< 28 May	30 May >

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Krysicka Janniger[edit]

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

A tricky one, but after careful consideration I have decided to submit to the Community for deletion discussion.

The article is written like an advertisement: plenty of fantastic claims but none backed up. No third-party sources, to be clear.
The subject does not fulfill WP:NACADEMIC, at least in the light of the statements and sources. She is not a chair or editor of any "major, well-established academic journal" (the mentioned Cutis is none such thing - ~~it does not even have an impact factor~~ Correction: it had an impact factor but so low that they omitted it from their website; and she was only a "section editor".). Her only claim to honorary membership is "member honoris causa" of "Kuwait Society of Dermatology" which however has no Internet presence if it at all exists.
The subject's only other claim to significance would be one where she is mentioned as "co-founder" of the Independent Students' Union. However, that article paints a different picture of the Union and its founding and does not mention Krysicka (nor her university) at all. Again an unsourced claim.
The three references to academic journals are bordering refspam - not sure what they are to prove (WP:PRIMARY). Of course, I don't need to say that having published in an academic journal does not automatically entitle to a Wikipedia article.

Roger Brooks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is advertising. I tried to reduce it to a reasonable article, but found that there was too little of substance,. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing actually suggesting any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBIO - not a subject of any significant publication or study. Merely being quoted in the press does not establish notability per WP:BIO. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still see him in the papers all the time, but I haven't looked at this page in years so have no strong opinion about it. Most of the articles are about his work in small towns, not just being quoted, but again no strong opinion. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 16:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of the coverage is passing mentions. Some of the references which have a bit more substance are either local sources or non-reliable sources. I still cannot see any particular reason or exceptional work this tourism expert is notable for. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 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 02:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otar Kiteisvhili[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, just like they did last week. I've reported the user here, so hopefully this stupidity can end. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Both (the other was CSD'd so I'm not sure about it) haven't played in a fully professional league or a full international team. One of these is required for the subject to pass the notability guidelines for footballers. A quick go ogle search find no evidence of either people passing the general notability guideline. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one that was speedy deleted was a copyvio, but it was also the recreation of an article deleted by PROD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as there's nothing convincing for independent notability for separate articles. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 5 June 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 02:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Das Dunkle Land (EP)[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Single ref to Discogs merely establishes the existence of the album, but not notability. Couldn't find anything better. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely any content, no claim of notability. I think a prod could have dealt with this one. And how exactly is a 1-track CD an 'EP'? --Michig (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator previously removed the PROD I placed on the Barzin (EP) article they also created, so I thought it best to bring both here. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG and does not appear to meet ~~WP:NALBUM~~ WP:NSONG, per several source searches, such as those using the Find sources template atop this discussion as well as custom searches ([10], [11]). No prejudice against deletion and then redirecting to ~~Vic Anselmo~~ something. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not surprising of course there's nothing for independent notability as it was only a one-time album with nothing else to suggest anything better otherwise, simply nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why do people keep calling this an album and referring to WP:NALBUM? It's a one-track single lasting 5 minutes. I don't see any point in keeping this as a redirect, as it isn't an EP either, so this title wouldn't be much use. It's also a cover version, so if there was a redirect from Das Dunkle Land, Das Ich would probably be a better target. And what on earth is a "one-time album"? --Michig (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 00:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glowpoint Inc.[edit]

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

Likely non-notable. A total orphan on the encyclopedia. The five references are generic company pages on finance sites like Yahoo and Google and one press release. A Google search yields a lot of generic company pages, press releases but no notable news coverage, plus an unrelated hotel in Mexico. Raymie (t • c) 19:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a few news articles covering the company establishing notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those seem to be press releases, cursory mentions, and automated items from financial sites like Seeking Alpha. Raymie (t • c) 05:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No significant third-party coverage. Automatic stock quotes do not count, nor do press releases using PRNewswire. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also as there could be minimally better if we wanted to accept, but the questionable solidity is still at question and none of this is suggesting better for that thus Delete. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
1. Pappalardo, Denise (2003-10-13). "Glowpoint branching out into Webcasting". Network World. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Glowpoint, known until last month as Wire One Technologies, says it will expand beyond videoconferencing services and into Webcasting by year-end.
  The company, which earlier this month shed its videoconferencing product line to focus exclusively on services, says it Glowpoint Webcasting offering will let existing videoconferencing customers set up on-demand or live streaming-media sessions over the company's network.
2. Morley, Hugh R. (2005-10-06). "GlowPoint loses its spot on Nasdaq - Accounting trouble cited in delisting". The Record. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  The Nasdaq delisted Hillside-based GlowPoint on Wednesday because of accounting problems.
  The supplier of videoconferencing services said in a statement that market officials were not satisfied with GlowPoint's compliance plan to remedy deficiencies in its financial reporting.
  ...
  Nasdaq's decision followed a Sept. 15 hearing of the market's Listing Qualifications Panel. GlowPoint - which expects now to trade on Pink Sheets - said it is considering whether to appeal.
  The delisting marred a day that otherwise would have been a good one for GlowPoint, which was created in 2000 when it was spun off from WireOne, a seller of videoconferencing gear.
3. McKay, Martha (2004-06-02). "GlowPoint connects with Sony - Hillside firm makes deal to offer videoconferencing on broadband". The Record. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  GlowPoint's network operates on three continents and carries on average more than 20,000 video calls per month, according to the company. Since the network was introduced in 2000, GlowPoint has carried more than 23 million (Internet Protocol) video minutes.
  GlowPoint's IP-based network aims to make videoconferencing - historically a tricky technology to operate - as easy to use as possible.
  The system features a video answering machine that lets customers record an "outgoing" video message that can be displayed if they aren't available.
4. McKay, Martha (2004-10-12). "GlowPoint's video 'voice mail' adds a face to that message". The Record. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  GlowPoint sells broadcast-quality, Internet Protocol-based videoconferencing service. The company is publicly traded and has a network that spans three continents and carries on average more than 20,000 video calls per month worldwide.
5. Coughlin, Kevin (2005-06-22). "GlowPoint streams onto Russell index". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  This week, GlowPoint (ticker: GLOW) joins the new Russell Microcap Index, which will track 1,000 small-cap securities for institutional investors. "It's a vote of confidence, it's recognition, elevating our visibility to the investors we're looking to target - the institutional investors," GlowPoint Chief Executive David Trachtenberg said. Since 2000, GlowPoint has relayed more than 23 million minutes of video via the Internet for business teleconferences and broadcasters. The 100-employee company, which had $16 million in revenue last year, is hoping this year to end a string of annual losses.
6. Coughlin, Kevin; Johnson, Tom (2005-10-12). "Application allows dolls to recognize their owners". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Glowpoint, which has been sending broadcast-quality video via the Internet since 2000, said in a statement its business model remains premised on being an independent company, but added it is appropriate to explore strategic partnerships at this time.
  The company said there can be no assurance that a review of strategic alternatives will result in a transaction of any nature.
  While Glowpoint provides two-way video communications to thousands of business and government locations and broadcast services to leading networks and sports organizations, it has posted losses for much of its existence.
7. Stamler, Bernard (2000-10-25). "Making Face-to-Face Time Possible on the PC". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  A similar service, the Glowpoint IP Video Communications Network, is to be offered next month by Wire One Technologies, a videoconferencing services company in Hillsdale, N.J. (The company was formed earlier this year by the merger of All Communications and View Tech.) It consists of a network backbone provided by Exodus Communications and D.S.L. connections to Glowpoint customers provided by Covad Communications.
  Glowpoint was tested successfully in September, said Kelly Harman, a vice president of marketing at Wire One. Like those of QVSB, its customers will be able to call people inside and outside the network, if they have the requisite broadband access. According to Ms. Harman, Glowpoint will be offering subscriptions to customers for as low as $199 a month.
8. Glowpoint is a publicly traded corporation. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
  http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/analystResearch?symbol=GLOW.A^WebCite lists several analyst reports about Glowpoint:
  1. Published 27 May 2016 by Thomson Reuters Stock Report (12 pages). "Glowpoint Inc (GLOW-A) Thomson Reuters Stock Report."
  2. Published 26 May 2016 by New Constructs, LLC (10 pages). "GLOW: Due Diligence Review: Forensic Earnings and Valuation."
  3. Published 20 May 2016 by Pechala's Reports (2 pages). "GLOWPOINT INC (GLOW=US) - SHORT AND LONG TERM FORECASTS FOR ACTIVE TRADERS."
  4. Published 20 May 2016 by Reuters Investment Profile (12 pages). "Glowpoint Inc: Business description, financial summary, 3yr and interim financials, key statistics/ratios and historical ratio analysis."
  5. Published 15 May 2016 by Thomson Reuters Stock Report (12 pages). "Thomson Reuters Stock Report - Glowpoint Inc (GLOW-A)."
  6. Published 10 May 2016 by GlobalData (33 pages). "Glowpoint, Inc. (GLOW) - Financial and Strategic SWOT Analysis Review."
  7. Published 6 May 2016 by Wright Reports (56 pages). "Wright Investors Service Comprehensive Report for Glowpoint, Inc."
Here is coverage of the company when it was known as "Wire One Technologies":
1. Johnson, Tom (2001-10-30). "Wire One plugged in at the right time". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  The economy may be slowing, but that hasn't sidetracked Wire One Technologies Inc., a Hillside-based video conferencing company.
  Its stock has nearly doubled in the past six weeks, and a recent survey named it one of the nation's fastest-growing technology companies. And even before Sept. 11, the market for videoconferencing was booming.
  ...
  The network, launched in December 2000, aims to solve problems that had hindered videoconferencing in the past - poor quality and poor reliability.
  Richard Reiss, chairman and chief executive of Wire One, said his new Glowpoint network allows the company to deliver CNN-quality video at half the price of using a traditional phone-line based video conference network.
2. May, Jeff (2001-10-22). "With business travel grounded, more companies are discovering videoconferencing - and its infuriating drawbacks". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Wire One Technologies, the largest independent provider of videoconferencing service in the United States, estimates its business jumped 20 percent, according to Richard Reiss, chief executive of the Hillside-based firm. AT&T Corp. reports the same boost in volume.
3. "Made In New Jersey - Wire One Technologies". The Star-Ledger. 2001-10-18. Archived from the original on 2016-05-30. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
  The article notes:
  
  WHAT IT DOES: The company provides a range of video communications services, including an Internet protocol-based network for video conferencing. Wire One counts 2,500 companies on its growing list of customers.
  EMPLOYEES: 265.
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Richard Reiss, chairman, president and CEO.
  ABOUT THE BUSINESS: The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may change some things in the business world, and Wire One is likely to be among the benefactors as more companies opt for video conferencing to conduct business. In August, the company raised $11 million by selling shares of stock to limited institutional investors. The money will help pay for expanding the companys Internet protocol-based video communications network. Wire Ones growth isnt going unnoticed. Bloomberg Personal Finance magazine put the company on its new list of the 100 fastest growing tech companies.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Glowpoint to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all short company profiles and not independent press coverage or analyst reports. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The analyst reports listed by Reuters here are not "short company profiles". The page lists a 12-page Reuters Investment Profile of Glowpoint, a 56-page Wright Reports report for Glowpoint, and a 32-page GlobalData "Analysis Review" of Glowpoint among other analyst reports.
There is also substantial coverage of Glowpoint in Network World, The Star-Ledger, and The Record.
Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it that Reuters, et al., offer analyses of every single company noted on major stock exchanges? I would think so, and in such a case these investor reports should be considered technical documents and not factors that establish any notability per se. — kashmiri ^TALK 08:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per the coverage about Glowpoint and Wire One Technologies. In addition to sources presented above by Cunard, below are some more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HW Fisher & Company[edit]

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

Unable to find anything that establishes WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a ton of references in Google News, but mainly brief mentions about studies or quotes from people related to the firm. CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References I could find are passing mentions about the subject which is not sufficient for WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Mwenzangu (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found nothing better and it's only active at two localities, nothing at all to suggest anything otherwise notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swathi Lakra[edit]

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

Mid-level police officer (not the top ranking at the city level). Coverage is essentially in the form of notifications regarding postings and transfers and one program of the Hyderabad police. Nothing to suggest that the subject meets either WP:GNG or any of the SNGs —SpacemanSpiff 15:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - She Is one of the renowned Police Officers in the City & She has Introduced "SHE TEAMS" Against Eve Teasing which Acclaimed A huge Response from the Citizens , The article also Inlcudes the She teams . I Strongly recommend to keep the Article --Ramsingh 15:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsinghdeena (talk • contribs)

I have struck this comment. Ramsinghdeena is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop/Archive. Voceditenore (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see multiple independent secondary sources specifically focused on her and her work. That meets GNG in my understanding. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too feel the same way. --Muzammil (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feelings are all fine, but I haven't come across any such sources in my search, so please do provide them. If such sources do exist I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. —SpacemanSpiff 19:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per coverage found by following WP:INDAFD here AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is still questionable overall for solid notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per sources available about the subject, perhaps on a weaker level, but still meets the guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to meet the basic notability criteria for individual persons. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- did not need to be delisted, there is consensus already. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reviewing admin may need to watch out for vote stacking. The article creator is reported to be part of a politicised "team" and it may be worth comparing contributors to this discussion with those at related past discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ira_Singhal. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is trivial posting stuff and clearly driven by people seeking to boost her profile. Indian newspapers, other than The Hindu, are notoriously lax at actually checking sources and will publish pretty much any puff piece. She doesn't appear to have done anything special other than achieved a few name-checks for that reason. Just another mid-ranking officer doing their job and climbing the greasy pole. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment- I was bit surprised by the decisions of continous relistings , though there was Clear Majority of wikipedian's to keep the Article . --Ramsingh 08:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsinghdeena (talk • contribs)

I have struck this comment. Ramsinghdeena is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop/Archive. Voceditenore (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her job does not confer notability in itself and I do not see multiple significant coverage of her even via the WP:INDAFD search tool [12] noted by AusLondonder above. Did any of you opining "keep" actually read the articles listed by that tool or read or watch the "references" currently in the article, including the videos? I see one puff-piece article in the Deccan Chronicle [13] which consists of her talking about herself; a brief announcement-article in The Hindu stating that she had taken up a post in 2012 (with zero biographical information); an article about how her house caught fire in 2009 in New Indian Express; and name-checks/brief quotes related to her doing her job, one aspect of which is talking to the media about police initiatives in the city. The V6 interview [14] is not about her. It's her talking about how the "She Teams" initiative will work. The puffery and "interview" in The Hans India is worthless. Observe this "article" they published about the creator of Swathi Lakra, replicating the New Indian Express piece about him, complete with puffery and outright lies. Furthermore, I see no evidence whatsoever that she actually founded the "She Teams" (a local initiative) even in the Deccan Chronicle interview. In another Deccan Chronicle piece specifically devoted to the initiative [15] (and used in this article as a reference), she is not mentioned at all. The IBN video [16] (used as a reference) doesn't load. But given that the current article is full of bogus references which do not even mention her, I would be amazed if it were devoted to her. Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A minor cog in the city police administration. For reference, there are 9 Additional/Joint commissioners in the city of Hyderabad and nothing she has done merits a standalone article. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per arguments presented by Sitush and Voceditenore, and due to the lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. The evident attempts to game the system are not helpful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep, I am surprised. More than the decision of the learned contributors of Wikipedia, the contents are surprising. I do not know how many of you understand the government functioning. Swati Lakra is an IPS officer, who is currently in the rank of Inspector General (3rd highest in the state). As per the existing laws of the land, for cities like Hyderabad, where the density of population, crime rat are high and political, communal and religious violence can never be anticipated, only an IPS personnel who is of an IG rank can be posted as the commissioner of police. However, throughout the country, in government, more than the skills, ability and efficiency, it's seniority which would be a deciding factor for any position and hence Swati Lakra is currently an Addl. Commissioner of Police.

