kreuz/Dreieck articles I saw a picture of an LED sign with more information than is possible on the VMS being used in the US. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question was rhetorical. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you make it? Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 16 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Davis[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL, and as the first out LGBT holder of office in one specific county — but not, importantly, in the entire state (which is what it would actually take for that claim to count for anything.) While this appears well-sourced on the surface, in actual fact it's entirely dependent on WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign in local media, glancing namechecks in coverage of other things, and primary sources. Local media have a public service obligation to cover local elections, so that kind of coverage is not enough to get a municipal officeholder into Wikipedia by itself — to pass WP:GNG, coverage of an officeholder at the city council level has to nationalize. Nothing here is enough to make her more encyclopedically notable than any of her other city council colleagues who don't have articles, so it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. We all owe our thanks to the politicians who do the work of running our cities and towns. But we have standards that require more than being elected and doing an important job well before a political figure can merit a Wikipedia page.13:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Search results on news google: [15]. Routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city council member lacking the coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 12 January 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. As established, it passes WP:NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Azniee Taib[edit]

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

Previously deleted following this afd. Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he is now signed to Malaysian Super League club. However, since he has yet to play, this does confer notability, meaning the underlying concerns of not meeting WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG remain. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Under CSD G4. Recreation of material deleted using a deletion discussion. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG. No improvement on previous situation. Spiderone 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to this, he played in the Malaysian Super League before and that league is considered WP:FPL. If this article can be revamped then it will be better but I don't think deletion is the answer. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the Article and the sources the subject made a few appearances for JDT in 2013, a year they were in the Malaysian Super League (a professional division). Adding what ArsenalFan700 said and I think this article passes the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:53, 15 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Evans (actor)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No nontrivial reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Abusively deprodded without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awards won aren't notable ones and doesn't pass the GNG with the one book piece on award wins (in which many of the awards mentioned to have been won by the subjects don't even seem to notable ones) isn't enough to pass GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 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 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of folded eyelids[edit]

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

This article - Evolution of folded eyelids - is not notable, Googling this only produces 2 Wikipedia pages (Epicanthic fold and this one) and articles similar to Origin Of Shape Of Asian Eyes Is Still A Mystery To Scientists. Also, the only section header - Myth about double-eyelids, fat, cold - only talks about fat in eyelids, and whether people with thicker skin are warmer than people with thinner skin. It also quotes sources in article text excessively without actually talking about the quote (Let's quote Livescience on the article "Why Did People Become White" on September 1st 2009. "Frostbite was another... [the quote ends and that's it]). I don't know what this article is about and feels a bit like an essay without actually explaining the Evolution of folded eyelids. Seagull123 Φ 21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a famous topic in East Asia whether you are aware of this or not. Also, this is an existing topic anyway whether notable or not. Where is the rule about being notable or anything of such? Also, this is a separate topic which a separate article seemed OK. Most importantly, what exactly is violated? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion Wikibreaking (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibreaking: On the policy you linked, see numbers 7 and 8; Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed and Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). There is nothing on a Google search for the "evolution of folded eyelids", but like I've already said, stuff for "articles similar to Origin Of Shape Of Asian Eyes Is Still A Mystery To Scientists". The article currently does not explain about the evolution of folded eyelids but instead talks about the "Myth about double-eyelids, fat, cold in East Asia". Also, articles on Wikipedia must be notable (see WP:N), whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Eg, I exist, but I'm not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If the article was improved to explain the evolution of folded eyelids clearly, with enough reliable sources to make prove its notability, then it would not be eligible for deletion and could possibly be a great wiki article. Seagull123 Φ 19:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is more about the myth than the scientific process. So, change the article title then. As for this topic existing, here is an article. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/science/kistiscience/95532.html "북방계와 남방계의 모습은 다소 다른데 북방계는 대체로 누런색에 가까운 피부와 몽골주름, 뻣뻣하고 검은 모발, 광대뼈가 솟은 넓적한 얼굴, 많지 않은 체모, 몽골반점 등이 겉으로 드러난다. 반면 남방계는 눈이 크고 쌍꺼풀이 발달했으며 호리호리한 몸매에 팔과 다리 역시 길다." Run a translator on that. It's an existing topic whether famous or not & whether you know of it or not.

Wikibreaking (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying its an existing topic, Wikibreaking, but being an existing topic, whether famous or not & whether you know of it or not is not enough to be included in Wikipedia; articles must be notable and verifiable by reliable sources. The article you gave, you told me to run a translator, but when I put it into Google Translate (as I don't speak Korean), it gives an article with a title of "Bukbanggye Koreans to find out nambanggye". The article then starts with "In general, foreigners are snapping expression for the Koreans and a flat face with eyes, nose, small mouth speaks. Enters more deeply Koreans are often rated as rough and rude awesome in villages." I have no idea what that source is trying to say. Please try and improve the article to make sure it explains clearly the Evolution of folded eyelids, with references to reliable sources. Seagull123 Φ 20:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable also has the meaning "worthy of notice" other than being "widely known". Since this topic & content is a significant fact, it is worthy of notice.

Wikibreaking (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons. First off, the eyelid-related content should be discussed on Talk:Epicanthic fold for inclusion in that article. Yes, as WB says, this article is more about the myths, but there's plenty of room in Epicanthic fold for that - including it would expand encyclopedic coverage of that in a single place. (I'm reluctant to just say "merge" as there's not much encyclopedic content to merge, hence my suggestion to discuss on that page's talk.) Secondly though, this article is more of an essay than an article. Up front it is stated that there are claims and myths about the fold, and then proceeds to spend a paragraph or 2 on what the fold is not (not droopy eyelid for example) then branches off to discuss whether fat people are colder, and whether thick skin is better in the cold, wrapping up with a discussion on the term "Mongoloid". The actual "Evolution of folded eyelids" is barely discussed on an encyclopedic level. I suggest to the author to discuss the eyelid-related material at Talk:Epicanthic fold, the Mongoloid related material at Talk:Mongoloid, and the cold weather performance of various body characteristics at... I don't know, Talk:Adaptation perhaps. Crow^Caw 21:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the rule where it says it should be notable as in "widely known & esteemed". Most people are not aware of many facts & topics. Nothing would be written on encyclopedia that way. As for being verifiable, I linked an article on that theory. Run a translator on that quote.

Wikibreaking (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibreaking: See WP:N; "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." It's not that this topic isn't notable as in widely known and esteemed, it's just not notable (unless that hasnt been proven yet). And the article you have linked to here, I've already run a translator on it and it's totally incomprehensible to me, so if you want us to know what it says, please give us a translation so we can understand it. Seagull123 Φ 21:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is incomprehensible to you or not is your problem. That means you are not qualified to be on this article. Regardless, it's an existing topic of a "significant fact (notable)". Hence, it is a valid topic to be included in encyclopedia. I already gave partial translations like "there is a claim" & so on. That's the content.

Also, is the entire translation (as opposed to the brief summary) a rule? Because I've seen other articles on foreign topics where they link foreign websites but they don't really translate the whole contents but just briefly talk about the contents. That part is not even important; there isn't anything important in the content. That part is supposed to only prove an existing topic. (That this kind of claim exists.) The first link basically talks about the theory where "the people living in the cold lose double-eyelids". It's a common myth in East Asia. I introduced existing claims & I introduced relevant scientific facts not matching the claims.

If there are more links to be added, that's super. But as for the current links added or such claims existing, I fail to see why such is an issue unless there is some agenda & distortion intended.

I've seen many people with agenda to whitewash, distort, conceal, steal, fake & pursue self interest including on Wiki. I like to assume the worst in people. Not saying whether you have an agenda or not. Just saying that I will not assume you to be innocent. Aside from setting that part straight, for the unimportant part just referring to the existence of some claims, why do you need the exact translation words to words instead of a brief summary? Also, if you were claiming that the summary doesn't represent the actual contents, then what makes you think my translation represents the actual contents? Ask someone else for the translation or accept my summary. If my translation is acceptable, then my summary should also be acceptable. (That part is not even important; it is for the sake of proving the existence of such claims.)

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you have reasons to "assume the worst in people", you are supposed not to. If you think WP's policies are broken at a point your valuable input is disregarded, I would suggest that you raise the issue on appropriate pages rather than unilaterally decide not to follow them. If you think your required changes are unlikely to pass, leaving WP alltogether may be a good idea.

As for the request for translation, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A brief summary (which I have yet to see BTW) is not enough to judge whether precise assumptions made by the WP article are specifically written in the newspaper, and whether it is not original research to make them. Tigraan (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess the article is supposed to be about prejudice attached to some forms of eyelids but it is not clear at all because of poor writing and sourcing. Those are usually not reasons to delete, but when it is not clear what the topic is, it is hard to fix. (Moreover, the topic itself might not be notable, or be treated better within Epicanthic fold with a redirect).

Wikibreaking, you are wrong in considering that "worthy of interest" means "notable". This is true in usual English, but it goes against Wikipedia's interpretation of the term as a technical word for "worthy of an article". I would have thought you are a good-faith new editor and kindly encouraged you to read WP:N and WP:GNG, but apparently you already took some heat. Tigraan (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and do not redirect or merge to Epicanthic fold - because virtually nothing in this article is validly sourced, particularly not for a biology/medical article. The topic of how folded eyelids evolved could be interesting, but this article sheds no light on the subject. It states right up front that there is no scientific information on the subject, and then goes on to list various myths and unproven theories. Wikipedia articles must contain only information that is verified by reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 17 January 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 The Anti-Gravity Room. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Scoullar[edit]

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

No solid evidence of notability. Someone of this sort isn't going to get significant dead-tree coverage without significant online coverage, and the online coverage is spotty: virtually everything is Facebook and other usergenerated and/or autogenerated pages, and the few exceptions are either passing (i.e. insignificant) mentions in seemingly reliable publications (example) or soft-news and "latest news on your favorite celebrities!"-type stuff, e.g. a People story and a teenage cable guy thing in a local newspaper. There's nothing of significant coverage in solid sources. I would have deleted this as a ((db-bio)), but I'm not fond of using such criteria on articles that have been around for nearly ten years. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Anti-Gravity Room. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:59, 10 January 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 So Random!. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of So Random! episodes[edit]

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

Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, shows with only one season should not have their own list of episodes article. This show only had one season and it shouldn't have its own episode list. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the series article. Right now it's transcluded there anyway - for whatever reason. It'd be far simpler just to merge it back to the series article and have done. If the show's notable enough for an article, and it is, then the list of episodes is encyclopedic content that merits inclusion. Just not on its own. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Letitgo215 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 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 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no in-depth coverage about the film itself in reliable secondary sources, has not been shown at major festivals nor has had any award nominations nor notable critical reviews, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A homemade film released to youtube. Szzuk (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish the filmmakers well, but this just doesn't pass NFILM overall. A look at the sources shows that three of them are local and this source and this one appear to have been based on a press release, given their phrasing. If the review was in a usable place it'd be a different story, but I don't see that The Independent Critic would be considered a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. If the film's crew does read this, I'd recommend submitting it to AICN, since they're usually fairly good about trying to give newbies a helping hand and they're still considered a RS on Wikipedia. I do have to raise an eyebrow about them linking to Rotten Tomatoes when there aren't any reviews there - not even an audience review. We can't use those (only the critic reviews), but it does seem fairly odd to link to it as if there's a review on the site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 11 January 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forest cover by state in the United States[edit]

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

Cites no sources and comprehensive sources could not be located Bonehed (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's loads of information on the US dept of agriculture Forest Information Service site: [16]. I added some info and some links but quite a bit more could be added. There are comprehensive surveys of things like ozone damage, fire damage, and other measurable aspects of forestry. I know some forestry folks, so I"ll try to get them interested in this. LaMona (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". The article is suitable as almanac-type content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 10 January 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) Yash ! 00:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cabinda[edit]