Further, 'She Teams' is an initiative of Swati Lakra and since she is the Addl. Commissioner of police the initiative is considered that of the department's. She has also recently came up with another initiative called 'Bharosa', a one stop crisis centre for women. She has been doing a lot for the women, particularly and needs to be applauded for her service instead of criticism. I request the admin to kindly reinvestigate the matter before making a judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.209.154 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — 106.220.209.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Were you canvassed to comment here? I know that the article creator has admitted to working as a team. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am a social activist and am closely watching the police department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.38.66 (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sockpuppetry blocks relating to this, I don't think cavassing is the main issue here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having a medium to high level police position isn't inherently notable, and the here-and-there mentioning of her and her work only seem to be run-of-the-mill coverage, nothing special for major officers. Whether or not she's doing a good job, has helped a lot of people, etc doesn't affect notability guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. If I were to close this today, I would close it as delete, completely discounting all of the keep !votes because all of them say, there are sources, but none of them actually cite any. That would almost certainly be DRV-bait, so instead I'm relisting this for another week, in the hopes that those people who !voted to keep can provide some specific examples of sources which meet WP:GNG, etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Routine press coverage of appointments and transfers does not confer notability (see WP:MILL), especially that all such appointments have to be published as per Indian law. Also, note how the "keep" !votes above came all together instantly after nomination, but virtually not a single established editor supported keeping the article afterwards; which may be suggestive of vote stacking. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a fair statement and I suggest that you withdraw it. There are at least two keep participants whose work I'm sort of familiar with (though we obviously disagree here) even if we haven't interacted and another two who tend to ask to keep always; it's unfair to say that those participants (save for the socks) are here on some ulterior motive.—SpacemanSpiff 14:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "...which may be suggestive of", so technically there is no statement that can be withdrawn. But thanks for allaying my doubts. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Philippine Social Science Counci. Redirect to Philippine Social Science Council once that article is created. MBisanz ^talk 12:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo Social Science Research Center[edit]

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

Non-notable research centre. WP:BEFORE turns up insufficient independent sources to pass WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pinging reviewer User:SwisterTwister for comment. Mwenzangu (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for retention. ASSRC is very much involved in studies for the social betterment of the people, and receives independent coverage for its efforts. Please see additional references added, that tend to support its claims of a plethora of research projects (on its website).Jzsj (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as there's particularly nothing convincing to suggest its own solid notability from the university and that's not surprising. I apparently never got this ping but I will also invite DGG for his familiarity with this subject. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philippine Social Science Council -- the article will have to be made first. This is one of its 10 divisions. It should not be redirected to the university, since it is merely located there. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 5 June 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, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Zulqarnain Zulfi[edit]

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

A young journalist, author of a few English-language articles in local press in Jammu & Kashmir, seemingly of no independent fame. I was unable to find any third-party mentions (his profile on the newspaper's website does not really count). Does not fulfil a single notability criterion under WP:NJOURNALIST. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Kashmiri Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this all only suggests he's apparently known locally but nothing actually acceptable for the applicable notability thus nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 5 June 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 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanovar[edit]

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

Per WP:Politician. Unelected politician for minor branch party. RaviC (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to passing WP:NPOL, and not nearly enough sourcing shown to get him over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all here for any applicable notability, nothing convincing at all for basic notability also. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 5 June 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 and also note the withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RVD (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Nomination has been withdrawn It seems that this does not pass WP:TWODABS because Rob Van Dam is considered as primary topic while Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst, the Netherlands Government information Service, is not. Is it considered to retain and move RVD (disambiguation) to RVD as 2-dab page or delete and change the hatnote for RVD. You judge on that. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 18:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the link to Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia should be restored per WP:Don't be a dick. Siuenti (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dug up ~~another entry~~ two more entries, so there are now ~~four~~ five. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just keep those entries added for possible RVD. Let's see if Rob Van Dam is still a primary topic or not. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 04:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid dab page. Possibly debate whether the wrestler is or is not the Primary topic. PamD 08:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid dab page with several entries. Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no problem if this will be kept since more entries are added to that disambiguation page. Let's see if this will be closed. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 3oWh pF0wHz, would you consider withdrawing your nomination? Then it can be closed without waiting for a week. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Boleyn Well, let's close this one instead since Siuenti and Clarityfiend added the possible entry for RVD. When I post for the deletion, only two dabs are shown, namely Rob Van Dam and Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst. When the other possible entries are added by those two users, it seems more users are unanimously agreed to keep the dab page instead. So there's no doubt that this dab is valid. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 07:04, 1 June 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 Asylum in the United States. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT asylum seekers in the United States[edit]

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

As written, this is basically just a WP:DICDEF of a concept, supported by a single historical factoid and the existence of a couple of factsheets on the topic -- and the only viable path to expansion I can see would violate WP:NOTHOWTO. There's certainly a place for content about this in LGBT rights in the United States and Asylum in the United States, but I just don't see that this needs its own separate article as a standalone topic in its own right. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's a good thing to merge it to expand the article. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Asylum in the United States. This probably shouldn't have been an AFD... even the nom seems to think it should be merged, which can be easily done without article deletion. At most, an RFC, but a quick question on the talk page for a day or two before just being bold would likely have been sufficient. Fieari (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mazzone[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based primarily on blogs, of an artist whose only discernible claim of notability is that he was once called "the next Andy Warhol" by a venture capitalist with no particularly noteworthy track record of expertise in identifying next Andy Warhols. There's nothing here that's even really quantifiable in terms of whether he passes WP:CREATIVE or not, so it's WP:GNG or bust -- but with just one appropriately reliable source here, this is WP:TOOSOON at best. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability improve enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources Mduvekot (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for Daniel Mazzone:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/meet-the-finance-bro-turned-artist-that-jose-bautista-commissioned-to-make-his-portrait http://elitedaily.com/envision/artist-next-andy-warhol-photos/1032905/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.255.83 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered PROD, simply nothing at all whatsoever for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 5 June 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 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway 123 (Greece)[edit]

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

The A123 motorway does not appear to exist. The alleged section only has blue signs and no references to that specific number, and no green motorway signs. I think this is another example of over-ambition by the Greek government. Marianian^(talk) 16:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a good look around on Google Maps, and there is no road connecting the places this article purports it to. I am also doubting the existence of the A24 on this basis, as both articles rely on a single self-published source. Rcsprinter¹²³ (prattle) 00:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorway 581 (Greece) from last month. http://www.highwaymaps.eu/greece seems to be the opposite of http://motorways-exitlists.com/europe/gr/greece.htm in that it is missing some motorways that definitely exist, whereas exitlists has some dubious claims. Either way, the lack of sources for Motorway 123 leads me to say delete. Also doubting the existence of ~~A24, and~~ others with spotty sources like A4 and A52. "Pepper" @ 04:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A full list of current motorways is according to this recent Government Gazette publication. --Marianian^(talk) 07:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wonderful. Comment stricken about A24, which the government recognizes. "Pepper" @ 00:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's nothing to suggest its own notable article, would be best as part of another article. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 5 June 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 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Weeds[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician who self-releases his own albums on a self-owned record label, and whose only genuinely substantive or properly sourced indication of notability is owning a single jazz bar in a single city. This is not enough to get him over our inclusion rules for musicians, and every bar owner in existence doesn't get an automatic notability freebie either -- if he could actually be sourced over WP:GNG then that would be one thing, but one reference isn't enough to confer "notability because media coverage exists" on a person who doesn't pass any SNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds is much more than that on the West Coast Canadian Jazz scene, and while the article doesn't currently reflect it, I believe there are enough sources to back this up. KEEP Bugcrusher (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to believe there are enough sources to get a person over WP:GNG. If the article's not claiming anything that would constitute an automatic pass of a subject-specific inclusion guideline like WP:NMUSIC, then it has to be explicitly shown that the sources to cover off an "include anyway because GNG" pass do exist; merely theorizing that better sources might exist does not cut it. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I had encountered but made no immediate attempts at deletion because I had found some websites that could be used, but at best it seems I have found nothing else actually better. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements either for a business-person or a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 5 June 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 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement Fight[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. The sources that do pop up when "Settlement Fight" is searched are not related to the subject of this page. Meatsgains (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the article and I think it's fair to say that this was a mistake, especially in hindsight. With the only independent sources no longer being accessible and the game itself not even existing it's certainly not notable. Sellyme^Talk 18:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. It looks like this never really got any attention from the VG reliable sources. There are no useful hits from the VG/RS search, and regular Google searches turn up little more than Wikipedia mirrors and unrelated hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing at all for any applicable notability, nothing to suggest the necessary improvements for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 June 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 (G11) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circular 360[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete kind of WP:PROMO and def unsourced, also upcoming so even if it is popular, WP:TOOSOON Sheepythemouse (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I tagged as such, nothing at all for any applicable notability, promotional is noticeable and nothing else to suggest fixing. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jim Crow (archetype)[edit]

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

Article is a content fork of Thomas D. Rice. Suggest merge with that page and redirect Jim Crow (character) to the Rice article. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to get the article through AfD process in order to accomplish it, because content merging does not involve article deletion. Just BE BOLD. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am merging per advice above. As far as I can see, there is almost nothing worth merging. I will prod after merge.Pincrete (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is SNOWing and a week has shown nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Danel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hi all.

After a long discussion on FR, the community decided that the original article (which is copied here) and its sources were not close enough to the minimum that is demanded to write, and keep, an article of a decent level in terms of fact-checking. Over the years and despite what is, obviously, a successful carreer as a producer, Danel's communication team has "killed" his e-reputation by promoting him in such an exagerated way that it's now almost impossible to determine what can be trustworthy and what's not. We've asked for serious, independant secondary sources for years and still, all we got is short video extracts with no context whatsoever, pure numbers on charts, interviews and many short articles that are too close to a promotional work to be used. Despite his long carreer, no-one has seen fit to write any kind of serious article in the French or international musical press. I'm not stating here that Danel does not deserve recognition as a great producer; but most of them, despite their commercial successes, remain in the shadow of their artists. So let's say that yes, Danel is one of the big producers in France. He does not, though, produce mainstream artists that could be known enough to bring him some form of notoriety in return. He wrote a truckload of books but none of them was published by a major publisher, nor criticized in a major magazine, and the same applies to his carreer as a guitarist. Without wanting to be rude, he's not considered as a guitar hero, but rather just as a rich collector of fine guitars, who plays them well enough, just like thousands of other guitarists.

I must also say that, while checking sources around Danel (it started 6 years ago and nothing's changed for the best), several contributors and myself found out that the numbers given for album sales often varied from source to source, that sometimes, a foreign chart was renamed in order to make it appear as a national or international chart, etc.: globally, it was, and still is, very difficult to find any reliable source, for any album, any piece of work in general or any biographic element. To this day, in most cases, it's hard to be affirmative about whether a source is directly from Danel's team or from a serious, neutral journalist or music professional, because of the total lack of reference to Danel's name in clearly notorious mainstream music media.

As a conclusion, Danel does many things, with many more or less famous people. As a result, he managed to become more or less famous himself as a Parisian "jet-setter", but we can safely assume that it's more a less, as he's still totally unknown from the public, mainstream media, etc. Out of a very limited network of music and show business professionals, the name Danel rings a bell to almost no-one in France, where he is supposed to be the most well-known.

This article's equivalent on FR was, in the end, considered as a "cas d'école" (typical example) of what autopromotion can lead to, in terms of misuse of the internet tool, twisting sources, etc. Over more than six years, the result is that it became so hard to believe in anything related to Danel that the Fench-speaking community, out of precaution, prefered to simply delete an article about someone who, as a producer, certainly could have had an article, had he agreed to be considered as just this. Alchemica (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Pure lies !! See the links hereunder, above many others :

This discussion is ridiculous and is created to trouble JP Danel's image and credibility. JP Danel is the subject of a little haters war, on a French forum where someone made a appeal to saccage his wikipedia pages, all that based on false allegations (such a officially certified gold disc could be a false anyway (even presented by Sony's CEO), charts positions are not proofs, TV show appearences doesn't make someone an artist, etc.). The forum celebrated the deletion of the French JP Danel article as a victory. Now they want to spread this everywhere.

Only a record producer? Read the guitar press ! Hear Brian May's and Hank Marvin tributes on the video linked here under ! Check duets with Albert Lee and Scott Henderson ! Ridiculous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.245.178 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His records are not published by a major company ? Sony Music...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.245.178 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His last album was at #7 in the charts last Marxh (as seen from the link on the us article) and is tv advertised as we speak (as all his albums it seems), see link.

He just received a platinum disc a few days ago : http://www.purepeople.com/article/pascal-danel-tres-fier-de-son-fils-jean-pierre-reunion-de-famille-en-platine_a186328/1

Biggest shops in France offer his albums and books : http://www.e-leclerc.com/espace+culturel/artiste/jean-pierre-danel/liste

Check him on iTunes, and you will see. There are tons of articles in the press, but not always available on the web. Then, on the web, there are also lots of things.

Here are some recent links I found :

A trailer with testimonies of various French and international stars + CEOS of Sony and Warner Music : http://www.dailymotion.com/jpdanel

A prime time tv show last march : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4c4i1k_jean-pierre-danel-michael-jones-medley-live-mars-2016_music

A show on national tv with a 6 minutes subject on his gold discs and guitar collection : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4c1exf_jean-pierre-danel-pascal-danel-interview-et-reportage-tv-mai-2016-guitar-tribute_music

The article includes a number of links, and there are many others available. This a disparagement campaign. Wikipedia should not let people play such a game. I followed what happened in France, and that was absolutly insane. Professionnal journalists were schoked on told it on Facebook. On wikipedia article about Danel, someone even wrote on the French page he was a porn movie composer and addict ! Pure diffamations. One shouldn't let such things be done on wikipedia. I think the page must be protected from vanndalims. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.245.178 (talk • contribs) 08:48, May 29, 2016‎

For your information

Jean-Pierre Danel has publicly called his friends on his Facebook page to come on Wikipedia to write against the procedure of deletion (on french side) So, can you semi-protect this page before all this become a big mess, please ? As you can already see, you'll see a lot of anonymous ip this page ! Thank you. Icezackazilov (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are again ! The same French little gang of jealous amateur guitarists. They want to finish the job. So, the opinion of a very, very few unknown people would be more reliable than well know professionnals. Just check the video. Most respected French guitar journalist Christian Seguret, talks about Danel playing with admiration, + very nice compliments by Brian May, Hank Marvin, well known French artists, etc. This is completly ridiculous. A few people decided to join and kill his image on the web. That's insane. Check the links. The platinum discs last week is for his last live guitar show, not as a producer. This is inbelievable. The guy was unhappy on his FB page ? I saw that - he had some reasons.--Kart (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I DIDN'T VOTE for the deletion of the french page. So your accusations are very serious. In addition, your contributions on Wikipedia relate almost exclusively pages about this artist. And although we had agreed together that sources from YouTube (or Dailymotion)from the artist's user account were not acceptable sources you keep discreetly adding them. You're not neutral. Icezackazilov (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral ?! is it a joke ? a group of people called to kill this guy's image, as I read because he's supposed to be a wealthy guy, and they would be neutral ? They called on vandalism, and they succeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kart (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So give us some links please !Icezackazilov (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kart, you should go easy on name-calling. I've been an "administrateur" on French Wikipedia for ten years now: you're implying that I've moved the debate from FR (a debate in which I voted keep, FYI) to EN for the sole pleasure of ruining Danel's reputation. ("Because he's wealthy?" Come on, as if we had any interest in such childish, stupid things: we're not even paid for all the pain we have to endure with regular contributors...) The problem is that I don't give the slightest flying damn about him or his talent as a guitarist. I only care about being able to tell right from wrong, with sources that abide to Wikipedia's rules of solid fact-checking. Now our IP friend above replied to almost everything I said with : "lies", "dailymotion", "commercial link" and so on. WHERE ARE the tons of articles, signed by renown professionals, that a well-known artist, maybe the independant producer with the most gold/platinum/diamond disks and DVDs ever in France (allegedly, 195+ as of today), should logically be the subject of? How come a guy like him only gathers less than 1000 Facebook likes, while he's supposed to be superfamous, sponsored by May and Marvin? Because he's not. It's not envy (that's the proper term, not jealousy), it's a simple fact: he's far from being superfamous, far from being the subject of many quality sources because he's nothing more than a guy who does his job well, quite far from what interests the public. VERY far from what makes a solid article here on WP. According to himself, Danel doesn't really care about being on WP or not. Fine by me. On the contrary, I really believe that keeping articles such as this one, flawed with so many problems, biased sources and global lack of quality, is a problem for WP. It's quite obvious that Danel tries to drop his name as often as possible, which is not a bad thing anywhere else, since it's the business' rule. But here, we should not let people dictate their way of promoting their work to Wikipedia, otherwise we'll never be done with it. Alchemica (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remind what has been written in the conversation on the French site. Hundreds of links have been provided (Billboard, SENP, V shows, artciles, interviews, reviews, etc.). You refused them all. When it's paper press, you say it's not possible to check online (so the articles reproduced on the artist's web site are supposed to be fakes!). When it's online, it's not serious enough. When it's a major TV show with Danel as a guest as an artist, you say it just shows he's a jet-setter with some high profile relations but not an artist, when it's a link to a gold disc certification by French Producers Syndicate, you say it means nothing, when it's a TV documentary about his gold discs (as an artist and as a producer) you say it's not a proof, when it's a link to the charts, you say it's not a proof either, when it's a video with big names paying tribute to him, you say they've been paid for that, when it's a review, you say it can only be good because it's written by Danel himself or paid by him, when a gold disc presentation is not filmed, you say it's a proof it doesn't exist, and when it's filmed, you say it shows Danel is really a nobody, because if he was someone, he wouldn't need to have it filmed... Etc. Well, and I am supposed to be "not neutral" ? You refuse all the evidence. Last March he released an album. It's on itunes etc. In all the shops as well. It's done Sony Music. The dvd got a gold and then a platinum disc (links a presentations on video, articles, TV ad, etc.), it includes duets with French stars and international guests as well, the album is on the SNEP website ranked #7 in the charts (link here on this very article, please check), there's a TV advertising as we speak (saw it yesterday again), etc. And then, you and your friends say : "all this doesn't show any professional activity. The guy is just simeone who would like to enter the show biz world and doesn't access to it..."" And you should be taken seriously ? --Stratospheric (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact. There are some people who want him out, for some reasons. You could ad MTV link and so and so. Whatever...--Kart (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that in the shows you mention, the first show (the Jacky's one) was broadcasted on a local channel (not a national) and on the other one (FR2) Jean-Pierre Danel was the guest of a guest... So that source was not focused on the subject of the article. Be honest, please.

False allegation : the TV doc is about JP Danel alone for 6 minutes, starting at 17'38 I guess. And the other TV show where he plays live, have you seen it? It's national. Prime time. Danel's album is shown by the host while he's playing live, in a duet with a famous singer. You try to diminish everything this guy does... --Kart (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the rest of the Wikipedia US community, you must know that Stratospheric publicly admitted (on FR Wiki side) that he works for the artist's production company.Icezackazilov (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... Come on. It's not "people against JPD" versus "people for him". That's something of a bad fantasy. The "we" you're talking about does not even exist. "We" [people who voted for deletion. Oh wait, I didn't vote for deletion at first but I'm "one of them" anyway.]. "We" are not linked, part of a conspiration, speaking behind your backs, or anything like that. IT'S JUST THAT WE DON'T AGREE. (Yes, I shouted a bit.) You consider "us", people demanding solid sources, just like for any subject on Wikipedia, as some osbcure anti-Danel group and none of our arguments seems to suit you. Therefore, you keep on whining and giving us links that don't fit. (Or at least, did not fit on FR.) On the other side, "we", serious contributors, can't agree with your way of pushing forward and we keep on demanding correct sources instead. See? No conspiration. Provide enough quality sources to write a full, interesting biographic article and I promise I'd be the first to defend its existence. Now, when you say that "we" can't be taken seriously... Then tell me, why to you take us so seriously that you keep on wasting time here? Either you believe in Wikipedia, and in its contributors' sincerity: then, you should not worry about the article's future. Or, you don't trust Wikipedia: then, why insist on keeping articles about Danel here? Especially you, Stratospheric, since you work for JPD... You can't criticize a system on the one hand and, on the other hand, beg to remain a part of it. Make a choice, for God's sake... Alchemica (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I won't read the above discussion. He appears to pass WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The article, however, needs extensive cleanup, no doubt about it. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the immediate previous poster, I am totally disregarding the various discussions above. The ONLY relevant thing to consider is whether the subject passes the notability guidelines of the English Wikipedia, the guidelines or practices of other Wikipedias being irrelevant. I believe the subject clearly passes the notability guidelines found at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG and thus the article should definitely be kept. However, I agree that the article needs major cleanup and needs to be purged of unreliable sources, such as Youtube, etc. Safiel (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am philosophically opposed to WP:TNT. The subject meets notability standards. If there are problems with the article's sources, the solution is to remove the problematic sources, and any statements in the article that rely on them. If this brings the article down to a stub, fine, but if the subject is notable enough... and he is... then we should be able to find NON-problematic sources to expand it back out of the stub. Regardless... keep. Notable. Fieari (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems I was highly mistaken about the way things work here. I didn't know there were so many differences between the way we handled things on FR and the way people would rather see things done here, and I think that very interesting things were said above. I agree that the article should be reduced to what can be done with reliable sources and not erased. Sorry all for wasting your time, sincerely. Alchemica (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: only one album certified gold in France (not "191 gold and platinum discs" or maybe as a producer), but that is enough as per WP:MUSICBIO. Oliv0 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 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 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Burke[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources indicating notability. Does not meet any criteria in WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. Appears to be heavily edited by connected contributor, and primarily WP:PROMOTION. IamNotU (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. IamNotU (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as I wrote above. He was formerly a DJ on Virgin/Absolute Radio in the UK for some time. Perhaps that makes him notable, but the article has no references and I can't find any sources that give more than a passing mention of him, mainly about him leaving the radio station when it was sold. No existence of a fan club, or anything like that. There's a bio at the "Library Music Awards", but that doesn't seem to be a reliable/independent source. The article says he's "best known for his work creating film trailers and promos" - his ad agency seems to have some notable clients, but that doesn't make him notable himself. Again, I can't find any significant coverage of him, notable awards, etc. - the article seems like a Linked-In type of resumé page, mostly written by himself as far as I can tell. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches and custom source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC. Only finding passing mentions, such as these in TechCrunch and Variety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is quite obviously suggesting nothing at all for any applicable notability, its long history has also shown this and also considering his works show notihng else convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 5 June 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 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John De'Bey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just another joe doing a job.TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable producer/entrepreneur lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing to suggest his own actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 June 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 02:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher T. Carley[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable businessman. Quis separabit? 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with RMS since he is merely a developer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I waited to comment and there's simply nothing else to better emphasize how he's independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 5 June 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 (G11) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Saeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable enough biography. GreenCricket (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: almost wholly OR. Quis separabit? 14:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2017 Rugby League World Cup. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Rugby League World Cup Final[edit]

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

No Venue, Commentators, Referees, and time has been announced yet and the article has no references to justify the fake information RugbyLeagueFan (talk) 06:56, 27 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The solution on 19 November 2015 was to simply redirect to 2017 Rugby League World Cup, until such time as it's appropriate to have an article. Check the article history. wbm1058 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authorized Service Provider Assistant[edit]

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

Non-notable software product that is not mentioned in mainstream media and returns zero Google hits. Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are just directory listings and do nothing to establish notability of the software. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable software.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing for the applicable notability and nothing suggesting how it can be independently notable. SwisterTwister talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Nation of Islam[edit]

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

Article is largely content fork of Nation of Islam. Neither article is in great shape. This 'history' article goes 'off-topic', by duplicating material that belongs on other pages (splinters of NoI, beliefs of key figures in NoI etc). A merge was proposed in 2012, but I cannot find discussion. Propose deletion of this article and merge of any content with ' Nation' main article. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any material that isn't already there to Nation of Islam, then delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I doubt there's anything here worth merging back in. The history of NoI seems to be already fairly handled in the main article and this article looks to only add in a lot of unsourced OR. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current lack of proper wikification of references it is difficult to assess this article. However, I would encourage merging whatever can be sourced into Nation of Islam and Delete this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination statement. Violation of WP:CFORK.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination statement.FPTI (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing suggesting its own actually independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination statement. Violation of WP:CFORK.174.17.219.83 (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, nomination withdrawn and no votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone

Fateful Findings[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 21:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 21:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's got a reputation as a cult film: [17] from The Plain Dealer, [18] from Twitch Film, [19] from Las Vegas Weekly, [20] from Deadline.com, [21] from The Dissolve, [22] from Nathan Rabin at Rotten Tomatoes, and [23] from The Stranger. I'm sure there's more besides this, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added them to the article. There's still a lot more that could be said. This has been cited as an example of post-The Room so-bad-it's-good cinema. This really seems to have legs. There's sustained coverage from 2013 onward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per easily meeting the letter and intent of WP:NF even prior to it being thought non-notable by our well-intended nominator and pointed out here. Sorry BOVINEBOY, but multiple available sources existed for years, even if they were not used in the version you brought to AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 12:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7. The only reason for closing this as a speedy delete is because the author has requested deletion and there's no significant content. Should anyone want to use this as a starting point to create a new article then I'll be more than happy to restore/draft it (could also be requested at WP:REFUND as this is more of a courtesy deletion per author request) —SpacemanSpiff 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chengal (Place)[edit]

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

Reason Jerry266444 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Chengal, Kerala. Geographic places are widely regarded as notable.- Mr X 12:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable guideline is WP:GEOLAND.- Mr X 20:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator is also the article creator, who created it at 7:09 with the edit summary "(NOTHING BUT CREATED SOMETHING)," then nominated it for deletion, with no reason, five minutes later. This doesn't seem to be anyone we can rely on to improve. Unless there is someone willing to clean this up, then I think this should be regarded as a case of WP:TNT, and an article creator requesting deletion. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per MrX. Stubify if necessary. The place exists,[24] there are a couple of schools,[25][26] and GEOLAND applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart instead as geography places are notable but there's nothing currently acceptable so unless someone is going to come and improve it, it's better restarted anew. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 5 June 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. I withdraw (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phander (village)[edit]

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

I have tried to clean this up the best I can but a google search find nothing that suggests this small settlement passes the general notability guideline. I would love to be proved wrong. (note: page originally created at Phunder village) Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)I withdraw now it has been proven village exists. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the GNG would not be as solid here since all geographic places especially villages are in fact notable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: The thing is, I'm not sure this village even exists. -- Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some resources can be found at the Phander Lake article, and the village is clearly visible on google maps. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:06, 5 June 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 MBisanz. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The designer[edit]

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

The article fails WP:FILM and the only reference provided doesn't specify any details establishing the film's notability. The article's creator has removed any improvement tags without making any changes to the article. Dan arndt (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILM. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 10:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing currently suggesting better for the applicable notability, unless any actual local coverage that is substantial can be found. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:01, 5 June 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 schools in Kedah. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SJK (C) Sin Kwang[edit]

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for organisations/companies or the general notability guideline. This is confirmed by a quick google search. Please also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further information. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable primary school. Very short article with most of it being a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Kedah. This is a legit primary school (See listing at Malaysia MOE). However it doesn't have any claim to notability. Redirecting per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy (musician)[edit]

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

Previous AFD > Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedy(rapper)

The article was AFD'd in 2005 where it was kept only because it was rewritten....., Anyway Non notable rapper - Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the albums below are unsourced/unsourceable so I'm shoving those here aswell.