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

Submitting incomplete AFD on behalf of nominator. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined. Simply stating that a person is a member of a team does not make them wiki worthy. There is no indication as to whether or not this player has sat on the bench the whole time, is a member of the practice squad, has played but is an average player or is quite the accomplished player. Neither the original editor nor any other has chosen to share why this player deserves an article. As far as I am concerned, simply being on a team does not make you worthy. Especially if you never saw playing time or in the course of your care saw a significantly limited playing time. Editor responded to my speedy notification by asking if I googled the guy before I nominated him. My response was I should not have to google him. Even a one sentence justification withe appropriate citation would be sufficient but rather than share the information editors want me to google the subject to find out why he is important? What is the purpose of wiki if they don't, at a minimum, supply the basic info? Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- yes, you should have to google him before you nominate an article for deletion. Please please please read WP:BEFORE, as your entire line of reasoning is downright ludicrous. You realize in the time that I have spent telling you this I could have worked on the article, but no. I did not have time to write much of an article when I started this and in the traditional collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, I got the ball rolling in the hopes that someone -- myself or someone else -- would improve it later. There are ample sources to do so. He so obviously meets GNG that it baffles me why, other than out of spite, this was brought here. Also, I was not notified that this discussion is taking place, a violation of policies that the nominator is (occasionally) so eager to enforce. Sources: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] It is ridiculous the article made it this far. Go Phightins! 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. MB298 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Could be denied on procedural grounds based on willful failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. The nominator is correct that the article is in poor shape and needs work, but initiating a flawed AfD is not the solution. Instead, there are tags that could be slapped on the article denoting the need to improve multiple aspects of the article ... or just improve it. Aside from procedure, the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a WP:STUB article and that's perfectly acceptable. It meets GNG as others have mentioned. Just because no one has fleshed out the article isn't a reason for deletion, there's WP:NORUSH. — dain omite 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decline of an incorrect Speedy on a stub is insufficient reason to delete, especially when notability is clear to anyone who makes even a tiny effort. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really going against the grain here, but in reviewing articles online and that Go Phightins! has provided, it seems like the college athlete in question has only received routine coverage through media sources either associated with the Big Ten Conference or in different metro areas in Pennsylvania. Many college football athletes will receive mentions and some coverage in articles as the person in question has, but the question is whether or not the coverage makes him/her notable.

Also seems as though this college athlete fails the WP:NCOLLATH test that has yet to be mentioned yet as I don't see anything online that suggests he has won any notable conference or national awards or that he has received national media coverage as an individual. Cubbie15fan (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call The Philadelphia Inquirer an insignificant media mention; if you compare the mentions Cabinda has received to 90% of other college athletes, he clearly receives more. Regardless of whether he meets NCOLLATH, he meets GNG, which supersedes that anyway. Regional publications are always considered legitimate sources when conferring notability. I would be intrigued if you could name a college athlete that is not a quarterback or running back that does meet your criteria, which by the way, are not Wikipedia's. Go Phightins! 03:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am getting at is that while this college athlete seems like a great guy, superb athlete, and a team leader, I am not convinced that he should have a wiki article (at least at this point). I respectfully disagree and do not believe he meets GNG or NOCOLLATH given that the media coverage he has received up to this point appears to be either routine coverage of making a great play after a game or a routine Q&A/interview.

The sources are indeed legit, and in no way am I discounting the value of the The Philadelphia Inquirer, Post-Gazette, or The Patriot-News. Respectfully, the criteria I mentioned previously are straight from NCOLLATH. To your question of college athletes meeting notability criteria (and I must disclose I created both of these pages) good examples I can provide are Mike Dudek and Kendrick Nunn, neither of which are quarterbacks or running backs. Cubbie15fan (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are neither routine coverage of making a great play after a game nor a routing Q&A/interview, the latter of which especially, by the way, would be more than enough to confer notability as well. Go Phightins! 18:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may end up agreeing to disagree, but (again respectfully) what exactly from either article do you see as something that establishes notability for inclusion as a wiki article? Cubbie15fan (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated feature articles in the three top newspapers in Pennsylvania certainly seems to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 22:27, 15 January 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 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

45 Powers of Alchemy[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Can't find any secondary sources. Kolbasz (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and redirect to the author's article later if needed as this is questionably solidly notable and improvable as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a pretty clear consensus to not delete this outright. Between some flavor of merge, redirect, and keep, no so much. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cis (mathematics)[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork of Euler's formula and the exponential formula, as just another way of writing the latter, with the mathematical content already covered by the former. It may have once been common, but many mathematical formulae and notations were once commonly written another way, and do not have or need a separate article for that notation. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Euler's formula and move the history sentence in the lead to that article. Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources more commonly mention De Moivre's theorem in this context and this preceded Euler historically. As there are multiple contexts for the topic and the notation forms a reasonable topic by itself, it's fine as it is. In any case, no reason to delete anything has been put forward and so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with above. Nomination has not been adequately substantiated and appears to be based on ideological preference. Bonehed (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- ideological? Which ideology do you think I am pushing with this nomination? As for “fundamentally flawed” I would also appreciate an explanation. The reason for deletion is the material is adequately covered elsewhere, making this an unnecessary content fork.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at WP:REDUNDANTFORK, the inverse operation for a fork is merger, not deletion. But that's moot because there are multiple contexts for this topic and so it is not redundant. Andrew D. (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge are both appropriate outcomes for a deletion discussion, especially as a redirect existed before. I do not follow the second part of your reply, or at least do not see the multiple contexts. If there were, if it were widely used, you might expect many links to it (as the redirect existed before) but there was only one from an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article. There's no real content there which the exponential function article doesn't deal with just as well or better if you discount the History and Pedagogical use sections which were put into another article in 2006 and never got any references. Those were deleted in 2008 with 'I completely removed cis. This is the consensus I see in the discussion page from over a year ago'. Wikipedia is not deletionpedia, a reference should at least have been found before reinstating that. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain somehow. If the nominator's right, redirect with the potential of a merger is the right course; if he's wrong, there's no reason to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep this. There are contexts in which the exponential notation is better avoided. One of those is when one wishes to prove that the function

x\mapsto \cos x+i\sin x,\,

although defined in a way that is not explicit about its exponential nature, actually behaves like an exponential function. If the notation presupposes the thing to be proved, then it's either circular or confusing, depending on how the reader understands it. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While cis is not in main-stream use, it is a long established and notable function/notation used in various areas of mathematics, engineering and computer sciences. Perhaps it is most prominently used in conjunction with De Moivre's formula and Euler's formula, but not exclusively. So far, we were barely mentioning it in other articles without providing any details on cis for those who are interested in the history and uses of the function, and we couldn't add this information as it would be off-topic in articles such as Euler's formula. Therefore, I think, we need a "central" article on cis to discuss it in its own right and provide bridges to the various related topics. Several sources have been added to the article in the past week, and I'm sure more will come over the course of time (I plan to add a bunch of references myself as time allows). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Euler's formula, or just delete. This is a bit ridiculous - it's just an obscure, antiquated notation for ${\displaystyle e^{ix))$ and the article completely lacks encyclopedic content. We don't need a separate article on every weird variation in mathematical notation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing obscure or antiquated in that notation. The name has been established some 120 years ago and it is still actively used today in mathematics, engineering and information technology. It's clearly a notable topic in an encyclopedia. The article meanwhile also has references indicating its usage in math education, in several old as well as recent books and in various high-profile software products. There's quite a bit of encyclopedic content in the article already - history, usage examples, mathematical identities and properties - this wouldn't belong into a sidenote on cis in other articles, but it definitely belongs into an article on cis - that's why we need it. Besides, in my experience cis is more commonly used as a shorthand for cos(x) + i sin(x) than as an alternative notation for e^(ix). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is just about properties of the complex exponential function, with which it is synonymous. There's not enough coverage about the term for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. As for the pedagogical use, this applies to one proof - deriving Euler's formula using the angle addition formulas - and this can easily be done using other notations. I have no objection to mentioning in Euler's formula that this notation exists, but it's not suitable as the subject of an article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are not making sense when you write "in my experience cis is more commonly used as a shorthand for cos(x) + i sin(x) than as an alternative notation for e^(ix)." Those expressions are equal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 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 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File conversion center[edit]

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

No indication it meets notability standards. None of the refs or links are reliable or claim notability for the product. Web search results are almost all download sites. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Data conversion, because you're right on the notability issue. The miscapitalised title suggests that it's talking about a kind of business (a building where file conversion is performed), so it would be reasonable to redirect it to file conversion, but that's a redirect to data conversion. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability of the software.

I strongly disagree with redirecting to data conversion though; the miscapitalisation would more likely come from a user looking for the particular software (with capital letter) that for "something that converts data", and that user would then end up on a semi-random page. Tigraan (talk) 10:44, 13 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Creator Plus[edit]

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

No indication it meets notability standards. None of the refs or links are reliable or claim notability for the product. Web search results are almost all download sites. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches apparently found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS coverage. The CNET ref is a download site and as such is not independent. A search turned up numerous download sites and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 00:39, 10 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aidas Ardzijauskas[edit]

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

Article about long distance runner and firefighter. There is no claim of significance nor any reason they are notable. I have been unable to find any international awards for either of his career paths. The 2 references are local coverage and do nothing to prove how they satisfy WP:NTRACK or WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Not clear how the subject is notable now there are thousands of firefighter now not clear why he is notable and even as a runner not clear how he has passes WP:NTRACK and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable distance runner. Subject does not satisfy specific notability criteria for track & field athletes per WP:NSPORTS, and there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:08, 16 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIFF Image Printer[edit]

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

No evidence it meets notability standards. None of the references or links are reliable or claim notability for the product. Web search results are nearly all download sites. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like obscure software. No evidence of notability. sst✈ 15:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches unfortunately found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Refs provided are forum posts, developers' sites, and download sites, none of which are independent RS. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Y, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michiana Health Information Network[edit]

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

The article appears promotional. There is only one reference too a primary source and the content does not reflect much notability either. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:40, 9 January 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. But cleanup to remove promotionalism, and consider merging with Sensitivity (human). Sandstein 11:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly sensitive person[edit]

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

I suspect this article is a WP:PROMO and should be deleted under G11 of speedy deletion as well as WP:DEL14 (not suitable for Wikipedia). The article attempts to conflate Highly Sensitive Person with other more well proven concepts such as "sensory processing sensitivity" and the Behavioral Inhibition System. It also attempts to use references that use the phrase "Highly sensitive person" or even "Highly sensitive personality" in the more general sense as to pass the term off as having more research related to it than it actually has. For this reason I believe it's a variety of WP:NEOlogism that is based mostly on the WP:OR writings of it's main promoter, Dr. Elaine N. Aron.

The article also contains phrases taken directly from Dr. Elaine's promotional material, phrases like "HSP's often describe themselves as having a rich and complex inner life." - "They may startle easily and get rattled when required to accomplish a lot in a short time." and "highly sensitive people, who compose about a fifth of the population" and "Although the term is primarily used to describe humans, something similar to the trait is present in over 100 other species."

I'd like to point out that G11 of speedy deletion isn't only limited to the promotion of businesses, but also extends to the promotion of ideas. If you go to the "highly sensitive person" official page [24], you will soon get an understanding of what this concept is really about. There's a questionnaire full of tautologies and generalities designed to encourage people to self-diagnose with "HSP" - there's a store selling books on HSP, HSP in the workplace, HSP relationships, HSP for children, HSP audiobooks, HSP videos, HSP seminars, and there's now even a feature length movie entitled "Sensitive: The untold story". The trailer for this feature length movie [25] reveals celebrity endorsements, wishy washy statements, and out of context interviews that have been cut to shreds in the editing room - the usual bunk you'd expect to find in any late night self-help promotional material. Wikipedia should be promoting facts and good research, not lending authority to this sort of sales and marketing campaign which is only loosely associated to more credible terms and phrases.