Haciendo El Amor Con La Ropa

Dando Cocotazos

Nueva Generación

Mazakote Mixtape: Gold Edition Vol. 1,

–Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted in the German Wikipedia article, Speedy's 2005 single "Siéntelo" charted in multiple European countries. A 2005 Billboard article states that Speedy "became an overnight sensation in France". [27] Speedy's album Nueva Generación apparently got a 4-star review from Batanga magazine (although this is available only in a snippet so I'm unable to see the whole review). [28] With due regard for avoidance of systemic linguistic bias, I think this is enough to warrant keeping the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st source is excellent however I don't believe that's enough to warrant an article here, That source could easily be added to Siéntelo which to me makes more sense then keeping the BLP per it, –Davey2010^Talk 02:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above — Diva Knockouts 13:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERABOVE. –Davey2010^Talk 13:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist has a single that charted in several countries, making it to the top ten of a few of them. this has a few hits, including an album review (also above). Not to mention hits that could be in Spanish. — Diva Knockouts 14:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 books there are of relevance - The first book is of the BLP mentioned once, The second book is the one above (which I believe is excellent), Third is again one mention and the fifth is again by the looks of it a mention (There's a 4th book titled "Reggaeton Musicians: Daddy Yankee, Cuban Link, Pitbull, Do" which is basically everything taken from Wikipedia), My point is the singer's been well ... singing ... since 1998 and after 18 years of being a musician there's nothing source-wise, If this was a 2014 singer then fair enough but it's not, The blp still fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does not satisfy GNG at all, then perhaps it would be better to just redirect the article to the song? Erick (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder if redirecting was better but wasn't sure hence the nomination, Perhaps it's best if the article and albums are deleted and then perhaps I or someone redirects the BLP back to the song?, –Davey2010^Talk 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just delete the album and simply redirect this article to the song right away? Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap after all. Erick (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn sorry never realized you replied, Because of the keep !votes I can't really do an IAR close, I personally prefer deleting so that it can't be recreated (Anyone can easily undo the redirect secretly & no one would ever know), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siéntelo, as redirects are cheap. Erick (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete then~~ redirect to "Siéntelo" as its the song that's the international sensation and reasonably notable, not him personally outside of that context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, I mean merging article content if there's anything found worth salvaging, with this article and it's related history not needing to be deleted per se, just turned into a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siéntelo - not enough in-depth coverage on the singer themselves to warrant their own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frankly, folks, I think you've got it backwards. The albums and other singles might not be notable, but they exist and can not be appropriately placed in the article on the one hit song. Instead, I suggest cleaning-up and keeping the instant page, but merging and redirecting all of the other articles (single and albums) into it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point tho - The songs are notable but the singer isn't, The albums don't have anything worth merging either, –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on the basic fact -- were it not for that one hit single, we wouldn't even be talking about the guy. But given that we are talking about him, what then is the best approach for presenting the material about him and his work? If the song becomes the "central" article, then we lose the fact that the guy recorded several albums, non-notable though they may be. If the musician is the "central" article, we need lose nothing. The article can continue to present a discography and whatever biographical information is available. And a separate section can address the hit song. This strikes me as the better way to consolidate the existing information. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reasons I gave for my !vote above, I also agree with NewYorkActuary's point: it is more natural to see this information organized in an article about the artist. And in this connection note that at least one of those albums did get coverage, even if we can't read it on the internet. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from but it's still an unsourced/unsourceable article and still something that should technically be deleted, There's many articles here that have songs but no actual singer article, A navbox could list all songs/alums.... –Davey2010^Talk 07:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up I've created a navbox (here which I've added to a few articles so all albums/songs won't be lost. –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found another substantive review of the Nueva Generación album, from PopMatters [29], and I've added it to the article along with the Billboard article mentioned above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great find but only one review isn't enough to keep the album, That review could actually go in the Sientelo song ?, –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider Merging Siéntelo into this article - I find User:NewYorkActuary's arguments compelling. There is clear notability for the song, but the artist did other things of less note, except that they are a useful addition to facts about the notable song. However, it would be much better, organizationwise, to have all the information under the artist, with WP:DUE weight given to the very notable single. Fieari (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Singh[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "References are to Barnes and Noble, IMDb, Amazon, and "Awesome Gang", none of it establishing notability. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO." Article dePRODded (first edit of new editor) with reason "removed deletion notice, article includes a credible claim of significance, a lower standard than notability". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. (Note: there are also articles for his two self-published books which I have PRODded). Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources independent of the subject; book reviews, writeups in reliable publications, etc. MisterRandomized (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single reliable and independent source about the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anti-racism#White allies. Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White allies[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion for a number of reasons. The article fails to meet numerous Wikipedia criteria, including but not limited to lacking POV neutrality, having little to no substance, and be only marginally verifiable. Ergo Sum 07:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I'm having a hard time seeing this getting anywhere beyond what is essentially a dictionary definition with a dollop of POV issues. There's probably an article out there somewhere, maybe several articles, about white participation in these movements, but this seems unlikely ever to be that article. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is a poor stub with neutrality issues, those are taggable issues. I don't think this is bad enough to be WP:TNTed. And crucially, the term seems to be used in academic works, even in the titles of some: Beverly Tatum (17 January 2003). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: Revised Edition. Basic Books. pp. 93–. ISBN 978-0-465-08361-9.,Boyd Drick (23 October 2015). White Allies in the Struggle for Racial Justice. Orbis Books. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-1-60833-615-9., Cynthia Stokes Brown (January 2002). Refusing Racism: White Allies and the Struggle for Civil Rights. Teachers College Press. ISBN 978-0-8077-4204-4., and Heon Kim (26 September 2014). A Just World: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives on Social Justice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 53–. ISBN 978-1-4438-6762-7.. I couldn't quickly find a definition, but I think there's enough to show this is likely notable. A sociologist of race would be good to consult on this, and that's a very popular subtype of sociologist in the US. I suggest pinging WT:SOCIO, it has 2-3 active members besides me, and maybe one of them is familiar with that field? (I am a sociologist of social movements and collective intelligence, so not my subfield). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are actually thousands of "white" Americans who actively oppose racism and/or try to help people of other races. I feel the topic is too vague and artificially constructed for a WP article. Also the title does not seem right since it defines them relative to other people. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-racism#White allies. I've just written a new short section in the anti-racism article, meant to replace this. This is a large and important topic, and not well-represented elsewhere on Wikipedia. It would be better served as part of the anti-racism article, as it certainly hasn't done well in its ten-year history in this one... I didn't use any of the existing material. I suggest WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT in order to WP:PRESERVE the edit history and bibliography for possible future use. I'll volunteer to do that, after this discussion closes. Note to the nominator and delete proponents: you could have done this yourself as per WP:SOFIXIT, instead of just dumping it in Articles for Deletion. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to redirect, through the concept is probably notable enough it will eventually be recreated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so it should have a better title. "White allies" could just as well be Japan's white allies in WWII, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will be expanded enough in the anti-racism article so that it can be split out again sometime in the future. If someone can think of a better title, that would be fine. Thanks... -- IamNotU (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Notable topic, but if it's already covered/merged into Anti-racism#White allies (which has more content than this article), that makes sense to me. No objection whatsoever to recreation as that section develops. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator breached interaction ban. Fences&Windows 22:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Brigands (band)[edit]

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

Article is dependent on blog sources. No relevant band members (aren't even mentioned) and no release which received any national chart success. ALongStay (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is to be nominated for deletion then (Would I Still Be) Her Big Man, the Brigands' best-known song, should probably be nominated as well. Everymorning (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is actually enough for a keepable article however my searches are not finding anything particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Weak Keep. A google search turned up little more than the band's facebook page and presumably their own webpage. Fails WP:NMUSIC. That said, since this article is in good shape, and considering the fact that the band did release a few singles, I am not satisfied that it is a garage band. Still, it is far from a notable one. Thanks for the clarification below. Considering that the band's song has appeared on various album compilations, as well as the significance of the Nuggets compliation (which I previously wasn't aware of), I can change my vote. But still, I would prefer if the author of the article can point to some reliable sources covering the band, especially offline sources since those are easier to find. If sources could be found, I would be happy to change my stance to a strong keep. --Dps04 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was not notified of this nomination for deletion, so I should not need to apologize for being late to this discussion. So let me have my right to defend this article. The Brigand's song "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man" was included in the 1998 Nuggets Box Set and the liner notes in Nuggets speak well of the song's virtues. Because of the songs' inclusion on Nuggets, it is now immediately recognizable to most garage rock fans and has become a well-known entity. Generally once a recording act has been included on Nuggets, it becomes well-known amongst the genre's followers. I realize that this band has uncertain origins, but that there are other instances of acts with mysterious origins being considered notable. I believe that we should keep this article--that would be best. But, if the band article cannot be retained, then rather than deleting it, merge it with the song article "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man"--the song is quite well-known. But, deletion is not a viable option. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Band appears on the influential Nuggets compilation. They are among a select few of garage bands. This status should be held in high-regard, especially when one considers there are 1,000s of garage bands from the era to choose from. Being a group from the pre-Google period, of course some aspects of the Brigands will always be obscured, but that does not deny them this prestigious accomplishment. I propose a merger with the song article to preserve the information.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dps04 asked a good question about reliable sources. Richie Unterberger wrote the profile on the group in AllMusic. Describing their song "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man" he says the following: "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man" was an outstanding and unusual 1966 garage band single." Unterberger is a noted writer. He wrote a book on garsge rock, Sixties Rock: Garage, Psychedelic, and Other Satisfactions (Music in American Life). He clearly identifies the song's merit. There are also the song-by-song liner notes giving biographical details in the 1998 Nuggets box set, written by Mike Stax, who is a respected writer and has written extensively on garage rock. Both of those writers are noted experts on garage rock, and I believe that their sources can be considered reliable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough in the garage rock genre for a brief article - appears on multiple compilations, etc.. The fact that such a noted and reliable critic as Richie Unterberger has written a bio article at Allmusic is a strong factor supporting the band's notability in WP terms. The article about "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man" should be merged with this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments already mentioned (inclusion on Nuggets, Allmusic bio). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. The nominator is a confirmed sock, and no other comments regarding the topic's notability have been posted here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thathamma[edit]

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

~~Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)~~ — ArtsRescuer (talk •contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team H2politO[edit]

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

There is still no evidence that this is an independently notable team that should have a separate article. It was prodded as "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced only to non-independent sources, pages not even mentioning Team H2politO, and dead links," all of which is true, and deprodded on the alleged basis that this is controversial based on the talk page. I'm not sure what User:Kvng is referring to as the talk page only contains a comment from User:Camp0s from six years ago that sources were coming. I'm presuming that Camp0s has considered this complete but these sources do no indicate that this is a notable organization. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability. I thought there might be something behind dead links or in material reverted due to COI concerns but this is not the case. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that without sources, this article failes GNG. The argument that "sources might exist offline which we are not aware of/do not have access to" is not sufficient to keep an unsourced article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIMON (Batch Interactive test/debug)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I have searched for WP:RS I am unable to find any; hence I believe it fails WP:GNG. Note that this article appears to have been created by the author of the software in question (User:Kdakin), who also created the recently deleted article on another one of his products (OLIVER). I will repeat my position (which I argued for extensively in that AFD) that the possibility that unknown/unidentified sources might exist is no reason to keep the article. The onus is on those who oppose deletion to demonstrate that sufficient sources exist to justify keeping the article; while the nominator ought to search for sources (which I have), that obligation extends only to searching those sources which are readily available to them for searching. SJK (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng, Fieari, SwisterTwister, Uncle G, and CoffeeWithMarkets: Pinging editors who participated in previous related AFD. SJK (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 05:28, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beyond the software itself not being particularly notable, the conflict-of-interest question is troubling, and this really seems like an open-and-shut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I made the same argument in Oliver. I believe that this sort of article is useful for computing history, and that there should be print references available that do not exist online in any form. The fact that we don't currently have access to said references is not a reason to delete. That said, given that the Oliver AFD consensus was delete, I suspect this one will go similarly. I am not in a place where I can find physical references at this time, so I won't be able to help more than this protest. I would still like my viewpoint on the record. Fieari (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most of the contents of this article (and the Oliver one) are personal recollections of the author of the software in question. The information probably wasn't published in independent WP:RS even in the 1970s or 1980s, just in self-published / non-independent sources (manuals, working papers, etc.). (Speaking from my personal experience – I have been involved professionally in software development, but the software I've worked on largely isn't mentioned in RS, because most software development doesn't result in the production of RS as output. In some cases text I've written has been incorporated into manuals published by my employer, but a manual published by a software vendor isn't an independent source for establishing the notability of that software–that's my experience today, and I expect the situation in the 1970s and 1980s was similar.) Wikipedia is not an appropriate repository for those sort of recollections, even though I do think they are valuable. If one wants to publish recollections like this, a better course of action might be to submit a paper to the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. (And of course, since that's a reliable source, such a publication could potentially be used to establish notability for the purposes of Wikipedia.)SJK (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a fair point, and you may be right. I guess I'm mostly going off a gut feeling based on the fact that this sort of topic was typically considered notable at the time, and that the published magazines of the time can be difficult to navigate today. You believe that no such sources exist, I think they might exist but are difficult to find, or at least I'm granting the benefit of the doubt regarding it. But I am willing to admit I might be wrong. I just prefer granting the benefit of the doubt when possible. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 2 June 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)

Sandra Priest[edit]

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

cannot verify claim of international artist, local news, and notability not assured from work detailed. As WP:NARTIST appears WP:TOOSOON, combined with obvious promo WP:SPA / undisclosed paid editing socks Widefox; talk 15:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does not seem to satisfy WP:ARTIST at this time. Although there is coverage, it seems restricted to her local newspapers. I think we'd need to see something a bit more national before she qualified for an article. There are a few hits at Highbeam, but I'm not sure they're the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient -significant- coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Artist's works are covered in numerous national publications and have been exhibited across U.S. Coverage is not "restricted to her local newspapers".[30][31][32][33][34] (works are even subject to some political controversy/scandal in Topeka Kansas [35][36][37]) -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Issues with SPA are independent of notability and may be addressed separately. Zero evidence provided of paid editing (which is fine and allowed) or sockpuppetry. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it did not take much searching to find reliable sources. Passes GNG exactly as User:Dsprc says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. But just in case the article should unaccountably be kept, I rmeoved the worst of the promotion. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are loads of sources and information along with it, but simply nothing actually insinuating Wikipedia article, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 8 June 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 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Moir[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an economist and non-winning political candidate, with some advertorial/PR overtones and a severe shortage of adequate sourcing; after stripping a deadlinked primary source from the article, the only other reference left is a not-substantively-about-him blurb about he and another non-winning candidate carpooling together to reduce campaign expenses. But that doesn't get him over WP:NPOL, and I can't find enough quality sourcing to salvage his notability for anything else. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I searched, the only substantive sources other than the CBC are someone's blog post and an environmental economics book, none of which establish notability. Any other source located only made a passing mention of him or included an obligatory "candidate profile". Zach Vega (talk to me) 15:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to cXML. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procurement PunchOut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This mess of an article hasn't improved since the AfD 2 years ago. The keep arguments focused on the fact that there are some sources - none of which, however, even uses the exact term "Procurement PunchOut", so at the very least the article is misnamed. I am taking this to AfD, not RM, because I cannot figure out what would be a better name; the article seems WP:ORish and confusing, suggesting WP:TNT may be needed. As far as I can tell, yes, there are some sources which use words "procurement" and "punch out" in the same sentence - and why some people last AfD concluded this is sufficient to keep this OR stub catastrophic is beyond me. If anyone can find any source which properly defines and discusses this term, do share. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to cXML, where it is mentioned. As seen from the "further reading" book sources in the article, PunchOut is a particular e-procurement process based on the cXML protocol from SAP Ariba. This article seems to try to make it a more general concept, but I haven't found sources that claim this is true--perhaps a non-neutral POV? There are independent RS, such as the books, verifying basic facts about PunchOut. But I have not found the multiple in-depth RS needed to achieve notability. Hence a selective merge to cXML is probably the best alternative to deletion for the sourcable material. In terms of what to merge, I would recommend just a few sentences from the lead and the references. --Mark viking (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gudo[edit]

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

Fails wp:entertainer. The production company may be notable, but I was not able to verify the movies they are claimed to have worked on. Most of the sources are user generated or related or directory-like. Everything I could find was of similar quality. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Happy Squirrel. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Hence, Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikramRaphii (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Armstrong[edit]

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

I would've PRODed too as my searches have found nothing better than a few links at Books, there's nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fairly certainly notable per WP:NTEMP, but it may require some determined work to show this as almost all sources will be pre-internet. Basically, a newsreader who became one of the most instantly recognisable celebrities on British television for four or five years in the 1980s and then faded away again - but she was getting plenty of coverage when her career was at its height. This review in the Glasgow Herald (one of the apparently very few British newspapers whose 1980s issues are online and not behind a paywall) seems to come from just after her fame had peaked - but there should be plenty more (some of them likely to be distinctly more detailed) from other newspapers during that period. PWilkinson (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pre-internet era significance. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's searches were highly ineffective. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Angel Echeverria[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG John from Idegon (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article does include multiple notable sources as citations, including the LA Times and the Orange County Register, which confirm all of the entries in the article. -Jaime Garcia —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Orange County Register articles are from the same day, by the same author, primarily covering his apperence on the TV show. The LA Times article is about a contest he participated in, barely mentioning him. Nothing to show notability. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added the "Meet the Contestant" citation as well from FOX.com. Garcia2299 04:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for actual applicable notability, simply nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rauch[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former political party president at the provincial level, sourced only to "speech made at convention". This is not a claim of notability that gives a person an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL, and the sourcing isn't strong enough to get him over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Autumn[edit]

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

This was proposed for deletion in April - not show in edit history but shows record from creator's talk page; undeletion request denied due to copyright violation - recreated but now sure how; nominated for speedy deletion in May and nomination template removed by creator. I checked and cannot locate anything in-depth, or anything outside of her website, social media, and music directories. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Would gladly withdraw the nomination if there is something out there to show notability which I was unable to locate. CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references provided are self generated, trivial or promotional. No independent evidence of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 06:42, 5 June 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. A strong argument was made towards whether or not the subject could pass WP:PROF in the first week, but this was not followed up by subsequent comments. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Paul Tanner[edit]

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

References don't support notability. Possible WP:COI Fuddle (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very solid Google Scholar results (for the field) suggests that WP:BEFORE has not been followed. St Anselm (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
?. GS h-index of 4 is not very spectacular, even for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I work it out as five, actually. But looking at his "Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel" article, for example, GS only records five citations of the work, but a glance at Google Books shows at least 8. (I have just finished teaching a bachelor-level course on the Book of Daniel, and we went through Tanner's article in class!) St Anselm (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citation data is too low, even taking into account the nature of the field, and there is nothing else in the record (including the subject's own homepage [38] ) to indicate passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No significant awards, elected academic society memberships/fellowships, no journal or book editorships, nothing else that I can see to hang one's hat on in terms of passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:PROF #1. Among other things, Tanner has made a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline" by his suggestion that the Gideon narrative is at the heart of the Book of Judges.[39][40] St Anselm (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a far cry from satisfying WP:PROF#C1. [41] just has a brief mention of Tanner, and [42] contains a one-paragraph discussion of his work by a single other scholar. To demonstrate "significant impact in his scholarly discipline" one would have to show much more that that, e.g. that his ideas have significantly influenced the field, become widely accepted, have changed the way that the scholarly community views a particular topic/issue, have been widely discussed at conferences, in other articles and books, or something of the sort. We don't have anything even remotely close to that here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Citation indices are a poor reflection on authors for arts subjects; and theology is likely to be at the bottom end of even that. This is because the compilers of citation indices are not good at collecting data on them. What StAnselm says, indicating that his work is being put before students, suggests to me that he is of some significance. On the other hand, all the publications are merely articles in journals, as possibly not the most prestigious ones. He has clearly been teaching in 3rd world countries. People working there are perhaps less likely to be in the limelight, where they attract awards, etc. Editorships probably depend on having time away from research or other work to undertake that role. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually making a pretty good argument for deletion. Yes, citation indices are a poor indication of notability for humanities. But to keep the article one does need some substantial positive evidence of of satisfying WP:PROF on other grounds, rather than explanations why the subject's life circumstances might have prevented him from making significant impact on his field of study. Satisfying WP:PROF#C1 on citation data alone does not happen that often and requires very high citability. With top GS results of 23, 15, 14, 11, 4, that's just not the case here, however one wants to slice and dice the situation. That's why usually satisfying WP:PROF#C1 requires a combination of factors, and other things like awards, prestigious lectures, honorary degrees, editorships, etc, are taken into account. (By the way, no, one does not take time off, away from research or teaching or other duties, to undertake editorship duties for research journals). In this case the citability data is too low to pass WP:PROF#C1 on its own, and I don't see any additional evidence of satisfying WP:PROF. In fact, as you say, the journals where his work was published do not appear to be particularly prestigious ones. WorldCat only lists one book by him, 42 pages long,[43], also published by a minor publisher and only held by 17 libraries. Goggling the title of this book[44] does not appear to produce hits for any published reviews of it, despite the fact that the book deals with a fairly hot and controversial topic. Overall I am seeing very little here to indicate plausibly passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The hits I'm getting on a google scholar search are by him, not citations or discussions of his work. No hits at all on a news google or proquest news archive search. No hits at JSTOR. Just as Nom said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first claim seems very surprising and dubious to me. Clicking on the first result (Gideon),[45] I don't see any works by him, only works by others citing his work. St Anselm (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My error (s). I had begun by running quick searches on his name. "J. Paul Tanner" brings nothing up on news searches. unusual. even for a scholar. His Wikipedia page lists articles but no books, and I somehow got the impression that he publishes as JP Tanner. Searching google scholar under JP Tanner, the first page seemed to confirm what the news searches showed since all JP Tanners were in other fields. JSTOR search on "J. P. Tanner" produced 6 hits by chaps in other fields. I stopped at that point. I had not noticed your name, User:StAnselm, or I would have looked harder. I know that you are knowledgeable about scholarship in this field. Mea culpa I looked now have. Ran "The Gideon narrative as the focal point of Judges" through JSTOR in quotations, I get one citation (Wilson, Stephen M.. 2014. “Samson the Man-child: Failing to Come of Age in the Deuteronomistic History”. Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (1). Society of Biblical Literature: 43–60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbibllite.133.1.43.) it reads: "For a discussion of this deterioration, see, e.g.,..." in SBL, so it's impressive. Search on that title in google scholar brings up 13 citations. Changing my vote. A scholar's scholar - not a publicity seeker. A notable scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I've been enjoying this discussion and I hope someone can summarize the final decision. I didn't know about WP:PROF so when I made the nomination all I saw was an article with references mostly by the subject, not about him, and an article that may have been written by the subject himself. I have no skin in the game, I'm just interested in the process and outcome.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References by himself are not enough to establish his notability, and the citations are not high enough to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this. Here: [46] are the results of a google books search on "Tanner, J. Paul" . To me, it looks as though he is being cited quite a lot. It's a bit harder to search such a common name to see the degree to which his work is discussed in other people's books (at least, for someone like me: I am no theologian) so I punched "Paul Tanner" + Biblical into a books search and on page 1 of that search there are sentences : "In this section I lean heavily on J. Paul Tanner...", "Paul Tanner summarizes...", " J. Paul Tanner says...", establishing that theologians and Bible scholars discuss his work, certainly they cite it a good deal. IMO, this is what makes a scholar notable. I still think keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now instead as the article shows nothing noticeably convincing of the applicable notability, delete as I see nothing else otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 10 June 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 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homage to the Lagan[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. I don't believe this sculpture is notable: it hasn't received any coverage from what I can find on the internet and the only reference of this article is a dead end, so in effect, there are no references on this article. It's a stub and doesn't pass the GNG guideline, where significant coverage is required. st170e^talk 22:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-noable per WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 10:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Iz Home[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Original A9 tag contested by User:Adam9007. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 13:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 13:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable album. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Adams University's Rowing Club[edit]

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

Non notable university rowing club. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Club may become notable, but that is not the case now. There is nothing in the article that can not be added to the University article. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Boone[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing for any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better, nothing here is currently convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete run of the mill sportscaster. Needs significant third party recognition which he doesn't get. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Eiseman[edit]

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

BIO of high school teacher who spent his retirement in Bali and wrote some books about the country. Aside from bits of vandalism and when his copyvio obit was pasted in, I don't think the article has ever consisted of more than one line, a couple of publications, and a few external links (currently his obit and a bio). No references. ~~I'm not sure the bare claim that he was "an expert on Balinese culture and the Balinese language" is even sufficient to avoid a Speedy A7, but~~ since the article has been around since 2007 I'm bringing it here. It does not look to me that he meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMICS, or WP:AUTHOR. Meters (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are various mentions of him around... he wrote more books than are currently mentioned in the article, and he was an avid Colorado river runner. Meters (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing close to establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 5 June 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 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tinsay Valles[edit]

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

This is WP:TOOSOON. The article subject is a poet from Philippines residing in Singapore. At the moment, there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources (maybe this could work, but it seems like a review). The claim of significance is that a work of the subject was shortlisted for the Singapore Literature Prize, but that doesn't help in proving notability as many works have been shortlisted over the years (and Singapore is a small place). Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR at this time. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Lemongirl942. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. There is no substantial work created by this poet and therefore this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikramRaphii (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corepoint Health[edit]

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

Created by a single-purpose account, nearly no external references, notability dubious. Srittau (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all better including for WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - corp article of unclear notability. The only independent ref is the fortherecordmag.com ref, on its own insufficient to establish notability. This ref also reads like regurgitated PR. The others are all incidental mentions, non-RS sites, or pieces by corepoint employees. A search turned up press releases and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:51, 5 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conductor (company)[edit]

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

An article about a SEO company, created by a single-purpose account. Nothing in this article stands out that would make this company notable. Srittau (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's references demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Pburka (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests anything at all for accounting at solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article in New York Business Journal, this article in Internet Retailer Magazine (which was purchased from Thomson Reuters' Faulkner & Gray unit by F&G CEO Jack Love), this article from MediaPost Communications, this article from TechCrunch, and this article from The Next Web all provide significant coverage of Conductor.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Conductor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:CORPDEPTH pass: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 2 June 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 draftify. czar 16:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Elyria[edit]

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

not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly too soon as there's barely anything else here, not all acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't moving the article to Wikipedia:Drafts be an option?--84.84.105.28 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Move to WP:Drafts for now until it is fleshed out with more relevant links, including notable media. 101.178.169.239 (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search turns up some hits: [53] from GameStar (German), [54] from fr:Jeuxvideo.com, and [55] from Kotaku. Three sources isn't a lot, but these are pretty in-depth. At the very least, I would think that this should be drafted, and maybe kept. I'd like to hear what others think about these sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Reed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is about a university activist. It seems the only source which discusses the subject in a bit of detail is a university/campus newspaper (which cannot be used for proving notability). The other sources I found are DailyMail (questionable source, 2 line mention), The Independent (references previous source), Breitbart 1 (single line mention), Breitbart 2 (references DailyMail and Breitbart 1). I'm not sure how reliable DailyMail and Breitbart are for proving notability and in any case, the coverage it really less. At the moment, I don't see enough significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to merit a separate article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A google docs file outlining media coverage of Ashley Reed, unfortunately I did not have time to update the article to reflect all of these due to exams and campaigns happening at my university. I attend university with the person who first brought up grounds for a COI, themselves not declaring that they have a COI against the subject of the article.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XDHiKGcK4U8tkJBX0dnSK3-xVf-qOkCWLMnbyDEAK-Y/ JustLucas (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient support for claims of notability. JustLucas' list does not convince me; that he or she seems to be a SPA rings alarm bells along the 'using wikipedia to promote self, partner or colleague' lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast Samat lib (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable university student activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 5 June 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 01:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starhome[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's no other language Wiki article so that's another sign no one from this field has cared to transwiki, since these articles are nearly often always at the relevant language Wiki and often started there before it's started here. This was actually accepted at AfC in August 2011 and I believe it was either the different mindset or the fact Wikipedia has changed overall since then, even then I would've likely not accepted especially considering the current state of Wikipedia articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for free corporate advertising. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meilani Clay[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better than these links which include some Highbeam which can also be found here but it's only expected local coverage with the other searches finding nothing better (News, Books and Oakland Tribune (from which some of those articles were from), so there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Literally no sources to prove why the subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. I have moved to User:BU Rob13/Kane County Eagles. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County Eagles[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing better at all and this is apparently only a local American football team part of a proposed league, still seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I searched in LexisNexis Academic and found 40 articles, mostly in the Chicago Daily Herald, which is a fairly significant paper (circulation of 100,000ish). The coverage passes WP:ORGDEPTH in many cases and WP:ORGIND in all cases. It's weakened by the fact that this is a local-ish paper, but as far as local papers go, it's got a fairly high circulation. Compare to Hartford Courant, which is certainly regional, and has a circulation of 128,000. I'm inclined to keep this. I can't provide access to the articles here for other editors to evaluate (copyright, etc), but anyone can email me to get copies. Pinging @SwisterTwister and Cbl62: to hopefully reconsider. ~ Rob^Talk 17:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, this is not only a member of a proposed league. They played in an active semi-pro league from 1992 to 2008. ~ Rob^Talk 15:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally semi-pro teams are not kept, although there are exceptions so it's possible. I questioned the notability in 2010 on this article and it still seems to be lacking. I would change my position of it were presented, essentially enough to pass WP:GNG would do it for me. As it stands now, it seems to be more of a self-promotion which is a reason to delete. Editors may find it helpful to review this discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: As I stated above, I've found offline sources. If you care to email me, I'm happy to forward them. It's difficult to make a judgement that this does not pass GNG without seeing the available sources. ~ Rob^Talk 16:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be satisfied with good faith entries into the article.--Paul McDonald (talk)
  - Notability is not determined by article content. In any event, this is outside where I do content creation, so I have no interest in developing the article further. I'd be happy to give access to my sources to anyone who wishes to, though. ~ Rob^Talk 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is true, but without knowing what that notability is, I have to exclude it from consideration. Plus, there are many reasons to delete an article based on either its content or lack thereof.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you support userfying to my userspace until such a time that I can clean it up with the references I found? ~ Rob^Talk 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support allowing BU Rob 13 to userfy. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support (and even encourage) userfy. Research, find out stuff, write it up, prove me wrong, make Wikipedia better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Userfy per the rationale of BU Rob13 above. WP:AGF and WP:DGF about BU Rob13's assessment of the presently unavailable offline sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage like this of a non-professional, non-NCAA team (one that plays on a local high school football field) is not enough IMO to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. It is comparable to the coverage local papers give to high school football teams. This type of coverage, on the other hand, is significant and makes it a closer call. Similarly significant coverage from another non-local source would likely tip me to the "keep" side. Cbl62 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 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, though the closure could also have been keep. I think it is fair to say that most (if not all) voters presume or know that her work is described somewhere, but we still need to find this somewhere, read it, decide whether it is sufficient, and add it to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Pharaoh Francis[edit]