We are not E.N.Aron's marketing team. Jobrot (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article covers a concept that has garnered substantial notability over two decades—far beyond what could even be conjectured to be anyone's (alleged) "marketing": of the 1220 Google News hits (2016-01-03) for "highly sensitive person" (with quotes), only 274 (22.4%) included the word "aron"; more broadly, only 79,100 (22.8%) of the corresponding 346,000 Google Web hits included "aron". In other words, the concept has spread in notability. Aron, a Ph.D. Psychologist, may be considered the pioneering authority in the field, a reliable source herself, and it's fitting that her words be included, in context, in a Wikipedia article on this concept, even if—like many authorities—she publishes work readable by laymen. Like all psychology concepts, high sensitivity bears some difficulty of definition and application, but such objections can be dealt with by discussion within this Wiki article rather than by deleting it altogether. As far as the nominator's accusations of conflation: be aware that Behavioral Inhibition Syndrome is an entirely distinct concept, and Aron herself has specifically said that sensory processing sensitivity is one characteristic of highly sensitive persons (HSPs); there is no confusion or conflation on Aron's part. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well apart from some WP:GOOGLEHITS issues in what you've said, your argument seems to be against your position: As I stated in my nomination "highly sensitive person" is a general term used in many different articles in relation to many different stimuli... and that's what's at issue here - if you go to the hsperson website [26] the first text on the page reads; "Are you easily overwhelmed by such things as bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens nearby?" this is a prime example of a fallacious self-fulfilling question (aimed at being a catch-all to serve confirmation bias). Most everyone can be overwhelmed by bright lights, strong smells or sirens close by - that's why these things are used by law enforcement and the military. To see that in any diagnostic criteria is perverse, the fact that it's a self-diagnostic is even more so. In fact, go do the test right now; I'm sure Aron will come out on top and have you as a HSP [27] here are just a select few questions: "I am bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes." - "I try hard to avoid making mistakes or forgetting things." - "I am annoyed when people try to get me to do too many things at once." - "I tend to be very sensitive to pain.".

These are all just traits of being human. If this article is to stay it's going to (as G.11 cautions against) "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" - only if Aron is talking about the general phrase/trait "highly sensitive person" which we both agree appears in most in other papers - then this article shouldn't be focus so much on her work. It must be expanded to be an encyclopedic article about the general trait. But right now it just focuses on her work! And that's WHY it's promotional in nature.

Most of the first paragraph is taken from her own website! It's ridiculously WP:PROMO and should be deleted! --Jobrot (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

or merged. --Jobrot (talk) 09:03 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My reply is below, inline after Min al Khadr's intervening comment. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rcraig Min al Khadr (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reaffirm: Strong Keep.~~ striking out duplicate !vote Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC) (Reply to Jobrot's 03:56, 4 January 2016 reply) Nominator Jobrot's admonition that the article should be expanded so it doesn't focus "so much" on Aron's own work is a WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) issue remedied through ordinary editing, rather than a WP:NOTABILITY issue that should be the focus of AfD discussions. Further, nominator's critique of the concept of high sensitivity (HS) is based, not on a predominance of reliable sources asserting HS is bogus or even fringe, but on nominator's personal opinion that HS's characteristics are "all just traits of being human"—when the literature indicates that only about 20% of humans are deemed HSPs. My 3 January 2016 references to Google (esp. News) hits were offered to show the low percentage (about 22%) of articles that are directly attributable to Aron, to demonstrate that the concept is not promotional. Edit; don't delete. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure the members of the "over 100 other species" who "feel overwhelmed by coarse fabrics" and "make a point to avoid violent movies and TV shows" will feel behooved by your re-affirming your vote. Meanwhile, the article is as I say - mostly concerning Aron's viewpoint (to the point of being cribbed from her promotional material) WP:NPOV and will require a complete re-write (as warned about in WP:G11) to convert it into being about a general character trait of human beings (something Aron states as well). It's a character trait which is fairly self-explanatory, and probably shouldn't be on wikipedia as per WP:DEL14. A highly sensitive person, is; a person who is highly sensitive. I'm glad you agree that the article requires editing. --Jobrot (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of coverage out there and so the topic is notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit for POV and expand conceptually. This article has been around since 2004 and has had many editors. That tells me that it's a topic, not just one person's paean to Aron. Then, it turns out that there is a completely inadequate article Sensitivity (human) that has nothing worth keeping. Therefore, this could become an article on sensitivity in humans, both highly-, normal- and insensitive. I note that the references here that I looked at were mostly on the general topic of sensitivity, not solely about the topic of highly sensitive people. (One of the articles is about crickets, for criminey sakes!) And there is a whole section on shyness, which may be related but isn't the same as HSP. So this article already covers more ground than its title, but not well. A general article on sensitivity makes sense. (Pardon the pun.) LaMona (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment and think this is the best course for the article. I think Sensitivity (human) has the better title of the two - but I can see from the talkpage that it's been a bit of a drift and lacking direction for a while. I think a merge and clean up might be in order with the structure you prescribe (highly- normal- and insensitive) or something similar. --Jobrot (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona makes an interesting point, but there would be little in a merged Sensitivity (human) article that isn't already in this HSP article, since there's apparently extremely little written about "normal" (unremarkable) sensitivity or about insensitivity. The bottom line is: Aron popularized a term that has garnered significant coverage enduring two decades, a conclusion echoed by the fact that this HSP article receives a substantial ~12,000 views/month while Sensitivity (human) receives only ~1,100 views/month and "Insensitivity" doesn't have an article. It's Sensitivity (human) that should be changed to a re-direct, and this HSP article should merely be improved through normal editing. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as discussed earlier and mentioned in the nomination, "highly sensitive person" is a general term, it's a general character trait - which as demonstrated in the article's poor sourcing, is conflated with "highly sensitive personality" and being "highly sensitive to stimulus". It's all very obviously set out to be general. To claim that Aron "popularized a term that has garnered significant coverage enduring two decades" is a bit rich; The phrase "highly sensitive" predates Aron's work, and probably her existence on the planet. On top of this, she herself makes no bones about the fact she's talking about a general trait of people, and not a disorder or condition. There's no chance "HSP" will ever appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; Aron makes this clear (to the relief of the psychology community as a whole no doubt). So as she's talking about human sensitivity in general - I think that Sensitivity (human) is the more sensible location of this sort of information and research on a general character trait. --Jobrot (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant that the broad terms "sensitive" and "highly sensitive" have long been in the colloquial or psychological vernacular. Mainly because of Aron, this 11-year-old wiki article's specific term HSP is much more well-defined than what a layman would vaguely call a "general character trait": the 15-20% of the population who are HSPs are perceived by reliable sources to have a qualitatively different cluster of neurological/psychological traits, experiences, advantages, disadvantages and challenges, that have actually bolstered the concept of HSP as a meaningful and useful group designator qualitatively distinguishing its members from non-HSPs. "HSP" will not be in the DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because it is not deemed a disorder—possibly due to Aron's and others' efforts to de–stigmatize that group. In short, HSP is a quite well-defined and useful term distinguishing a subset group of (normal) people. The broad and vague range of Sensitivity (human) simply hasn't risen to the same level of coverage. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I'm going to have to quote from the article directly to get you to WP:LISTEN. Also, whether an article gets the most hits, or is the oldest - says nothing of the quality of its content; such arguments would be examples of the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad populum fallacies which is why policies like WP:GHITS exist (as mentioned earlier).

Now on to the meat of our discussion. To quote the article directly:

"This article is about the personality trait."
"Although the term is primarily used to describe humans, something similar to the trait is present in over 100 other species."
"...the name is gaining popularity because it presents the trait in a positive light." (also an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking).
"the trait is normal and advantageous"
"some people born with the trait of sensitivity"

I think I've made my point, but as you can see those quotes also drift towards "normalizing" aka generalizing the trait.

Again, to quote the article directly "According to Elaine N. Aron and colleagues as well as other researchers..." ('other researchers' being an example of WP:WEASELWORD) - highly sensitive people "...compose about a fifth of the population". Now; if something is a personality trait, found in all people, with 1 in every 5 people on the planet (showing that trait to a high degree, and others showing the trait to a lesser degree - hence the HSP scale); I think it's perfectly legitimate to describe it as a general degree of Sensitivity (Human). And to place it as a subsection of the personality trait 'sensitivity'. This would also simplify and provide impetus on editors to clean up the WP:PROMO parts of the article which have been cribbed from Aron's website (and probably violate WP:COPYRIGHT).

Aron is describing her chosen nomenclature as a personality trait, and it's perfectly valid to treat it as such. I hope that using her own language has effectively communicated this to you. The benefits of merging the the two pages on the personality trait sensitivity, and making it about degrees of this general personality trait out way any damage to Aron's promotional work. I'm not here to preserve advertising. Can we please WP:DROPTHESTICK already. --Jobrot (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already acknowledged that HSPs are characterized by a cluster of "traits"; nominator's posting of sometimes-unsourced "trait" quotes and the hatnote from the wiki article itself misses the point entirely: The crux, again, is that the nominator personally "thinks it's perfectly legitimate" to generalize to a continuous spectrum the "S" (sensitivity) portion of the specific term HSP, when reliable sources have given the specific entire term HSP a quite well-defined meaning. Just as critically: (Aron et al.'s) normalizing a trait has nothing to do with (nominator's) generalizing it. I have WP:LISTENed at length and have already explained reasons why I cited Google News hit percentages and wiki-article view comparisons (not as Latin-language fallacies), and why Aron's and others' works constitute reliable sources and not promo. Agreed: careful editing would benefit this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2016

Highly; a degree. Sensitive; a trait. Person; the subject. Personally I don't think "bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens nearby" or "a lot going on at once" or "overwhelming situations" [28] are very specific indicators at all. But we'll have to agree to disagree. To reiterate - Aron's own material describes HSP as a trait, not a discrete condition, and I think it's fairly obvious from the name that it's a matter of degree: Yes, different people have different degrees of Sensitivity, that's part of the human condition. --Jobrot (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aron's website does falsely claim that Sensory processing disorder and hence Sensory-Processing Sensitivity is the "scientific term" for HSP (if you search for the text "scientific term" on her website here [29] you can see for yourself). However [Sensory processing disorder] is used in the analysis of various clinical disorders such as anxiety and depression - and is in fact NOT the "scientific term" for 'HSP'. But a separate and discrete measure associated with various disorders and conditions. As stated early WP:PROMO does extend to the promotion of ideas, and I believe that's Aron's purpose for big noting her theory contrary to the facts/research. She also has a lot of books to sell you, hence the tautological and broad makeup of her self-diagnostic survey which ends with this statement: "If fewer questions are true of you, but extremely true, that might also justify calling you highly sensitive" ultimately she's writing and hosting multiple websites (and producing films) on the subject for a purpose (to promote her work). I think the general character trait she's trying to create a market out of should be inserted where it belongs - under the wider heading Sensitivity (human). --Jobrot (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Aron's website states she researched "high sensitivity ... also calling it Sensory-Processing Sensitivity (SPS, the trait’s scientific term)" and two paragraphs later writes it is not a disorder—both explicitly contrary to nominator's 17:59, 11 January representations, which again conflate a multi-species trait with a defined category of normal persons and now further conflate it with a disorder. I urge the admin to understand that nominator's AfD is replete with his personal (non-WP:RS) crude mechanical deconstruction of a term (which even has a popular abbreviation, "HSP") to which reliable sources, including Dr. Aron, have granted a specific meaning for two decades. Of course, relevance to notability of a psychologist's sales of self-help materials is nominator's speculation. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR just because Aron expresses something on her own personal website aimed at selling books, seminars, horse retreats and now feature films to lay people - doesn't mean that the scientific community agrees with her. Hence my pointing out that SPS/SPD is not in fact the "scientific term" for HSP, but is in fact, a physical condition with hard research from people OTHER THAN Aron (research that isn't just aimed at selling books) and that has (as I pointed out) been linked in an evidentiary capacity to numerous other clinical conditions (anxiety, depression, OCD) that ARE listed in the DSM.

TO clarify, our page for Sensory processing disorder doesn't contain the terms 'HSP', 'Highly Sensitive Person', any of Aron's work at all. This is because it's standard Wikipedia page, not a WP:OR/WP:PROMO page. But even if you are correct (yes, I'm entertaining this possibility as everyone should) even if SPS/SPD is the "scientific term" for HSP that would still simply suggest some remedy involving merger/redirect/delete should be recommended (as WP:FORK - albeit at the risk of breaking Aron's strange monopoly on this terminology, or destroying what we agree is a poorly sourced, poorly written and possibly WP:COPYRIGHT riddled material).

Finally I'd like to caution you against losing WP:GOODFAITH with your fellow editors, accusations of personal bias against your fellow editors seldom reflects well on anyone. It's better to treat each other as rational actors behaving with a shared goal; the improvement of Wikipedia's content in line with policy. Thank you for making the effort here, and I look forwards to further reading your well articulated and well considered replies in the future. --Jobrot (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facts for the admin: despite nominator’s representations, my criticism of the article was not about its substantive referencing (before 2016-01-14, only 11 of 31 footnotes are (co-)authored by Aron, and at least 20 of the 31 footnotes cite scientific journals); further, neither I nor Aron's website stated or implied that the SPD (disorder) is the scientific term for HSP, or that that HSPs have, or SPS is, a disorder (SPD disorder being irrelevant here). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I began researching high sensitivity in 1991 and continue to do research on it now, also calling it Sensory-Processing Sensitivity (SPS, the trait’s scientific term)." -Elaine N. Aron Source. At any rate, merge due to WP:FORK; it's only a question of destination. This WP:PROMO page shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew D., and recommend that Sensitivity (human) gets expanded with suitable content. I considered suggesting a Merge under the latter, but will leave this to editors with better understanding of the topics. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete with Sensitivity (human) as per LaMona --Jobrot (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Popular-press reliable sources (example) widely use the specific term "Highly Sensitive Person"—often with first letters capitalized—and its abbreviation HSP, in favor of its defining trait SPS which is a scientific term. Contraindicating the proposed renaming/moving/merging are WP's guidelines for where content should be:

— Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize ... The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" (italics added) —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". (italics added) —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." -WP:COMMONTERM, but I'm sure everyone's happy enough to keep "Highly Sensitive Person" as a redirect to the appropriate section of the Sensitivity (human) article. That section would be discussing people of high sensitivity, so it would make sense to discuss "Highly Sensitive Person" there. --Jobrot (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's quotation re a subject with multiple fairly-common names is misapplied here because (1) this content's subject is specifically HSPs and not a sensitivity spectrum that exists in >100 species, and (2) the only alleged "problems" with the by-far-most-common term for this subject are those adduced, not by reliable sources but by the nominator himself—with a completely un-WP:RS "promo" conspiracy theory, a crude deconstruction of the longtime WP:RS-accepted name, repeated confusion with an irrelevant disorder (SPD), false representations of Dr. Aron's hsperson.com website content, a false representation that I agreed the article was poorly sourced, sarcasm toward Dr. Aron and toward me, ... . And nominator has adduced no more reason to be "sure" that "everyone's happy" with a redirect, than he once had that the entire article should be deleted. The underlying factual issues are clear to allow the admin to decide. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrongly attributing opinions. I never claimed that HSP "exists in >100 species" - that is in fact a claim plucked from the current article as well as found on Aron's promotional website: "Although the term is primarily used to describe humans, something similar to the trait is present in over 100 other species". Likewise, the claim that HSP appears on a spectrum/scale isn't mine, again it's from a page of Aron's website.

To clarify Sensory-Processing Sensitivity is associated with Sensory processing disorder, just as the HSP scale would be associated with HSP. I'm not stating otherwise, but Aron is explicitly stating that one (Sensory-Processing Sensitivity) is the "scientific name" for the other (HSP) (the claim is made on her website here). She's making this claim despite them having separate lines of evidence and research and despite them being associated with different conditions (with Sensory-Processing Sensitivity having far more hard evidence, and Aron piggy backing her concept onto that evidence in order to run retreats and sell books) - to the point that NONE of Aron's work appears as reference material for the Sensory processing disorder page - nor is HSP at all mentioned on that page (not in passing, nor as an alternative name). The same can't be said for the current HSP article, which is mostly made up of Aron's work, with some of the content coming directly from her websites and WP:PROMO material (such as the '100 other species' claim as seen in this video featuring Alanis Morissette). But as you say, we may need to request an admin closure on this matter. --Jobrot (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-

All that said - the discussion does seem to have turned towards seeking an appropriate target should merger be the outcome. Currently Sensitivity (human) is the preferred option, but if you are (as it appears) in direct agreement with all or most of Aron's opinions on this matter - it's then up to you to suggest a redirect to a section on Sensory processing disorder or perhaps to a new page titled Sensory processing sensitivity. I'm sure the scientific community of Wikipedia would be interested in fact checking Aron's work should it come to that. That said, she doesn't seem interested in submitting her ideas to the scrutiny of the DSM, and appears to be quite happy to keep her "scale" and "trait" as a personal project contained to horse retreats, video seminars, a feature length movie (http://sensitivethemovie.com/) purporting to contain "the untold story" of "sensitives" and of course in her many many books and audio books on the subject now available in multiple languages (her titles include "The Highly Sensitive Person", "The Highly Sensitive Person Workbook", "The Highly Sensitive Person in Love", "The Highly Sensitive Child", "The Strong, Sensitive Boy", "Making Work Work for the Highly Sensitive Person", "The Highly Sensitive Person’s Survival Guide", "Understanding the Trait of High Sensitivity", "Thoughts on the Highly Sensitive Child" and of course "The Highly Sensitive Person Unabridged"). --Jobrot (talk) 10:50, 16 January 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 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manan shah[edit]

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

Unlikely to be notable enough to have his own article. Yann (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yann can you please tell me the reason for Articles for deletion/Manan shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relanerwiki (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Standard Indian self-promotion bio. Seems to have one mention in an actual newspaper - the rest appear to be self-published, synthesis, or outright lies (the BBC quote). Kolbasz (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delte as mentioned, this is quite a troubled article and none of this suggests a salvegeable notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Kolbasz's reasoning; this article is almost an autobiography. Quis separabit? 05:30, 15 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese supercentenarians[edit]

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

This article is completely redundant and has been repeatedly restored against various policies. It needs to be Deleted, then a redirect created on the title. The following reasons apply:

1. It is completely redundant (except for recent updates) to List of supercentenarians from Asia which currently only covers Japanese people, though it could cover the other 97% of Asians if anyone sources some super old people outside Japan.

2. The editors that restored repeatedly insert a version that is a month out of date.

3. The implemented merger Was the result of an AfD discussion [30]. Further is was also discussed by me on the talk page of the article over a month ago.[31] Anyone watching the article could and should have commented, but did not. Accusations in edit summaries and elsewhere that I forced this through are false. As of the post, no other editor has bothered to discuss their reasons for keeping on talk, just blindly reverted with threats and warnings. I have pointed to the talk page in edit summaries and on Lugnuts talk page.

4. The entire contents of the lists are a copyright violation of the sole source - several GRG tables, exactly like this page that was recently deleted [32] confirmed at DRV [33]. The collection, verification and organization of this information is creative and Wikipedia is very strict about copyright violations. This is also true of the exact same info on the List of supercentenarians from Asia page, but we can deal with that separately.

5. Multiple pages carrying the same information has been a maintenance challenge. The Asia page was not being updated properly before the merger, being wildly different then the Japan page it should have mirrored. That problem has been corrected with the merger.

6. Longevity is an area under Discretionary Sanctions with a long history of tenacious editing by Single Purpose Accounts, off wiki coordination, meat puppets, etc. ArbComm has given a clear mandate to clean up and needless duplication of tables is part of that effort. Legacypac (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid reasons advanced for deletion. Using the deletion process in order to gain advantage in a content dispute is disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content dispute, all the content is at the Asia page. This editor as advanced no rational to keep. Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand what "content dispute" means, do you? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic every AfD is a content dispute. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the goal is to merge, that doesn't require WP:AFD. If the the list is indeed a copyvio (and it looks like it is), AFD is still the wrong place. See WP:DCV. Pburka (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already merged after an AfD and an attempt at discussion, but it's been unmerged with no discussion. Two editors insist this come to AfD so here we are. Thanks for the DCV suggestion, which I'll look into as well. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep

1. An article does not become redundant if the list of Asia supercentenarians is almost a duplicate. That article needs to be updated to capture cases from other Asian nations. As more Asian cases outside Japan are verified, the more the two lists will begin to differ.

2. The editors are reversing a change which was forced upon Wikipedia. Better an out of date article than no article

3. Although it was discussed nobody agreed with the proposal. Furthermore the request to delete the article of Japanese supercentenarians was not discussed in the article itself but in another article. This is not the correct method and is also dishonest.

4. Wikipedia articles require reliable references to support their articles. How can one link to a reliable source without infringing copyright? This is clearly an area of contradicting issues

5. What is the definition of being properly updated? There are numerous articles on Wikipedia which have similar issues. Does that mean thousands of articles should be deleted? I say not. The beauty of Wikipedia is it is a collective effort of the community to present the information and to keep updating it as time, effort and release of new information allows it.

6. See point 1 above. Just because there has been difficulty trying to verify supercentenarian claims for Asian countries beside Japan, that does not mean Japan should be held to fault. As a result if any article should be deleted, it is the list of Asian Supercentenarians until such time that list begins to differ significantly from the Japanese list. Crveni5 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles require reliable references to support their articles. How can one link to a reliable source without infringing copyright? This is clearly an area of contradicting issues." There's no contradiction at all. Wikipedia articles should be based on multiple, independent reliable sources. Copyright for a list is only violated if we precisely copy a list from a single source (and if compiling that list requires creativity, which this topic does.) All you need to do to avoid copyright concerns is find additional reliable sources listing supercentenarians from Japan, and include the members of both lists in our own list. (If the topic is not covered by multiple reliable sources, and I'm not convinced that GRG even counts, then it's probably not a notable topic to begin with.) Pburka (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Hullaballoo and Crveni5. Continued disruption to prove a WP:POINT by Legacypac. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [34] for context. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BOOMERANG for context. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles have a different focus, Asia is all inclusive of countries in Asia, Japan is only Japan. If anything the Asia article should have just a summery of the Japanese supercentenarians page and a link to Japanese supercentenarians. AlbinoFerret 19:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since 100% of the Asians are Japanese, there is no other focus. Which Japanese would you exclude? Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_Asia until non Japanese Asian supercentenarians have been identified and verified. Crveni5 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how the List of supercentenarians from Asia was created in May of 2015 with basically a copy over of the Japanese supercentenarians page,[35] and the Japanese supercentenarians page dates to 2008. I suggest that we keep the older one until new material for the Asia page makes it a necessary to have one. AlbinoFerret 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the Japanese page can get into more context about the Japanese; Asia doesn't include only Japan. The Asia page should summarize the Japanese page, with more Asians being added if any are found that are undisputably verified/confirmed. The problem with other Asian countries at the moment is that none of them have supercentenarians that are known/verified (keep in mind also that "known" and "verified" are not the same thing). There's also a reason why claimed/unverified supercentenarians are not included, such as Shigechiyo Izumi (120 years) and Emperor Jimmu (126 years), the first emperor of Japan. Note also that there are other pages such as Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America, and several other individual countries of which Japan is much more notable than. Vivexdino (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no need for this list while the List of supercentenarians from Asia covers Japan due to the fact that Asian supercentenarians are mostly from Japan. STSC (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to demonstrate that this is an appropriate standalone list, especially given the large number of supercentenarians from Japan. Overlap with other articles is irrelevant to retention of this one. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are distinct lists with different criteria. One of the main reasons that the Asia list so closely follows the Japan list is that a lot of the claims from other nations are dumped over to Longevity_claims#Reports_with_complete_date_of_birth and ignored. Japan has the distinction of having its own separate government sourcing so its claim are treated as "real" in contrast to claims from its neighbors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October (journal)[edit]