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

Certainly not notable for WP:CREATIVE, WP:PROF and WP:GNG as she's only been an Associate and Visiting Professor and, as for the other perspectives, my searches have found nothing better than a few links at Books and Highbeam but they are only mentions, there's no actual coverage. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: this one is a noted Science Fiction author, who also teaches. Try Amazon and do your homework before you nominate these. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is a sales site. This Afd nomination is a reasonable one. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I know that Google searches sometimes aren't very accurate. So I would encourage you, SwisterTwister to use HighBeam more often and perhaps get some database access if you are going to AfD authors. For example, HighBeam turns up that she is written up in the book Contemporary Authors, so we have a bio on her in a RS. EBSCO brings up multiple reviews in Library Journal, Booklist and VOYA, (which is a publication for professionals who work with young adults). Using Google and other search keys, brings up a Publishers Weekly Review. She passes WP:CREATIVE #3. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak 'Keep According to WorldCat, her most widely held book in in about 250 libraries [56]. As usual with series authors, other books in the series are heldin similar numbers. This is not very high for SF that is apparently intended for adolescents. Her publisher is Roc books, a major SF imprint of Penguin, a major publisher. There should be at least the routine reviews. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Her work has been listed by Publisher's weekly. I think her niche is urban fantasy, not young adult. Most genre fiction tends to be short-lived on library shelves, particularly when not published in hardcover. I found quite a few reviews, though I'm not familiar with the quality of the sources that review work in that genre. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided for the moment but learning delete. I looked in Gbooks, in Highbeam, in Worldcat and in JSTOR for published reviews of her word and am coming up with precisely bupkis. Using EBSCO seems to require being behind some sort of a paywall. So far the only published review of the subject's work that I see is the one mentioned above (but still not included in the article), a Publishers Weekly Review. I also tried some plain Google searching to try to find other reviews, but am only getting a ton of commercial mirrors, fan-sites and various blogs. So if there in fact do exist bona fide multiple published reviews of the subject's work in sources passing WP:RS, I'd like to see the actual evidence (and I'd really want to see more than just 2-3 of such reviews). Regarding library holdings argument raised by DGG: I would have been willing to consider this argument if we were talking about academic notability and scholarly books. But these books are just commercial fiction books. Here we should not use WP:PROF considerations, and just go with WP:CREATIVE standards. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for WP:Creative at present. We need multiple independent in-depth reviews to establish notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per DGG: the fact that some libraries stock her books and that her publisher is an imprint of a respected publisher like Penguin is significant. She has been a visiting professor in the Masters in Fine Arts in Creative Writing at the University of Western Colorado.[57] At least two of her books have been translated into German (Schwarzes Feuer, Dunkle Fesseln).[58] She contributed the article, "Forms of protest. The colonial feminine in Pat Murphy's 'His vegetable wife' " to "Science fiction, imperialism and the Third World : essays on postcolonial literature and film" edited by Ericka Hoagland and Reema Sarwal. (That was the only reference to her in the catalogue of Cambridge University Library.) I read that she gave up her academic career recently to concentrate on writing. Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - Which, no doubt, is far more lucrative. Have you noted sales figures? This is genre fiction, but she does fine (see Amazon), looks like she has about 14 books. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:19, 6 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course[edit]

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

The article has no Notability. WP:NP and duplicates / contradicts information in the Snaefell Mountain Course article. The issue of independent notability has not been addressed in the Executive Summary. There is an issue plagiarism / Original Research WP:OR as the facts in the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source. WP:INTEGRITY. agljones(talk)14:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 8 results show up on google, notability is not there. Jdcomix (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Numerous sources in article discuss the collection of named corners. There are 45 named corners that are apparently Wikipedia-notable (because they have articles), many started by the deletion monitor and by their sock puppet(s). 45 despite some having been deleted. The list-article serves good purpose of providing good redirect targets for those, and good purpose of avoiding need for creation of any more marginal articles. See 5!!! Archives of the article's Talk page to see deletion nominators objections a year or 2 or 3 ago. The main one I recall is they wished to preserve or create more marginal articles with no more info than is carried in those corners' rows here. --do ncr am 21:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith disruptive nomination. Agljones is an unblocked Sockmeister who has serially engaged in OWNership of Isle of Man and TT races articles, partisan censorship of Wikipedia, deletion of content and editwarring, all within a notional 95% singular-topic area. First suspected as a COI editor by myself in May 2014 (purposely written into edit-summary after repeated deletions), I further established substantial COIs after the unblock of July 2015. Identified IRL through Wikipedia content, Agljones is self-identified in many image uploads with formal (given) name. Requests for COI declaration(s) were ignored, instead trying to intimidate me with oversight and sending private emails complaining about me. Three involved-admins (two from unblock, one 'crat) were placed on notice to be available to address any future (expected) problems. Requests made to Agljones to cease contributing to the topic area have been partially complied with, excepting flurries of confrontational activity, such as those of Xmas 2015 and this. Further suspicious usernames and IP addresses (the latter in direct violation of unblock conditions/agreement) have been identified and recorded.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was established by doncram after a bulk-listed series of AfDs during late 2014/early 2015, nominated by one editor supermarket shopping, going through two templates listing inter-related articles on an historic, circuitous, motorcycle racing course, leaving gaps in the Wikipedia coverage by design, instead of opening dialogues and trying to work with editors to improve article content. The same editor was responsible for deleting one of the two templates. I have substantially contributed to this article (and others in the sequence) in good faith that it would endure. Wherever possible, extensive attempts to provide photographic enhancements to substantiate content have been sought, often requiring canvassing of, and interactions with, Flickr users who were willing to contribute to Wikipedia by changing Creative Commons licenses, also expecting their contributions to endure for posterity.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see the nominator's logic. The corners exist. They are named. They are part of a logical set. Well sourced articles exist. Why delete it?? Contradictory information should be sorted, not treated with wholesale deletion. - Brianhe (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue of notability WP:NP still not been resolved and duplicates / contradicts information in the Snaefell Mountain Course article and other articles in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network. There is an issue plagiarism / Original Research WP:OR as the facts in the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source which is required by Wikipedia.

This is not a bad faith/disruptive nomination as the rules of independent notability have to be adhered to in Wikipedia. In the deletion procedure it is stated by Wikipedia not to make personal comments. The editor doncram, has previously until the 11th May 2016 had a general sanction ban which still applies to the National Register of Historic Places. Rather as the editor doncram has previously stated that the list provides “…..good purpose of providing good redirect targets for those, and good purpose of avoiding need for creation of any more marginal articles…” The editor doncram while still under the general sanction has repeatedly redirected articles to the list after issues of notability have been resolved and repeatedly forcing his opinion on other editors, an issue that led to general sanctions previously being applied, in this list article and other articles in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network of articles. The editor doncram, has also during the same period before the general sanctions has removed and deleted an edit made in good faith, used the same information in the same list article that has been requested to be deleted and then later restored the information in the original edit. The editor doncram, has also redirected an article to the list and the asked Wikipedia to un-delete a previous version of the article and then restored the previous text used by the editor Rocknrollmancer.

This would suggest as Wikipedia would describe as Meatpuppetry between the two editors that sometimes occurs between new and inexperienced editors. Both the editor’s doncram and Rocknrollmancer have both quickly replied to the deletion request and both in the same manner in making personal comments and concentrating on sock puppetry. There is no outstanding Sockpuppetry investigation by either editor and the previous investigation was successfully appealed after 1 month. It is required by Wikipedia that both editors ‘move on’ after the previous Sockpuppetry investigation and it has been explained before that the Isle of Man motor-cycle network of articles are subject to a higher number of edits compared to other Wikipedia article areas made by unregistered Wikipedia editors making edit using mobile phones.

Again, this is not a bad faith / disruptive nomination and the editor Rocknrollmancer as repeatedly been asked not to make personal comments or by his own admission use made-up 'pseudo-Wikipedia' terms. The issue of CoI allegedly identified by the editor Rocknrollmancer in May 2014 is unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is very clear on the issue and the place of residence of an editor is not sufficient to make any type of CoI declaration or use CoI as a "trump card." The issues of “….partisan censorship of Wikipedia, deletion of content and editwarring…” are all unsubstantiated as there is a difference between editing on just one single article (there is also no issue of paid advocacy) and editing in a series of linked articles. Also, “within a notional 95% singular-topic area” as the editor Rocknrollmancer refers too, perhaps more than 75 percent of the edits have involved transposing sports results from one source to a Wikipedia article and there is no issue of CoI. There is no issue of Conflict of Interest in this nomination for deletion as the list article refers to only geographical names. Again, the geographic features brought together in this list that has been reproduced without attributing it to its source which is required by Wikipedia and there are also issues of Original Research WP:OR.

It is a requirement by Wikipedia that any editor asking for a Conflict of Interest declaration of another editor must make it clear that it is a voluntary process only and that privacy issues of any editor over-ride any CoI request / deceleration. The editor Rocknrollmancer has not followed this process and by the editors own admission made a series of “bad faith” edits and engaged in 'outing' tactics. The Wikipedia English Oversight Committee has investigated the matter and there is no formal connection on Wikipedia between the edits that the editor Rocknrollmancer refers too and my own personal Wikipedia editor history. The “….oversight and sending private emails complaining…” was initiated by the editor Rocknrollmancer after in by the editors own admission an edit described by the user Rocknrollmancer as “BS” and engaging in editing in "bad faith" and using 'outing tactics.' The editor Rocknrollmancer has failed to make clear that after initiating the CoI request that the editor Rocknrollmancer was asked to delete immediately the edit as there was a privacy issue. The same page was registered with the Wikipedia English Oversight Committee which required any editor to inform the Oversight Committee and immediately redact the edit which the editor Rocknrollmancer has not complied with. In respect to private emails there has been off-Wiki contact between the two editors doncram and Rocknrollmancer.

There has been an issue with the editor Rocknrollmancer and also the editor doncram with deleting good faith edits while I was an editor blocked subject to the Sockpuppetry investigation which is not permitted by Wikipedia. The editor Rocknrollmancer has used the edit summary to make comments and bypass any potential BRD discussion on the appropriate talk page if the edit is controversial. The edits made by the editor Rocknrollmancer include including false information without any citation, using unreliable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE , issues of direct and indirect bias (including subject an article to speedy deletion relating to the controversial aspect referred to in the BRD) and failing to address the issue of article (independent) notability. WP:N The editor Rocknrollmancer has the opportunity to use the BRD discussion, but has chosen not to do so. The editor Rocknrollmancer by his own admission admitted to breaching the Wikipedia rules in respect photo content, placement and size.

To summarize, the editor doncram has repeatedly used the process of article redirects to force his editing opinions on the list article. The information is often incorrect and after ‘stonewalling’ the editor doncram has refused to make changes. The issue of notability has not been resolved and the list does not allow or editors to expand the articles that are redirected. The editor doncram on the talk:page has repeatedly hatted and top-hatted comments, there have been unexplained text collapses and repeatedly asked not to break-up the comments and then again broken-up the talk-page discussion and then unnecessarily archived the comments. The editor doncram has also in another related Isle of Man motor-cycling article has again unnecessarily archived a talk-page discussion which relates to a controversial area in a later subsequent BRD discussion. The responsibility of adding or deleting information lies with the editor and false information, "BS" and "outing" is not permissible. The list article has been misused and the issue of article independent) notability has not been addressed and the edit history and talk:page discussion show that the editor doncram has repeatedly tried to move the article into other areas which conflict/contradict other articles in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network. agljones(talk)11:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process. It is part of the deletion process that no personal comments to be made or use made-up ‘pseudo-Wikipedia’ terms in the deletion process or use personal comments in other articles including talk:pages and the edit summary boxes. In respect the allegations in respect to sock puppetry, either redact the comments in the deletion process or immediately instigate a sock puppetry investigation.

It is permissible during the deletion process to edit the article subjected to deletion. However, as the article subject to deletion due to the issue of independent notability WP:N and also duplicating/contradicting other articles in the network, any editor that has commented on the deletion process should not then use the opportunity for “edit warring,” redirect articles and restore spurious deleted information and not address the issue of the articles independent notability WP:N. Also, the issue of the “creative” process in the selection of the list items in the list article is required to be resolved by Wikipedia with an appropriate citation and also resolve the issue of independent articles for each list item.

agljones(talk)20:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the challenge to redact or to support mention of sockpuppeting: I referred somewhere above to articles on named corners having been created by editor Agljones and/or sockpuppet(s). Agljones is fully aware of their having been found to operate sockpuppet account User:11thmilestone, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones/Archive. The sockpuppet 11thmilestone's contribution history shows they edited at numerous "named corner" articles and created Talk pages for several of them, but in fact, contrary to my recollection, I do not see their having created any of the named corner articles directly. So while my wording that many of the named corners were created by Agljones and/or sockpuppets is technically correct, it was not necessary for me to conjure up the sockpuppeting.

I do agree that repeated mentions of the past sockpuppeting is not helpful, and I will go further to ask editor User:Rocknrollmancer also to dial that back. RnR's edit summary in this edit was not necessary. It is bizarre that Agljones seems possibly to want to deny having sockpuppeted, and it would be over quicker if they would just acknowledge it and ask to move on, rather than running on without any admission. In my view (which doesn't matter greatly), Agljones' recent involvement in this area does not seem constructive to me (at least this AFD demanding other editors' attention seems costly and non-constructive), but the past sockpuppeting was addressed by a six month block which concluded and they are no longer blocked or banned. This thread is off-topic in this AFD and I prefer followup at user Talk pages instead. --do ncr am 20:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is required that that the comments about sock – puppetry to be redact the comments in the deletion process or immediately instigate a sock puppetry investigation. Other editors and administrators will only assume that the issue brought-up by editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram are trying to deflect criticism away from the deletion process about the list article having not addressed the issue of a) Independent notability, b) a citation for the ‘creative issues’ for the selection of the list items and c) the need for each list item to have an independent article.

The suggestion of sock-puppetry/bad faith nomination/disruptive editor is the only issue here which is substantially off-topic. This is confirmed by the comment by the editor User:doncram with the above comment “….I do agree that repeated mentions of the past sockpuppeting is not helpful, and I will go further to ask editor User:Rocknrollmancer also to dial that back.” Both editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram commented extensively on the sock – puppetry investigation, both before and after the successfully appeal after ONE MONTH (not six months and it should have been a shorter period due the slow and inept Wikipedia process) which included comments by both of these editors about bias, conflict of interest and accusations of bullying. The appeal was successful due to Wikipedia administrators not adhering to the rules and procedure and the excessive campaigning and team-tagging by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram. The suggestion that asking the User:Rocknrollmancer to “….dial that back…,” is a tacit admission along with the excessive campaigning and team-tagging that the editors the User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram are acting as meat-puppets which is in itself a form of sock-puppetry. Linking the creation of articles to other editors in the period 2006-2008 should not be described as sock-puppetry and should be also be redacted or immediately instigate a sock puppetry investigation.