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

Promotional text, references are to the authors' publications and an interview with one of them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article passes WP:NJournals because it is indexed in selective databases (see this list). The journal is also discussed at Rosalind Krauss' Britannica article and at this article at The Art Story. I agree that the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: I have added material from the Britannica and Art Story sources into the Wikipedia article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources can be improved and expanded, but that's no reason to propose deletion.Mduvekot (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I brought the article here because another editor, whose journal article I had speedied as blatant G12, considered his treatment unfair because this was also promotional (although nothing like as bad as his). I'm sure it's notable, but in view of his valid concerns, I thought it should be put to the test. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though the references are to authors publications, the fact that MIT Press thinks the journal is so important and influential as to reprint its articles twenty years later, says something. They (MIT Press) even have an imprint, October Books, named after the magazine. Its articles have a high impact factor -- but this isn't clearly documented for humanities journals the way it is for science journals.Grhabyt (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notecardforfree. hinnk (talk) 01:40, 17 January 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 nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Refugees (film)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NFILM, one source (a New York Times Blog) is not enough to prove notability~~ JMHamo (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Several online, reputable film critics have reports still up on-line for viewing for the subject of this discussion. I checked against WP:NFILM criterias before I wikified and sourced this article. Ueutyi (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poorly referenced. In addition to the lengthy NYT article (which is a blog post in their Green section, but still NYT), I found Hollywood Reporter, Eliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University. There is supposedly an article at Variety (from their web page but I haven't run across it), one from Reuters (probably to be found in the LA Times), and lots of (unreferenceable) reports of screenings. A number of articles refer to awards although I haven't actually found any, but that's worth researching. LaMona (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in its original version was pretty rough but I was quickly able to find coverage including news articles, reviews, articles from university sustainability institutes, and a book on the politics of climate change. It's notable. Blythwood (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per topic meeting WP:NF. It seems the initially nominated article was brought her because of how it looked, but what was perhaps overlooked was due diligence and WP:NRVE finding the topic subject actually worthy of note (really a bit hard to miss if one actually looks)... IE: Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The New York Times (1), The New York Times (2), Grist,Huffington Post, as enough to establish notability (though there are many more). And though AFD is not to force cleanup, it is currently receiving policy and guideline preferred editorial attention, and we have no reason to delete this notable topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 11 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nederland 2016[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Article is unreferenced and when the event is to be held isn't even known. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL/WP:TOOSOON. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Nederland 2013, concerning 2013 and the other yearly editions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even less notable then past editions. Note the very small number of participants. Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The number of contestants is similar in previous years; aren't the 12 contestants simply the final selection? – Editør (talk) 01:17, 15 January 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 12th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Infantry Division (Germany)[edit]

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

This is a duplicate of 2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), which carries the standard disambiguation for Nazi Germany formations. This dab is usually used for more recent German formations. Neither talk page has anything other than banners. Peacemaker67 ([[User_talk:|crack... thump]]) 10:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and don't delete the title. When two pages are obviously duplicative, and both of them have plausible titles, there's no reason to delete the one with the improper title. Note the history of the article: (Germany) was moved to (Wehrmacht) more than four years ago (so obviously it's a likely search target), and titles that old shouldn't be deleted if possible, because deletion causes linkrot. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, aside from preventing linkrot, merely redirecting this is good because there's no need to delete the history (and I didn't carefully check the history of the properly titled article; if anything's been merged there from here, we're required to keep this), and while that won't prevent re-conversion into an article, deletion won't either. If someone persists in converting this to an article, report the situation to an admin privately or leave a note at WP:RFPP, asking that the page be protected to prevent its conversion into an article. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nyttend. Appears to be a duplicate article, but it is a plausible search term. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The formation fought, but was then reorganised as 12th Panzer Division. There is also a merge discussion in progress. That should take its course, after which this title and 2nd Motorised Infantry division should become redirects to 12th Panzer Division (or vice versa). A division is certainly a large enough formation to require an article of some kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the merge, but this formation did enough fighting as an infantry division before conversion to warrant a stand-alone article separate from 12th Panzer. Note: To my knowledge, neither of the post-war German armies (East and West) had a 2nd Infantry Division. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ([[User_talk:|crack... thump]]) 01:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The division existed but the article is a duplicateUser:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SN 2008ha. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Moore[edit]

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

Ms. Moore's achievement is impressive, but she is a person notable for one event only (WP:BLP1E). It is not uncommon for talented amateur astronomers to discover new supernovae. The supernova she co-discovered, SN 2008ha, already has its own article, and it identifies her as one of the co-discoverers. I propose deleting her biography and amending the supernova article to mention her distinction as the then-youngest person to discover a supernova. Astro4686 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SN 2008ha with the relevant record-of-youngest-discovery information merged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to SN 2008ha. There's coverage, but it's all either local news or about SN 2008ha. I think some of this article could probably be merged there, but I'm not sure exactly what. As such, a redirection would be alright if that's the consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the question should be raised. My understanding is that all of the criteria for deletion under (WP:BLP1E) needs to be satisfied. I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

The person is notable for 3 events:

Discovery of SN2008ha
Discovery of SN2009he
Young astronomer of the year, 2009, by iOptron Corporation (the award could potentially be considered as part of the SN2008ha discovery event)

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

[stleary] I am not sure that this is satisfied, given that two discoveries were made. However, the SN2009he event appears to be sparsely covered.

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

[stleary] This is likely, given lack of new events since 2009.

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

[stleary] This seems unlikely to be the case, but please provide justification if you think it is.

"It is not uncommon for talented amateur astronomers to discover new supernovae".

[stleary] I am not certain that this is the case. Can you please provide some backup for this statement?

Full disclosure:

I wrote the original entry, so I have some interest.
This is my first attempt at contributing to a talk page, please bear with me.

-- stleary

Hi stleary, thank you for your feedback. I think that the major issue is whether it is generally notable for amateurs to discover supernovae. As an observational astronomer, I would say that it is common knowledge within our field that amateur astronomers discover supernovae on a fairly regular basis. For example, I glanced at the list of supernovae discovered in the year 2015 (available at http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/RecentSupernovae.html), and even though I didn't do an exhaustive count, I spotted a minimum of 24 separate supernovae discovered by amateurs in that year alone (8 by Koichi Itagaki, 7 by Stuart Parker, 3 by Tim Puckett, 3 by Greg Bock, 2 by L.A.G. Monard, and 1 by Patrick Wiggins). Some Google-searching verifies that each of them is an amateur astronomer, and since I didn't take the time to check every name on the list, I'm sure that I missed a number of other amateurs who discovered supernovae. Moreover, Robert Evans and Puckett's group are just two examples of amateurs amassing an impressive number of supernova discoveries over the years. So while discovering a supernova is a wonderful achievement for an amateur astronomer, I don't think that an individual discovery would necessarily constitute a significant event as required by the notability policy. Also, I agree with you that SN 2009he hasn't received significant attention and that the iOptron award is part of the SN 2008ha event. Regarding the award, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:notability (awards) because it seems to be mentioned only in the context of Ms. Moore's discovery. I can't find any significant coverage of the award itself. Astro4686 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because it is already a C-class article. If it were a stub, then the decision to redirect or delete would be more clear; both Astro4686 and stlearly make valid arguments. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:00, 12 January 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 closed. Wrong venue - this was clearly intended for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keith rowley.jpg The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keith rowley.jpg[edit]

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

That seems to be the official parliament photo of Keith Rowley, and it was deleted before on Commons. Grueslayer Let's talk. 07:34, 9 January 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 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 9 January 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. The strongest argument on the keep side is that these players have all played in one of two professional leagues, and that is sufficient to meet WP:FOOTY. On the other side of the fence, I was particularly unimpressed with the argument that stubs are inherently bad because they confuse the search engines.

On balance, while the head-count numbers are pretty close, the better arguments are on the keep side, enough so that I'm calling this a consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Garduño[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ~~and WP:NFOOTY~~. This user is notorious for making these types of quick, dime by the dozen articles on Mexican footballers. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are players also in the third division that fail the same criteria. JTtheOG (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles fail WP:GNG by a mile.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Sources listed in all of these articles confirm that they have all played either in Liga MX or Ascenso MX, both of which are fully pro, meaning all of these articles meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If they're not notable, of course delete. If they are, delete per WP:TNT. Such tinily stubby articles are more of a harm than a help: they turn links blue (so it's not obvious that articles are needed), and they produce tons of Wikipedia-related hits in search engines, making it significantly harder to find good sources. If they were at all useful, this wouldn't matter, but these pages are so minimal that they won't help the reader. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As Sir Sputnik pointed out, they do have experience in the top two divisions, but Nyttend is right. WP:TNT should apply to these types of articles. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - as they all meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Need improving, not deleting. Has the nominator even searched for sources per WP:BEFORE? Giant Snowman 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why we are here if even the nominator agrees they meet WP:NFOOTY. I don't see how WP:TNT could ever apply to a stub. Articles need improving. Nfitz (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I am skeptical of the treatment of Ascenso MX at WP:FPL, each of these articles satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL under the current treatment. Also, bundling these nominations is incredibly unhelpful - I recognized Nungaray and was easily able to demonstrate GNG-compliance for that article with 5 minutes work. I suspect most (if not all) of the other articles can be GNG-compliant with some work. If the nominator looks and finds nothing (per WP:BEFORE), I am willing to reconsider (especially if particular articles are nominated individually). Jogurney (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. Although this user does create some articles of players that should have one, it does create many for players that shouldn't have one. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 02:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if these articles satisfy the notability or not, but with the exception of Ernest Nungaray they are some of the worst footballing articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Most articles consist of a general reference and a short sentence and that's about it. If these articles pass this AFD than they will all should be vastly improved. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - articles are as porr as they can get but the sourcing indicates NFOOTY is met. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 15 January 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 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISOBL[edit]

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

Albeit the article having several listed sources, none of them are actually convincing and solid, mostly actually for their employees, and my searches also found nothing at all so here we are at AfD. Notifying author RosellenChasan. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep half a million members is notable. Curro2 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of notability. I haven't checked all the references cited; after finding a bunch of 404s, pages which do not mention the subject, and a page containing malware, I gave up. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regarding the half million member claim, the Forbes link doesn't go anyhwere except to the main Forbes site, so I have no way of verifying the claim. Same for pretty much all the rest of the links. It's also written like a press release. That's my two cents. Chrisw80 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, full disclosure and apologies. #1 I have edited Wikipedia for years but without registering an account and this is my first article/page. #2 I am one of the people chronicled so it may not conform to NPOV/neutral point of view. Sorry for the news release/promotional tone. I can try to re write the article but I'll leave it to you to decide/would hate to write it again and then if it is deleted after all. They DBA/do business as in several other magazine names so it is possible that some of the references that I used do not clearly establish the relationship between the members and their bigropahies and features within the magazine but if you give me a chance, I can definitely re-write the article and reach out to them for better references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosellenChasan (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 January 2016‎
- I'm still inclined to suggest deletion. Notability implies that there be independent major media coverage or other reputable sources that discuss this entity. Can you provide some sources that discuss this company directly that are completely independent and not just small business journals? If you can't, then I would drop it. I must say I'm a bit sceptical about all the DBAs, but I must assume good faith I suppose. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep Quite a few prominent personalities enlisted, this could be considered for encyclopaedic significance. The tone may need a little alteration though. SravaniChalla (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have no sources that verify these personalities are actually members of this organization. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation once reliable sources surface. My searches for sources returned nothing about the subject other than its website and LinkedIn.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow International Society of Business Leaders (ISOBL) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prure promotionalism, to the extent of a possible speedy G11. "In addition to offering accreditation, ISOBL also helps members with personal marketing and online promotion. Increasing online visibility of its members is a key specialty of the group." The claims in the article for the importance of the members are very unlikely indeed--if the most notable members they can find among their 500,000 includes a high school principal, a dentist, and the former Deputy counsel to the VP of the US. Quite apart from whether this people are notable, they aren't in any sense "business leaders" . To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever written about the society--all the refs are to members foolish enough to list in tin their cv's. Of so little importance that nobody with a WP article has even bothered to included this in their article, in contrast to much more notable vanity publicity awards and societies. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Armageddon[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for deletion since there's been some argument over whether or not this should redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet#A.

I've tried looking for sourcing, however all I can find are routine notifications that this program was going to air or had aired. The mentions are always brief and almost always mentioned in relation to 2-3 other shows by Animal Planet. The best I found was this review by Commonsensemedia, but that's not enough to justify an article. I did find this article, but a look at Studio Daily's website shows that they sponsor and advertise content. In other words, people can purchase articles from them, which makes any of their content unusable. (It also doesn't help that the article was written quite like a press release.)

From what I can see, this is a TV show that only aired for one season and received fairly little media attention outside of the cursory notification of episodes and press release reprints. I think that there's merit in this redirecting to the Animal Planet list page, but not really anything beyond that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet per nom. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet per nom; I see no value in the article, as it is essentially a gigantic row of episode summaries that are far too in-depth anyways. It's also very poorly written, so I think merging is the best choice here. Raptormimus456 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 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. WP:A7 - Web content with no indication of importance. This isn't even about Minecraft in general, from a check of "OMM" in the Minecraft context, but of one particular Minecraft gaming server. Wikipedia is not a place to webhost a guide for playing on your gaming server. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Spawners and Spawneggs[edit]

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

WP:GAMEGUIDE, article only provides information on a small part of the game Minecraft, outside of video game scope. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:22, 9 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S3RL[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claim of charting appears faked. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)~~ struck per Shaidar. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no independent reliable sources. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, though if the chart claim can be substantiated I might change my view - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Shaidar delivers once again. Keep for actual charting single ... barely. The article is really not very good, but the band pass notability. Or the single does, really - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spent a while trying to find reference for chart claim. Could not substantiate; could not establish notability. Unfortunately delete as too soon.Aeonx (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hung Medien ref needed this url (which I've now changed), I added a VG-list ref, here, for same charting. Although the article used a poor url: the single did reach No. 10 on a national chart and hence the artist is notable per WP:MUSBIO#2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:02, 12 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cotton (diplomat)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. And I could find no significant coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People who flourished in the 1970s to 1990s often don't have an internet presence, but he's not listed in the 11th edition of Who's Who in New Zealand (published 1978) either, and he would be if he was notable. Schwede 66 17:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this may need some more research - on a rough Google search he comes up as being NZ Consul-General in Australia in the 1990's and New York in 1973. He was a Victoria University graduate in the 1950's so StuartYeates may have something on him. I wont have access to the local library until next week. He was involved with the 2000 Sydney Olympic's NealeFamily (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per Schwede. The High Commissioner to Samoa and Tonga wouldn't have been a very senior position at all. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reassess Both User:Paora and I have added additional information. From the little we have done, it points towards reaching WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

whilst the article has been improved, in my view, it reads too much like a resume and the references confirm roles rather than show in depth coverage of his achievements. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LibStar will improve once I have access to the local library next week NealeFamily (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holder of the CVO, which easily passes WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always considered any award of the CBE or higher to pass this. Consensus over numerous AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Necrothesp. Also for reference their guideline to awards is very useful - User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. Cotton is holder of both a CVO (a level 1 award) and QSO (a level 2 award).NealeFamily (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Curro2 (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:PERX LibStar (talk) 09:06, 9 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fybush[edit]

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

Non-Notable person, also not enough independent sources to justify inclusion, the majority of the results yielded on Bing, Google, Yahoo etc... are Mr. Fybush's own websites and almost nothing else. YborCityJohn (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Curro2 (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. Mentioned as a commenter on various issues but nothing in-depth found. --Michig (talk) 09:47, 16 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Etoile[edit]

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

Another Moroccan actor that fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this apparently is not yet satisfying the actors guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Apart from IMDB, I struggle to find anything promisingCharlesWemyss (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Curro2 (talk) 07:19, 9 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J-Ssali[edit]

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

Another Ugandan musician that fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot seem to find coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found. --Michig (talk) 09:42, 16 January 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 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phallophobia[edit]

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

not generally recognized DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources listed are highly unlikely to support this term. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search turns up 11,000 hits. This seems to be a known phobia based on my search. Seasider91 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider91: see WP:GHITS. Could you share some of the specific high quality sources that show this meets WP:NEO? (or WP:GNG)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it's actually a phobia, we should be using WP:MEDRS sources and the current article would qualify for WP:TNT (the first source is "Hip Hop Cooking"?). But I have a feeling we're just talking about one of the many words that include the suffix "-phobia" that people coin to invent clickbait (or pre-Internet ~clickbait) and/or make a point. Most of the sources I'm seeing are just homophobes and antifeminists talking about how they don't like penises (or how certain women don't like penises). There are some others, but this looks like a WP:NEO fail to me. At best, what we have is a WP:DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Just fails in general. Jbh ^Talk 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am finding at least mentions in academic sources (although I don't think much of psychoanalysis or any subject starting with meta) the following sources are behind a paywall but may be of interest: [36], [37] and [38]. Combined with the huge number of mentions in less academic sources, I would say the concept is notable (per GNG). I don't think we can conclude that the mainstream scientific community thinks it is real, but it does seem to have taken off. It seems to be listed in some popular phobia listings. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would need to be at least in DSM V, and the search fails there. I actually think this may be a hoax, given the sources. LaMona (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i have gone through various search engine results and a significant proportion of returns are sitting behind a pay wall. This sort of scenario gives me the impression that a multifaceted editor could quite conceivably improve the article if he/she has access. Min al Khadr (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was shocked at the number of books using this term. Also, searches need to be done for Ithyphallophobia and medorthophobia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of phobias. It's included in Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, but barely; other mentions (Balbert Corbett Boubia) are passing and trivial, and do not imply there's any reliable content beyond the definition. e.g., Boubia's only mention is
All of this leads to the belief that Hegel is haunted not only by themonstrosities of this “Feminine State,” but equally, by this “phallophobia,” this hostility declared toward its “strong” sex.

and that's a typical amount of detail. FourViolas (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG. All mentions so far are trivial and/or passing --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the phobia is rare but legit it seems from the sources I can find. More research needs to be done. But deleting it is not the answer.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If more research is to be done, it's not ready for primetime. A redirect, as suggested by one editor, may be valid. I agree with the analysis of sources (weak). Drmies (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a mention of the term itself in this book, but it wasn't used in the way it was here. It was instead used in reference to masculinity as a whole. I don't know if this was one of the paywalled sources (this came up via my school's catalog), but I figured that I'd mention this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these sources look totally bogus. Curro2 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly an important concept - even if better sources should be found. OlavN (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is lacking in articles of this nature. The recent frequency of headlines surrounding fear merely complements that thesis. Furthermore, a quick glance at search returns indicate its peered with established terms thus hinting at notability. Coupled with its coequal entries which seem to have articles and the fact that there is a capacity for adding up coordinate terms, hypernyms and academic work that doesn't necessarily use the term all suggest its encyclopedic nature and that there is significant capacity for sourcing and referencing the article. I found the delete rationales unconvincing since it is not necessarily a subset of psychology and some of the delete votes were made prior to the imrpovement of the article. Geezaspeel (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phobia is very real for those afflicted. Wikipedia article is well cited. Term is in wide use, as evidenced by multitude of google search hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.8.188 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 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) 09:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Machine[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable band - the article's only reference is a MySpace link, there is no corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia, and the article as written looks like an A7 candidate since its creation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near reaching the level of notability required to meet the general notability guideline, or the specific guideline for bands. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongwarrior Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 09:38, 16 January 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 11:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charterhouse Capital Partners[edit]

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

Not particularly notable company. Cloudbound (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; adequately covered on Charterhouse Group which itself is not a strong corporate page. Presume WP:PROMO LaMona (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I found some links here and there a News, Books, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Clark, Simon; Pritchard, Becky (2015-01-05). "Infighting Roils Veteran British Buyout Firm Charterhouse Capital: Behind the Genteel Facade of the London-Based Private-Equity Firm Lurk Internal Frictions". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Charterhouse Capital Partners LLP is the elder statesman of British private equity, 80 years old and among London’s most prestigious and private firms. Based in a square by the London Stock Exchange and St. Paul’s Cathedral, it has long thrown off profits to a tight circle of principals.
  But behind the genteel facade, Charterhouse has been a scene of friction, involving both how its earnings are divided among the staff and how to hand power to a new generation. At a sensitive time—as the firm asks investors for billions for new deals—it is grappling with two soured investments, and details of its internal discord have been laid bare in a lawsuit by a disgruntled former partner.
  The lawsuit also revealed a fateful choice made by executives who became Charterhouse’s owners nearly 14 years ago: They would make as much money as possible, and pay little heed to their successors.
2. Pritchard, Becky (2014-02-03). "Legal Battle Throws The Spotlight on Charterhouse". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  On July 31, 2008, Geoffrey Arbuthnott drove from his home in Hertfordshire to an upmarket restaurant in the town of Burnham Market in Norfolk. He arrived early and waited for his former colleague Edward Cox, who was chairman of the legendary low-profile firm Charterhouse Capital Partners until 2011, to arrive. Mr. Arbuthnott had worked at the firm for over 20 years and had retired earlier that year but still held 8.9% of the shares in Charterhouse Capital Limited.
  Fast-forward six years and what was said at that lunch at The Hoste Arms, a hostelry that dates back to 1550, is now being raked over by lawyers in London’s Chancery Division of the High Court during a six-week trial that centres on a disagreement over the value of Mr. Arbuthnott’s shares in the firm.
  Alleged blackmail is just one of a number of issues that have come out in court but the real heart of the case is how private equity firms deal with succession and find a fair price to pay old guard partners for their shares once they retire.
  The case has also provided a rare insight into the workings of Charterhouse. Despite an 80-year history, outsiders know relatively little about the inner workings of the group, even though it controls more than €8 billion of investments, because it is run by a small, tightly knit group of long-time executives.
3. Dunkley, Daniel (2015-02-22). "£1m each: a bad year for buyout bosses: Partners at secretive private equity firm Charterhouse share £32m". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-02. (subscription required)
  The article notes:
  