Neither should any suggest of any further evidence of sock-puppetry per se be included as it is now more common for edits being made on Wikipedia without using a login name on mobile phone or other devices and this has also been brought to the attention of User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram and these undisclosed edits should not be used as further evidence of currently being a ‘sock-puppet.’ Also, the comments made by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram in the sock – puppetry investigation suggested that I had acted as a sock – puppet since the year 2000. I stated that I had “ …used….” Wikipedia since 2000-2001, the use of informal written English in the context of reading articles only. It is not reasonable for any Wikipedia editor of being accused of being a “ sock- puppet “ for reading any article on Wikipedia since the year 2000. Both editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram are not aware that due to ITIP conflicts and Wikipedia being by the standards of the day, an inexcusable and abysmal website to interact with (compared to eBay.com)and during the period of 2000-2004, it was completely impossible to either register a user name or make any type of edits. The other editors that created articles have not been subject to the same sock – puppetry investigation and therefore the explanation by editor User:doncram is incorrect.

Although it is unclear, I had to create a second user name in 2009 to access a now defunct Wikipedia street and map-making application for Wikipedia. As the editor User:doncram also mentions the second name was dominant for a long period of time (years), not used to create any articles which conflict with this deletion request and after reactivation in 2015, I had made a genuine attempt not to use another editor name. Also, as the comments made by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram in the sock–puppetry investigation, include making allegations of bias and editing a single article use. The article history of the Isle of Man TT article shows that the article was not created until 2002 and did not exists in its current form until 2005. I was only able to register an editor name with Wikipedia in 2006 due to Wikipedia being such an abysmal website (with internal structural problems) only after including personal details not required by the English Wikipedia Oversight Committee and the allegations of promotional activities by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer is factious and incorrect.

The comments made during and after the sock – puppetry investigation by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram including issues of ‘self-promotion’ which is a result of technical problems with registration with Wikipedia in 2006. Further issues made during and after the sock – puppetry investigation by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram include that of bias and single area/article use. This is contradicted by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer in the above submission to this article deletion request which suggests a 95 percent network area which is substantially different to a single article use. Also, the editor history also shows that rather than allegations of bias, article ownership and single article use, as I have stated previously more than 75 percent of edits have concentrated on transposing sports result from one source to a Wikipedia article and there is no issue here of bias, conflict of issue, article ownership and single article use as mentioned in the sock – puppetry investigation by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram.

It is a requirement of Wikipedia that editors “....move-on...” and which the editor User:doncram should understand this after serving a general ban and placed under a lengthy probation (3 years) which ended on the 11th May 2016. However, the editor User:doncram has still a topic ban against editing the list article National register of US Historic Places. This is far more pertinent and relates and the previous general ban which could be reactivated if the editor User:doncram “…. repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behaviour and decorum.” During this period, the editor User:doncram as mentioned above, deleted good faith edits while I was appealing the sock – puppetry ban, used in the same information in this list article which is requested to be deleted and then later restored the same information. The editor User:doncram deleted this article for the Ginger Hall and then asked Wikipedia to un-delete a previous version of the article and then edited the article to restore the text of version supported by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer

The user User:Rocknrollmancer has then edited another good faith edit for the article Isle of Man TT while I was while I was appealing the sock – puppetry ban and the editor User:Rocknrollmancer revised and failed to address the issue of independent notability WP:N and used a number of unreliable and biased citations and significantly by-passed any issues that could be discussed on the talk:page or initiating a BRD discussion by using the edit summary box. This relates to the deletion request for this list article as stated above by the user User:Rocknrollmancer and has used the sock – puppetry investigation to continue to make personal comments and allegations of bias, conflict of issue and article/area ownership. In respect of the Isle of Man TT, there is no conflict of issue, as Wikipedia does not allow CoI issues to be used as a trump card, I do not own any company or own/work for any company involved with the Isle of Man TT races and as Wikipedia states, that privacy issues override any CoI request and any declaration made is completely voluntary. The business rights of the Isle of Man TT races are owned by the Auto-Cycle Union, the company ACU Events Ltd manages the race organisation and the company Vision Nine Group from February 2016 is the official promoter. In respect to the issue of bias as mentioned in the sock – puppetry investigation, User:Rocknrollmancer has made allegations of editing on Wikipedia as “…. a controlling, complete reprobate, a partisan, pro-Manx editor who does not intend to allow neutrality which could show the IoM (Isle of Man) in a bad light.” [59] This edit [[60]] shows that I have made in respect to the Isle of Man TT Signature Sponsorship TV deal for the period 2006-2009 and this edit [[61]] in respect to the illegal loan scheme by the Manx Electricity Scheme Authority shows an exceptional proactive stance to editing which should be welcomed by Wikipedia and the allegations of bias, conflict of issue and single article/single area ownership made by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer are pathetic, completely false and unsubstantiated

After, addressing the issue of independent notability and ownership of the Isle of Man TT races and instigating a BRD conversation on the talk:page, the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram have failed to engage in that discussion. The editor User:doncram has failed to engage in the BRD at the talk:page for the Keppel Gate article which appears a list item on the list and again used the edit summary box to by-pass any discussion. The editor User:doncram has repeatedly not addressed issues of independent notability WP:N with the Keppel Gate article, used an unreliable source with an undisclosed photograph of an unrelated area (?), with issues of being promotional and plagiarism which cannot be substantiated by any other citation after spending more than six months research time reading contemporary newspaper sources. Another article on the list is the Windy Corner article has been again been redirected by the editor User:doncram despite there being no consensus on deletion or redirection. The talk:pages of the Windy Corner article contain a discussion about independent notability WP:N which the editor User:doncram has also made comments and is familiar with this issue. In respect to talk:page discussion the editor User:doncram has made the comments on the Isle of Man TT page that the races are the most dangerous race because “...it is so...” and then archived an discussion on safety issues. In respect to the article Ballaspur the editor User:doncram has suggested that the comment on a video says “….this is my corner….” passes the requirements of (independent) notability WP:N, WP:V and in regard to Ago’s Leap, suggested that a sign in a photo also passes the requirements of (independent) notability.

The editor User:doncram on these talk-page has repeatedly been asked to address the issue of article independent notability and also for the article list subject to the deletion request as required by Wikipedia rules but has failed to do so. The edit User:doncram has repeatedly redirected other articles to this article list, despite a requirement by Wikipedia for an independent article to exist. In the Isle of Man TT network of articles the editor User:doncram has again been forcing his opinions on other editors/edit warring over article content/independent notability to support his own policy in the development of the list including the inclusion of nonsensical comments or sections that conflict with the original articles, the use of USA technical terms not found in British-English and an emphasis on misleading whimsical and flippant quotations, along with a strong bias to US-internet citations that are questionable sources. These issues are not off-topic as they relate to the deletion review and along with the continued use of the edit summary to by-pass talk:pages or BRD discussions or by article redirection by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram which is linked to the deletion review and the behaviours of the two editors.

agljones(talk)09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no Notability. WP:NP and duplicates / contradicts information in the Snaefell Mountain Course article and other articles in the Isle of Man TT network of articles. The issue of independent notability has not been addressed in the Executive Summary. There are multiple issue plagiarism / Original Research WP:OR and the 'creative' issues in producing the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source. WP:INTEGRITY. It is also almost completely impossible to incorporate newly researched information due to the contradictory list article taking priority over the separate articles.
agljones(talk)08:35, 4 June 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 17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filter (magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real assertion of notability; there have been no exclusive interviews, and even the NY Review of Mags source (which, despite its title, "is an annual magazine published by students at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism", and itself hasn't been published since 2010), claims it's a very niche magazine. Therefore, as far as unequivocal RS is concerned, all there is is a Billboard article saying the mag folded (no pun intended). There's no guideline for magazine notability, but it doesn't meet common-sense barometers like popularity (stated niche), circulation (claimed 85,000, where our own List of magazines by circulation top 100 in the US it at minimum ten times that), or longevity (only 12 years, between 48-60 issues, because the article is inconsistent). MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the last AfD [62] said that the magazine should be kept because it was mentioned on the NY Times [63] and that it was a source on Google News. Those are false arguments. 1.) a mere mention does not count as notability. That fails WP:N 2.) Google News sources isn't reviewed by an editor. I vote delete, this magazine fails WP:N. The argument for why it was kept in the last AfD is false. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are sources out there about them: [64] from Billboard, [65] from Ad Week, [66] from Consequence of Sound, [67] from CraveOnline, [68] from the Los Angeles Times. Still trying to decide how I feel, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Those sources aren't really focused on the magazine. The festival and magazine are rightly considered products of the company (Filter Creative Group), but this article isn't about the company. The mentions are mostly trivial, as well: CraveOnline, where it's mentioned once, and Billboard, where it's one of about ten "brands" mentioned. Adweek is about FCG and doesn't mention the mag. Consequence of Sound is three paragraphs on the end of the mag, and is less in-depth than the Billboard source in the article on the same thing. The LA Times article doesn't even mention it in the article itself. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The sources say that the festival is an part of the magazine ("Filter magazine's Culture Collide Festival" seems to be how they describe it). But even if it's separate, an article could probably be written about FCG. There are certainly independent sources about its various ventures. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is deleted, let's make Frank Luther Mott proud and save the content somewhere. Mott's volumes on the history of American periodicals are great, he didn't necessarily have "entries" on every publication, but would include discussions on most defunct periodicals.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I've found nothing better, the entire article is still questionable for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Brown, Harley (2014-06-27). "Filter Magazine Ends Its Run as Co-Founders 'the Alans' Part Ways". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Good music will (still) prevail, even though Filter, the Los Angeles-based music magazine and Culture Collide festival promoter and organizer, will cease operation by summer's end.
  Filter co-founders Alan Sartirana and Alan Miller have parted ways to pursue their own endeavors. The latter will continue the Culture Collide brand as an editorial platform and its namesake festival, scheduled for L.A. (Oct. 16-18), San Francisco, and New York. Sartirana will launch Anthemic, an online music and culture publication, in September. The story was originally reported by Buzzbands.la.
2. Sniderman, Zachary (2010-05-05). "Filter". The New York Review of Magazines. Columbia University. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Circulation: 85,000
  Date of Birth: 2002
  Frequency: Five times a year
  Price: $4.99
  If you can find it in a store, Filter is hard to miss on the shelf. Filter sticks out, and not just because it is physically larger and usually much thicker than Rolling Stone or Spin. It is also not just about mainstream music culture. Filter focuses on “good” music, freely translated to mean “indie” music and the culture that surrounds it.
  Each issue of Filter is stacked with long-form artist Q&A’s, photo portfolios and profiles of well-known acts like Julian Casablancas and Peter Gabriel. A healthy chunk of space is reserved for “Getting to Know” new bands and spotlighting bands “You Should Already Know.” The back of the magazine is liberally sprinkled with bite-size album reviews and an eclectic mix of pop and indie culture events, updates and news.
  The real draw of Filter is its approach to the indie scene. Big-name magazines like Rolling Stone, Spin, Q and NME are fantastic resources but usually focus on established acts and rock aristocracy. Indie publications devoted solely to uncovering unknown new acts are often snarky or appear condescending. This is why most people don’t like hipsters in the first place.
  http://archives.jrn.columbia.edu/2010/nyrm.org/about/index.html notes:
  The New York Review of Magazines is an annual magazine published by students at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Victor Navasky, former editor and publisher of The Nation, and Roger Youman, former editor of TV Guide, oversee the magazine.
  That the magazine was written by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism students who are overseen by reputable journalists Victor Saul Navasky and Roger Youman strongly indicate that the magazine is a reliable source that can be used to establish notability.
3. Dobrow, Larry (2005-09-23). "Contact: Filtering Through the Noise". MediaPost Communications. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The idea was the brainchild of Filter magazine, a discriminating new-music pub whose creators rarely hesitate to think outside the page, so to speak. "We'd been putting together music samplers for Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie," says publication cofounder Alan Miller. "Filter Magazine TV seemed like the next natural step."
  ...
  For now, Filter Magazine TV remains commercial-free, though this could change in the near future. Like most other publishers, Miller claims that Filter's advertising is "seamless" and even appreciated by readers. Inserting ads into the preshow video presentations, however, could raise the ire of fans already bombarded with ads before movies and in other formerly ad-free venues.
  I consider significant coverage about Filter Magazine TV to be significant coverage of Filter Magazine because it is one of the subject's products.
4. Firecloud, Johnny (2013-06-03). "Culture Collide 2013 Lineup: Phoenix, Dinosaur Jr, Raveonettes, Liars and More". CraveOnline. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  FILTER Magazine has made quite a reputation for itself in delivering premier artists and uncovering new talent each year with its Culture Collide festival. This year, the celebrated even returns to Los Angeles’ Echo Park for its fourth year, running October 9-12, and features Phoenix, Dinosaur Jr, Liars, The Raveonettes and more.
  Culture Collide's multi-day experience celebrating creative curiosity stretches across some of LA’s most renowned and intimate venues, where attendees are bound to discover their new favorite international band, as well as FILTER’s own favorite headliners, artists, comedians, industry experts and more.
  I consider significant coverage about Filter Magazine's Culture Collide Festival to be significant coverage of Filter Magazine.
5. Tulich, Katherine (2011-10-07). "A collision of cultures (with music) in Echo Park. The Filter festival takes over the L.A. area for a weekend of bands, food and film". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  For those without an airline ticket to some far off land this weekend, the international sounds have come to Echo Park with Filter Magazine's Culture Collide Festival, a multi-day super-eclectic music event that features 80 artists from 24 countries and is taking over a two-block stretch of clubs and venues.
  Now in its second year, the festival is a rare opportunity to see the catchy Danish pop band the Asteroids Galaxy Tour, Australia's Cameras -- or even recently reformed East Coast indie band Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.
  I consider significant coverage about Filter Magazine's Culture Collide Festival to be significant coverage of Filter Magazine.
6. Longfellow, Richard T. (2013-10-11). "Music Moby, International Artists Open FILTER Magazine's Culture Collide Festival in L.A. The international music community visits L.A. for FILTER Magazine's 4th annual Culture Collide Festival". CraveOnline. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The superstar singer-DJ was a headline panelist Thursday at the kickoff event of FILTER Magazine's Culture Collide, a three-day celebration of international music, film, art, food, beverages and all-around global consciousness in Los Angeles' trendy Echo Park neighborhood.
  In its fourth year, Culture Collide features more than 25 international music acts, running the gamut from Denmark's Raveonettes to Australia's Miami Horror; from the UK's Fuck Buttons to even some homegrown American talent, including Bleached, the Liars and Mystery Skulls.
7. Reverte, Michele (2009-06-18). "Interview: Pat McGuire, Editor-in-Chief of FILTER Magazine". LAist. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  In an age when music publications are folding left and right, FILTER magazine soldiers on with five full issues and five Good Music Guides per year. The content of the publication is driven by its tagline, "Good music will prevail," and recent features have included everything from a major interview and photo essay with Morrissey to a nine-page spread about the history of Slayer.
  FILTER is one of the few major music magazines based out of Los Angeles, so their coverage of the local scene is a bit deeper than that of many other media outlets. LAist recently sat down with FILTER Editor-in-Chief Pat McGuire to chat about Morrissey, the rapidly changing magazine market and the unlikely road McGuire took on his way to becoming editor.
8. Schmelzer, Randi (2005-01-20). "Filter Creative Group Goes Mainstream". Adweek. Archived from the original on 2016-05-22. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Miller and Sartirana, both former record-label employees, originally teamed to publish Filter magazine, since 2001, a Los Angeles-based glossy intended to "turn people on to artistically credible music," Miller said. Each issue—editorial content clearly distinct from marketing, he stressed—features a CD sampler of songs and related advertising meant to appeal to the forward-looking consumers FCG clients aspire to reach.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Filter to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional review of sources Nakon 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Cunard, we had already established a few points earlier in the discussion that raise issues with your sources. The New York Review of Magazines is a publication not of the New York Times but of Columbia University. College publications are not considered RS per ((WP:USERG]] - it doesn't matter that the website is overseen - the material isn't credited to "credentialed members of the site's editorial staff" (which is what the policy requirement is). I'd also point out that a circulation of 85,000 is very, very small in a city of 8.4 million. We also established earlier that Filter the magazine is not Filter Creative Group - the magazine is a subsidiary of FCG, and the Collide Festival is another. That's made pretty clear in the Adweek blurb. Therefore, coverage of FCG in the context of the festival is not synonymous with the magazine. LA Times, Crave Online, and those articles where the focus is the festival, will not establish notability for the magazine, because there is no in-depth coverage of the magazine. When the extent of the mention, by the way, is one line, there's no way you're going to sell that as "substantial coverage." The interview with McGuire (the editor-in-chief) isn't independent of the source, so it can't be used to establish notability. So what's left other than the Billboard article? MSJapan (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERGENERATED doesn't say anything about college publications. College publications with an editorial staff are not user-generated or self-published sources. Student papers have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 11#Student Newspapers and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources?, and it is clear that college publications are not user-generated sources. In many cases, a college newspaper like the Columbia Daily Spectator might be considered insufficient to establish notability because it is student-run. However, The New York Review of Magazines is different. It is overseen by veteran journalists including Victor Saul Navasky, who was the editor of The Nation between 1978 and 1995. This sets it apart from typical student publications. Furthermore, the magazine is not written by undergraduates. It is written by Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism students. This again sets it apart from typical student publications. Based on these two points, I believe that the magazine is reliable and can be used to establish notability.
CraveOnline noted "FILTER Magazine has made quite a reputation for itself in delivering premier artists and uncovering new talent each year with its Culture Collide festival." Since the Culture Collide festival was run by Filter at the time, the festival is part of Filter's history. Significant coverage about the festival therefore can be used to establish notability for Filter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) mentioned this point above.
Likewise, significant coverage by MediaPost Communications about Filter Magazine TV is another source about Filter's product and history, so can be used to establish notability. Quote from the article: "The idea was the brainchild of Filter magazine, a discriminating new-music pub whose creators rarely hesitate to think outside the page, so to speak."
The LAist source is an interview, so the interview portion cannot be used to establish notability. However, in my above comment I quoted two paragraphs from the non-interview portion written by the article's author about the magazine. Those two paragraphs are independent material and cover Filter "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline).
The Billboard article is a very strong source because Billboard does not cover the shuttering of every music magazine. That Billboard found Filter's closure significant enough to write in detail about strongly establishes notability.
In sum, there are multiple reliable sources about Filter. Billboard and The New York Review of Magazines cover Filter in significant detail. MediaPost Communications, the Los Angeles Times and CraveOnline review Filter's festival Culture Collide. MediaPost Communications discusses Filter Magazine TV in detail. Filter passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying sources are notable, and your reasoning is spurious. You keep saying coverage is notable, and it isn't. Why? Because you can't make a sweeping generalization about what Billboard does and does not cover, and therefore assert notability because of that. You have no idea, unless you have read every issue of Billboard ever, about the level of coverage they do or do not maintain. You cannot say that the person who oversees a publication makes the publication notable, or that the type of student who writes it makes it notable. It's still a local student publication no matter which way you slice it. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if you want to call this RS, the statement by the writer "if you can find it" is almost as solid a statement for non-notability as I could get. You also seem to think that it makes sense for a magazine to have an idea, when in fact, it's the two guys behind it, the festival, and the parent company, which are three different entities who did. You can't derive inherited notability from a statement that no one is going to take at face value. Filter Magazine TV in Mediapost is not Filter Magazine. Ten articles on the festival that say "created by Filter Magazine" does not make the magazine notable even if it were true; you cannot use coverage of the festival to inherit notability for the magazine, period, because they are not the same entity. Even if they were, that's like saying Vans is notable for the Warped Tour, which they aren't; they're notable for making shoes. You need to read the sources for depth of content, not just a mention of the magazine, and you need to filter out repetitive and unrelated content. When you do that, you get "local small-circulation music magazine published for a period of time, and closed. Owners engaged in other ventures unrelated to publication of magazine." We don't know who was in the magazine, we don't know what they did in the magazine, we don't know if anyone cared about the magazine, and so on and so forth. We have a lot of namedropping, and namedropping from a related entity doesn't constitute notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not say the sources are notable. I say the sources are reliable and discuss Filter and its products such as Filter Magazine TV and the Culture Collide Festival so establish notability. I have provided sources showing a clear linkage between Filter and its products which conflict with your view that Filter Magazine TV and Culture Collide Festival are "Owners engaged in other ventures unrelated to publication of magazine." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides what Cunard found above, there's this writeup in Billboard, which calls Filter "one of the most active unofficial media brands at SXSW". I think there's enough to establish notability for Filter here. Or, if not specifically Filter itself, then Filter Creative Group, which seems to be the parent group. A requested move can decide which entity the article should focus on. Some of the coverage is a bit light, and some of it is of their dissolution, but there's enough of it to convince me that we should keep this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After looking at the various sources linked above, this looks to pass WP:GNG. (Seems also worth mentioning, although this hardly confers notability in its own right, that it's been established as a reliable source for use on Wikipedia). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has received plenty of in-depth coverage from more than one reliable source, and clearly passes GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are persuasive in establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to an Absent Lover (album)[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Single ref to Discogs merely establishes the existence of the album, but not notability. All i could find that was better is this one review: [[69]], but it is not enough to establish notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of minutes of Googling found [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. Good enough for an album article. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 is an artist bio, and 2 is the source I listed above, but the others are ok I guess. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NA1000 has made a strong arguments that others have agreed with and has not been rebutted. As noted, it is enough to prove the sources exist, they do not have to be used in the article (though that would be ideal). Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork.com[edit]