  TOP EXECUTIVES at City buyout firm Charterhouse Capital Partners took home £32.3m last year, despite seeing some of their most high- profile investments fall into the hands of lenders in the past 12 months.
  Dealmakers at Charterhouse — a firm best known for owning a stake in the over-fifties holiday and insurance group Saga — earned an average of £1.24m last year, according to accounts filed at Companies House. Charterhouse Capital Partners, a UK-registered company, made a profit of £77.4m last year, filings for the year to March 2014 show.
  Insiders said the £32m income did not include carried interest, a performance bonus shared by private equity executives once their investments have reached a set profit hurdle.
  The sources said the income came from fees Charterhouse charges investors for managing its multi-billion buyout funds.
  The income was shared among just 26 staff at Charterhouse, the source said.
4. Jessop, Simon; Berry, Freya (2015-06-15). Holmes, David (ed.). "Charterhouse Capital sells ERM stake to Omers in $1.7 bln deal". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  London-based Charterhouse looks for western European deals in a range between 250 million euros ($281 million) and 2 billion and has so far completed over 140 transactions worth an aggregate value of over 50 billion euros, it said.
5. Quinn, James; Kleinman, Mark (2008-12-06). "Charterhouse Capital seeks to raise £5.2bn buyout fund". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Based on figures to the end of March, Charterhouse had earned a gross internal rate of return of 45.1pc on the €6.8bn it has invested in 47 transactions.
  Charterhouse, led by chief executive Gordon Bonnyman, who is estimated to have a £140m fortune, is best known in Britain for its backing of a management buy-out of Saga from the founding de Haan family in October 2004.
  More recently, Charterhouse sold car parking group Epolia to Holland's Q-Park for an undisclosed amount.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Business Furniture to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charterhouse Capital Partners has received substantial coverage in The Wall Street Journal and The Sunday Times. It has received significant coverage in Reuters and The Telegraph.
The Wall Street Journal says, "Charterhouse Capital Partners LLP is the elder statesman of British private equity, 80 years old and among London's most prestigious and private firms." The Wall Street Journal also calls Charterhouse Capital Partners a "legendary low-profile firm". The subject is clearly notable.
Cunard (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - not particularly well-known but there are the seeds of an article here. As I understand it, Charterhouse is an older bank bought by HSBC whose private equity firm ended up breaking out on its own through an MBO. There's coverage dating back to 2001 of that e.g. here. Saying it dates back 80 years is confusing, though, when its modern corporate entity is much newer. Blythwood (talk) 07:34, 13 January 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) 09:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choruses in Hong Kong[edit]

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

A bit of a bizarre article; its a combination of lists and websites. The lead needs completely re-writing and I am not sure how the 2014 results of 1 competition are notable especially those who came 873rd! This maybe could be split into a series of lists but I have no idea where to start.. ツStacey (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or whatever this is supposed to be. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:LISTN and the worst case is that we'd summarise into a more general page like Music of Hong Kong per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this could be an acceptable but It's currently not looking like that so WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 16 January 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. Sandstein 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Air Sweden Flight 294[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Not notable cargo plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: This fits WP:NOTE as this is a fatal aviation crash. More details can be added to improve the article, but it will never lose notability. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be notable in the first place. See below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fatal aviation crashes of cargo flights are almost invariably not kept, as they are not notable. Alas, they happen regularly enough that they are only notable if they were of airliners, cause a large stir in regulations from their consequences, or otherwise manage to demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. The first is a resounding "no", the second doesn't look likely and can't be assumed to be otherwise, and the third is WP:TOOSOON. What we're left with is a burst of news coverage that, in this day and electronic age, is not enough to pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Wait. It is too early to decide whether this is notable enough for Wikipedia. In the meantime the article does need to be improved greatly. 111.69.110.121 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already said, this crash isn't very notable. It didn't get much news coverage at all, and that shows how much the crash concerns the whole world. It's not of a major airline, not a major aircraft and not many casualties and not much that really stands out. Right now, there is no reason to keep the article and so it should be deleted.

Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 07:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Bushranger's comments that cargo flight accidents are rarely notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. This aircraft literally fell out of the sky from cruising altitude which is a fairly unusual failure mode and deserves attention. Just because it was a cargo aircraft with two crew and little media attention does not justify deletion. There are hundreds of CRJs flying every day. Manfredj (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And those hundreds of CRJs are relevant in what fashion? There is long-established WP:CONSENSUS that cargo aircraft flights that do not result in persistent coverage or regulatory changes are not notable; "little media attention" does justify deletion in a sense as "media attention" is how notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The accident is notable, nomination premature. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please explain in what way the accident is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CRJ200 is an airliner, like the DC-3, the causes for the crash may affect passenger versions as well. Generally speaking: According to some comments above, a B747 cargo flight crash may not qualify for an article, but when a B737 shears off a landing gear with no fatalities it is noteworthy (Avia Traffic Company Flight 768), or an engine fire while taxiing (Dynamic Airways Flight 405) ? I neither see any logic nor respect for human life in the above arguments. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact the aircraft is an airliner is irrelevant. The relevance would be if it was in airline service. The crash "may" affect passenger versions, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Other articles do indeed exist and in both of those cases involved airline flights that resulted in injuries to passengers, which meets the consensus for notability; a 747 on a cargo flight that crashed with only the loss of the crew and with no regulatory aftereffects is, in fact, not notable, as "respect for human life" has no relevance to whether or not an article is included in Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. No reason to delete an important accident without any doubts. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's WP:TOOSOON to call this accident important; please explain how the accident is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per some of the arguments above, some of the following may need to be remembered. Wikipedia is not the news, and Wikipedia is not a memorial; nor is Wikipedia a crystal ball. "It's notable" is not an argument that carries weight unless it's explained how it is notable; "it's important" is, likewise, a long-established argument to avoid. Please, when arguing for this article to be kept, make policy-based arguments that explain how this accident is notable. Saying simply that it's notable because it's important and/or that it's notable because it's a tragedy do not help in establishing a policy-based consensus on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. If you make a calm, reasoned explanation of your position, you're more likely to change peoples' minds and win support for your position; if you can't, then (put simply) you're not very likely to do either of those at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bombardier CRJ200 is a largely used plane (more than 900) with a large seating capacity (more than 40). News coverage is not a valid criteria and anyway news coverage has been important in Sweden and Norway. Cargo is also important for planes market. Wykx 13:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BIGNUMBER. The seating capacity is irrelevant for a cargo flight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Numbers were given to illustrate effective quality of the argument and not as such. The seating capacity makes this aircraft important for passenger transportation. Wykx 23:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    - Which is utterly irrelevant to whether or not this accident is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm very sorry but in aviation safety, please give a past example of "not notable" crash concerning a large aircraft. Wykx 08:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
        @Wykx: Flight 9963. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        There were no fatalities from flight United Airlines Flight 9963. Wykx 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep:This is the first accident from West Air Sweden. The page does need improving though.--Planecrashexpert (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first accident in a country is notable. The first accident of a carrier is niot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The difference between Wikimedia and news is not the topic, but how the article is written (and if it's written like news, better re-write instead of deleting). J 1982 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Bushranger" says: "The relevance would be if it was in airline service." Thereby he confirms the relevance: it definitely was (read Airline). By the way, he appears to be almost the only proponent of deletion; 8 others say "Keep". --Uli Elch (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied WP:COMMONSENSE means "airline service" = "scheduled flight carrying passangers". Please do not put words in my mouth in an attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: UPS/Fedex, etc. flights have crashed with fatalities and their articles are kept just the same. This is a Transport Category aircraft and this case will likely have strong repercussions in the CRJ world. 68.144.218.20 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Likely" is not a quality that confers notability. Other stuff exists but has no bearing on whether or not this accident is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - the circumstances surrounding this crash are not indicative of pilot error (IMvHO). The investigation will eventually get to the bottom of this loss, at which point it will be clearer as to the notability of the event. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too early. If this turns out to be nothing spectacular, it can be deleted later. We already have many articles on crashes with 0 fatalities. Norway/Sweden are countries without many air traffic accidents. --2003:71:CF36:C782:E8D1:E9B:62AA:E298 (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above the incident took place 3 days ago, it is best to wait for more information to come out on the accident before nominating again for deletion. These things can take months to investigate. NordicDragon Talkpage 13:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A modern aircraft in modern airspace, of significant size, does not drop out of the sky often; this is quite unusual, and so notable for now. Additionally, easily meets the weight limit for large aircraft and two related notability requirements (hull loss, death) of WP:AIRCRASH Leondz (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Let us see why the aircraft dropped like a stone, a very rare occurrence.--Petebutt (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very notable crash, breakup in-flight is VERY unusual. 6000m in 50 seconds does not happen in the aviation industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.166.59 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 January 2016‎
Keep - this is a special and interesting case of a plane that just crashes without any problem ahead of crash. It is too early to say that it should be deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - What happened to the pilots? It's not just mail that was lost. What caused the crash? It could be an indicator of something more to follow. Mowster (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, appears to meet WP:GNG with a number of the references being reliable. Although, agree with nom that wp is not news. could The Bushranger please provide some links to "consensus that cargo flights/crashes(?) are not notable"(please excuse my adlibbing) for us non-aviation wikipedians. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- [39], [40], [41], [42]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for the links The Bushranger, these i believe tip the balance to Delete. I note some of the keepers suggest leaving the article for now to see the results of investigations so WP:TOOSOON also applies, if these investigations result in the subject becoming notable the article can be resurrected. This crash is already covered here West Air Sweden and here Bombardier CRJ200, so a Redirect to one of these may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the two first examples given there were no fatalities. For the An-12, this type is banned since some years so another accident is not notable. As for the Alaska Airlines flight, it was conducted under military operations regulations. Wykx 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There are also several articles covering cargo aircraft accidents, both with and without casualties. Each accident (and incident) needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant, large airline crash with more than one fatality aboard.Juneau Mike (talk) 05:42, 17 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Conway (musician)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable musician Quis separabit? 15:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 02:59, 9 January 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) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vacanti[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability for living persons. LaMona (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a stub, a number of cites need to be added. Will do over the 48 hours. Jgreene1333 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've added a TV news interview with him. That is not a third-party source, it's primary. It does not support notability. Please do not add such sources. Also, I have done all of the "find sources" links above (except Highbeam, which I don't have access to) and I hope that others who weigh in on this do the same. LaMona (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 01:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed later as there's simply not enough solid third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short career, marginally important field of activity, and no sources indicating he has achieved any fame. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the Vaynerchuck references with several 3rd party references.Jgreene1333 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources added Nakon 02:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 6 references are: 1) Business Insider article that doesn't mention him 2) a "greatist.com" article by someone about his own fitness program that namechecks Vacanti 3) "fitocracy knowledge center" a website on fitness (RS?) he's one of thirty, gets a short paragraph 4) Jmax Fitness website - he's one of 40 trainers mentioned, gets 2 sentences 5) he's interviewed on local TV wfsb in Connecticut 6) Personal Trainer Development Center web site (RS?) lists an article of his in a list of articles; nothing about him. Basically, not one full article or significant content about him. LaMona (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not sufficient coverage of this person in reliable sources, notability as not been established when judged against WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:06, 10 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Sigma Rho[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. No cited references after more than two years of being tagged as such. No evidence of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I am presuming, for the moment, that student newspapers (ie in universities) do not count as reliable; if somebody could convince me that they are in fact reliable, this would look very different. Catfish Jim, I presume the same rationale could be applied to many of the other fraternities and sororities in the template at the bottom of the article? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appear to be material in books. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where those search results are related to this subject (and not search engine artifacts), the coverage is trivial and does not satisfy WP:GNG. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the keep-voter's search link demonstrates that there's no significant coverage in solid sources. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 9 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dillon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a YouTube personality. While there's enough of a claim of notability here that a properly sourced article about him could potentially be kept, nothing here confers an automatic entitlement to keep an article just because he exists. The problem here, however, is the sourcing: it's far too reliant on primary sources, such as his own YouTube videos, media content where he's the bylined author or the interviewee rather than the subject, and the Facebook profile of a directly affiliated organization, and not nearly enough on reliable source coverage about him. The RS coverage that does exist is primarily about a criminal allegation which poses BLP sensitivities, rather than about his YouTuberness per se — only one RS is actually covering him specifically in a context that might actually justify an encyclopedia article. (Note, for the record, that the second deletion discussion was about the same person, but was different enough that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content — but the first discussion was about a completely different person who merely happens to have the same name, so is entirely irrelevant here.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks to me to be a fairly dangerous BLP. First, there's the fact that most of what he produces airs at Youtube, meaning that there's no editorial control over his work. Then, a good part of this article is about a rape accusation that also played out over Youtube, meaning that there is no verification that can be done. This article is a hornet's nest of unverifiable claims. LaMona (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked his Youtube profile and he doesn't get many views or have many subscribers. The first AFD had 7 delete votes and no keeps. The second AFD had 7 delete votes and no keeps excluding SPA's. I read this article and he isn't notable in my opinion, he's wanting to be an internet personality and trying to use WP for that purpose. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's all primary sources. No retrospective coverage: all the independent sourcing is coming from news articles about his activities. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps nothing to suggest a currently better article. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 10 January 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 Seance (band)#Discography. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awakening of the Gods[edit]

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

WP:ENN. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect to Seance_(band)#Discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have three reviews for the album, which is enough to assert notability. It's not exactly the in-depth coverage that I typically like, but it's enough to assert notability for NALBUMS. I have no problem with this redirecting to the band's page, however. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seance (band). Two reviews in reliable sources, but not really enough to be said about this album to justify keeping as a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 16 January 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 Seance (band). This article is at AfD as well, if it gets deleted, the redirect should be speedied.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saltrubbed Eyes[edit]

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

WP:ENN and no assertion of notability. An Allmusic rating is not sufficient to meet WP:NALBUMS. MSJapan (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seance (band). I found enough to justify notability for the band, but there's really not enough here to assert notability for the album independently of the band itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seance (band). We have far too many of these album articles where people have unable or unwilling to go beyond a track listing and an infobox. The Allmusic review could be cited in the article on the band. There isn't enough to justify an article on this album. --Michig (talk) 09:30, 16 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Horn[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Almost no coverage in reliable sources.
Fails WP:ANYBIO. Has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field.
Fails WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't agree with "almost no coverage": her 2004 book was reviewed/covered in The Jerusalem Post [43], The Forward [44], Newsday [45], Publishers Weekly [46], Wall Street Journal [47], and more. That may not be enough to show author notability, however. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WSJ, Jerusalem Post reviews for a HarpersCollins books are sufficient for AUTHOR for me; other reviews add to the multiple independent coverage criterion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I added a few more references. She's reviewed in Booklist and Publishers Weekly. I formatted the article so it reads better, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book, no awards, no bestseller list. PW and Booklist review thousands of books a year and do short and not very analytic reviews. REf #3 has short quotes from a Ariel Levenson -- perhaps her maiden name? -- but it's not about her. Ref #4 is about her sister, doesn't mention her. Book held in less than 200 libraries on WorldCat. Unless a book is a complete runaway hit (cf To Kill a Mockingbird) I think we shouldn't give notability to one-book authors. LaMona (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, I take your point, except, the sources are there. I guess the idea of a novel - said to be a funny novel - about a soon-to-be Ivy League grad desperately in need of a job but with few actual, employable skills hit a nerve - because boy did she get interviewed in major places: Newsday, the Wall Street Journal. And a book review in the New York Times - one of their brief reviews, you know, the ones that run about 5 column inches, but, still, a review for a first novel. True, it's only one novel. But the sourcing is there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ran an Proquest news archive search and came up with a lot of hits, interviews, coverage of her career, book reviews. Plenty of sources to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add some links to all these sources? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added some newspaper profiles and the book review that ran in the NYTimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - One book? Sounds pretty sketchy to me in terms of notability. Maybe we can bring the article back if more info comes up and/or another book written by her is released. Parsley Man (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's difficult to verify most of the sources, as most require a paid subscription. We're left with a few book reviews, and almost nothing written about her (not about her one book). Magnolia677 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnolia677 We count sources like the ones I added from the news archive search Proquest. They are valid and carry the same weight as sources that are open access. And remember that searches are never complete, even with a good search engine, there are always more sources out there. If someone familiar with her work and career was working on this, they would undoubtedly know of more material. I merely stopped by while looking through a list of AFDs. I did not take the time to rewrite / expand the article with the biographical details in the sources I found, or to write up a better description of the book and what the reviewers have said about it. The articles/ profiles that ran as the book was coming out in fact have a great deal of detail about her life and the job-hunting struggles that led her to write the book. "almost nothing written about her" is not accurate; extensive material about her exists, much in the sources I added. And the reviews we have now located include one in the New York Times. The article still needs expansion, improvement. But the sources found establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also coverage of her teaching career, winning an award: [48]; [49]; [50] under her married name, Ariel Levenson.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677, I am doing a rewrite using a number of password-protected sources. articles sourced to Proquest are not "deadlinks" - they are paywalled. I can wish that there were no paywalls - it certainly would make it easier to evaluate articles, but articles do not have to be freely availabailabe to be valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 13 January 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, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International special awards[edit]

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

Sideshow of main event, no independent notability. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas it fails [[WP:LISTN. These pageants set it up so nearly everyone gets something to brag about. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 9 January 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. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nuestra Belleza México special awards[edit]

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

Sideshow of main event, no independent notability. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas Wikipedia should not be a webhost of data the pageant businesses decline to host on their own site. Fails WP:LISTN too as no Reliable Sources engage in this trivia. Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely unencyclopedic list. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 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 Rizin Fighting Federation. And perhaps merge if that survives AfD. Sandstein 11:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rizin Fighting Federation 1[edit]

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

Article consists of virtually no text and is entirely a listing of results. I found no significant coverage of this event except for the reporting of results. Being the first event of an MMA organization is no guarantee of notability. Article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, while falling under WP:NOTNEWS. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As independent articles. Please note that there is an AfD debate for the parent article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizin Fighting Federation which if it survives the above articles should be merged - if it does not then these two should also go.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article consists of information concerning an internationally aired event in at least Japan, Russia, and the United States (on SpikeTV) in which notable fighters participated. I found significant coverage of this event beyond for the reporting of results. Being the first event of a major MMA organization is a guarantee of notability. Article easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. The nominator is either lying about his inability for finding sources or is too inept to actually know how to look for sources. Such sources as this actually do discuss the event and not just list results. It took all of three seconds to find that source via Google... Not to mention coverage in non-MMA specific press, such as ESPN with this article among many. These articles showing coverage beyond just results and including coverage by mainstream press in the case of ESPN are but examples of many such sources. Unlike the lazy nominator, I have begun expanding the article taking into account the easily found reliable sources demonstrating notability as seen with these edits. Lastly, lest idiocy prevail, this article's content has at least been preserved [ http://www.historyandheadlines.com/rizin-fighting-federation-1/ here]. --24.112.230.227 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.112.230.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It is not a given that this is a major MMA organization having had only two events (arguably just one over two nights last month) and being the first event of any organization (major or otherwise) does not imply notability. It makes sense to have the first two (sic) events and the main article as one especially considering the duplication of references.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rizin Fighting Federation The events are not notable in themselves since routine sports coverage doesn't show notability. However, the main results are already incorporated into the federation's article.Mdtemp (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to events being notable in themselves due to unusually high sports coverage showing notability. --173.241.225.193 (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see another new IP from Ashland, Ohio. These events certainly didn't receive "unusually high sports coverage". Can you show how it received coverage like a Super Bowl or World Series?Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Papaursa... Unusually high for MMA. It was televised in multiple countries. Things to have to be the Super Bowl to be worthy of Wikipedia. --173.241.225.193 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If being televised was an indicator of notability, then every NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLB game could be considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. The FIRST event is not comparable to the 124th NHL, NBA, etc. game. Moreover, it is notable because of international coverage. It was not just aired in one country or just the local teams' networks. --24.112.230.227 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rizin Fighting Federation. Main article is not really so long that we would need separate sub-articles here at this point.--Staberinde (talk) 11:12, 16 January 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, following work by Rhododendrites. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Zhou[edit]

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

Self-promotion. A primary contributor is User:周玲安. Mys_721tx (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not start this article. The editor who created this article as "BettyZhou" is Jqcc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor has been notified of this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as, although the list of sources, none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement here, with my searches also finding nothing better than what seemed to be mostly passing mentions. Nothing compelling to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Obvious self-promotion, but googling her Chinese name reveals that she has some recognizability among die-hard NBA fans in China. Her Chinese social media pages also demonstrate quite a following (e.g. Instagram Sina Weibo). Keep page if all the junk on the page can be weeded out; I do realize it's much easier said than done. Timmyshin (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:TNT. Der yck C. 21:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise She is very notable in China. However the page is too detailed for a character like her. Unsourced and unverified contents should be deleted. Ueutyi (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now -she only has one notable credit and its for a minor role. Looks like she will be hosting her own series, but I think this article is getting ahead of itself and is way too grand/promotional -it should be a single paragraph and a filmography if anything at all Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If my mom were also my publicist, she would write the sort of article that existed at the time of nomination. That said, there are nearly sufficient sources in English to justify WP:BIO, and it looks like there are a whole lot of non-English sources such that I'm confident she's notable. I cut it from 54,000 bytes of gushing to 3,500 bytes of basic information, then added a bit. In other words, I effectively carried out a WP:TNT (perhaps those leaning towards that outcome would reconsider?). Is it a good article? Not particularly, no. But I think she's a notable person, the article no longer contains any unsourced or promotional material, and it seems worth keeping as it stands. I'll keep it on my watchlist, though, because holy crap. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mys 721tx, SwisterTwister, Deryck Chan, and Burroughs'10: does your position change any, given my quasi-TNT? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per well needed deletions performed by Rhododendrites. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new version by User:Rhododendrites. Thank you. Der yck C. 11:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhodendendrites -- good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new version satisfies notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Also because of "Sensual NBA." Really?TheBlueCanoe 23:36, 11 January 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. Should anyone want this restored to draft or user space to work on please let me know. Michig (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Bohbot[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Unencyclopaedic language, not that that matters at this point :P FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify Created just yesterday. Send it through AfC to give the editor a chance to add sources. LaMona (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Style of writing has been improved upon and article has been reduced to stub to give editors the opportunity to provide more sources.Cleojason (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is lack of notability. No amount of sources will matter when the subject is non-notable. If he achieves notability in the future, submit a draft through AfC. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Bohbot meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC for notability. He has a number of references about him which are independent sources. [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. Most of the articles that were published about him were done when he was just 16 years of age. Someone who was still in High School and was already getting that coverage? If that is not notability, then I would like to know what is. He dropped his debut album at just 17 and it rose to No. 42 on the iTunes electronic music chart.[56] At that young age, he opened for Hardwell who was then number one DJ in the world,[57] and currently number 2 in the world.[58]. With the sources present before us, I do not think deleting this article is the right course to take.Cleojason (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; everything is just primary sources, news reports about what he's up to at the moment. If that is not notability, then I would like to know what is. Notability is appearances in secondary sources, stuff published years after he pops into the news, whether by general historians, music historians, people studying the history of the area where he's from, etc. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mandatory for the publications to be made years after? That is neither stated in WP:MUSIC nor WP:GNG Cleojason (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works created at the time of an event are primary sources, by definition; secondary sources are those that rely on the primary sources, and given the speed of the publication process, it will be essentially impossible for secondary sources to be published before a few years pass. Nyttend (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy if needed as this is sourced but I'm not sure if it's a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 9 January 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.