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

My searches have found several links throughout the years from News and browsers but still nothing to suggest the applicable notability and nothing from the current article is also better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only reliable source seems to be the Irish Independent and even that reads rather like a press release. I'd prefer to see some more sources. ww2censor (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the new sources are just links to where their software is available, such as the Apple app store, Google PLay, etc, which just means their software is available, but so are many thousands of others. Reviews provided by a company employee are no better. Most of the additions appear to be by company employees who have not edited anything else except to add link to this in related articles, so they have a clear conflict of interest. Also, mention that the company are to lease a properly does not confer notability on the company itself; many non-notable companies do that. The Irish Times citation certainly adds something new. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable company Flow234 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Looking beyond the article headline titles, notice how sources cover various aspects of the company, its history, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Irish Times
Irish Independent
Irish Examiner
Evening Echo
Irish Examiner
The Irish Times. Quote: "Datahug founder Connor Murphy has written of his admiration of the bootstrap funding model of Irish start-up Teamwork.com and worries that he is missing out on a huge opportunity in Asia. "If I was 22 and had just graduated I would be...". (subscription required)
Sunday Business Post (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Sandstein and MBisanz: Some relisting errors occurred, in which this discussion was not present in any of the AfD log pages. So, I have added this discussion to the 2016 May 29 AfD log page. As such, this discussion should be considered as having only been relisted once at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article is notable enough. See WP:ORG. ☞Henry☜ 18:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -The Keep votes comment that this is apparently notable enough but the article gives nothing else better convincing so we cannot keep this simply because it's apparently notable if there's nothing actually better to emphasize. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People !voting about topics are not required to improve articles. Check out WP:NOEFFORT and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Also see WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The articles in The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Irish Examiner, and the Evening Echo all provide significant coverage of the subject, allowing it to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe at the time that this AFD started there were not sufficient sources, but by now it is clear that there is in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. The company has significant impact, it's not just a flash-in-the-pan fly-by-night operation and so we have enough notability and verifiability for a stable article. --Slashme (talk) 21:06, 7 June 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 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Spahi[edit]

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

None of this actually solidly convinces the applicable notability, notable coverage sources is not acceptable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable secondary sources independent of the subject I found were limited to [75], [76]. That's it. There are a bunch of sources on one particular WP:SPS, but it cannot be used for notability. At this point fails WP:GNG --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 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 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SDR Show[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided. If independent reliable sources are added to the article, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahari Ibaadat[edit]

Fake account. Fake information

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

Appeared to be based off someone else's page as was picked up initially as a copyright issue. Refs do not work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - really couldn't find much. Competed in the Miss Washington pageant, but I can't find reliable sources for anything else. Her bio there seem to contradict the other claims and given refs are dead. Not sure there's a real claim to notability, or any sources to support a bio. Kuru (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the listed concerns and there particularly, regardless, still being nothing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:01, 5 June 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 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse Talent Group[edit]

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

This agency clearly has famous clients, but I don't see that it is notable itself. The current sources are mostly press releases or business directories, and I couldn't find anything better than two articles about lawsuits they're involved in, with coverage of the company generally limited to "Their website says...". That's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's loads of information and sources but none of this accounts for any actual applicable solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mahoney[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources and dead links of media coverage whose content it's impossible to verify, of a lawyer and political strategist. While a backroom strategist can get into Wikipedia if the article is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, it's not an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie that entitles a person to an article just because he exists -- and the only other substantive thing here is that he ran, and lost, as a federal election candidate (which is also not an WP:NPOL pass.) And on a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people he was connected to, but I'm not finding a lot of coverage that's substantively about him in the manner necessary to satisfy GNG. Plus the article has been tagged ((advert)) since 2010, with only modest attempts to tone it down over the six years hence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention of Mahoney outside his failed runs as candidate or in any significant fashion I could find was this book [77], which describes his role as president of the Ontario Liberals, which isn't enough to push him over WP:GNG (even the current president of the federal Liberals doesn't have their own article!) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still, as despite detailed and sourced this is, still nothing convicing for the applicable notability and there being nothing including minimally convincing to suggest better otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here to indicate notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:00, 5 June 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 Robert Dziekański Taser incident. The discussion isn't amazing and I've debated closing as No Consensus but anyway after being up for 3 weeks I'm closing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braidwood Inquiry[edit]

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

Content fork. I'm mixed on whether this should be a merge, redirect, or deletion, however. Despite ostensibly being about the entirety of the Braidwood Inquiry, the "first stage" information consists of one paragraph. The article is really the "second stage" inquiry, which is covered more completely in its own article (Robert Dziekański Taser incident), mainly because things occurred after the main author here stopped contributing to the article. Therefore, aside from one paragraph, this is an inferior version of another article, and there doesn't appear to be anything else to say about Stage 1, as a safety inquiry isn't as newsworthy as an actual death. MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a reason why the inquiry would need a standalone article as a separate topic from the incident it was investigating — it's an unnecessary content fork. The title is a plausible enough search term that it should remain in place as a redirect to Robert Dziekański Taser incident, though. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is still seeming best known for that, nothing to particularly suggest anything better as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Content fork. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:58, 5 June 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 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Spirit[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The series games have only received two major reviews, as currently recorded, and there isn't much else in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and Google Books search. Anything that needs to be said about this topic can be said in a redirect to Grey Dog Software, the developer. czar 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Articles created before 2008, doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. --OGfromtheGut (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently false. Wikipedia guidelines apply equally to all articles irrespective of when they were created. There's no grandfathering here. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Props for a unique argument -- unfortunately it is utterly worthless. What could have possibly led you to conclude that creation date could somehow exclude an article from meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OGfromtheGut, I hate to pile on but that's not a reason to vote "keep". Sorry. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Total tripe. Op47 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I could find nothing convincing from third-party sources to indicate notability; most of what exists is either first-party, promotional, or fandom, none of which satisfies WP:RS. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the first game, there this archived review in PC Today and this archived review from GameSpy. The second game has a review from PC Gamer indexed here by Metacritic. This doesn't count for much, but there's also a top 30 list from Digital Spy that features the second game, and the series got a trivial mention in this article from Vice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable wrestling game. Regarding the mentions it has, they are all trivial mentions. World of Mixed Martial Arts also probably isn't worthy of a topic. - Safetine (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, it's a non-notable game with trivial mentions. After 8 years, you would think there would be something to show it's notable, however there isn't that I could find. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The PC Gamer review can hardly be called trivial. Other reviews help support this notability. Others, like [78] haven't even been mentioned yet in this AfD. There have been quite a few delete votes, but they all ignore the evidence supporting notability for this series. GNG is satisfied. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Operation Sports accepts fan submissions judging by its About Us page at http://www.operationsports.com/about.php:

"If you have sports games news, screenshots, videos or other editorial content which you would like to see featured on Operation Sports please send an email to news@operationsports.com."

It is not a reliable source. - Safetine (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't say that just anything submitted will be posted. The site has an editorial staff. A quick search for the author, Aaron Holbert, finds him referenced on other several other sites, and he was featured in this article by the Washington Post. He's got a bit of credibility, so I wouldn't write him off as an unreliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see where you're coming from, but most reliable sources don't accept articles written by readers. You don't see the New York Times accepting reader submissions. - Safetine (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we can wait for better and there's nothing particularly better convincing from the article itself to suggest anything worthwhile acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 5 June 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 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zamaanat (1977 film)[edit]

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

I noticed that the none of the sources here are reliable sources that would indicate that this is a notable film. I prodded it for that reason but the prod was removed and yet no improvement on the sources. Sources only indicate that the film was made which is not really the issue. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: A. Salam A. Salaam V.K. Sobti B.B. Bhalla Jeetendra Reena Roy Amjad Khan Sonik Omi Gautam Pictures

Weak keep of another pre-internet Indian film which was produced and screened years before Indian media sources were even beginning to be archived online. We thus do not expect to be able to find online press archives for a 40-year-old Indian film, though we can hope someone personally saved such media coverage or that it might exist in live library archives somewhere in India. Lacking such, we may instead look to books to determine whether of not the film has become recorded therein as part of India's cinematic history.[79][80][81][82] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film is not notable enough to be kept on the wikipedia page. There are countless obscure Bollywood films that are not notable. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, concur with Schmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 May 2016

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Dinosaur[edit]

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

Originally this was a prod but I had to remove it as the person who put it up had this as a possible hoax for not having refs. Anyway I looked it up and it indeed exists. Though it might be a Youtube show. Though interesting enough there is a link to List of programs broadcast by ABC Television to this page. I'm not sure if this is notable though. Wgolf (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see, it looks like it's most likely the show broadcast by HooplaKidz. On a side note, HooplaKidz has some serious issues with notability overall, since the article's sources are either primary or inappropriate, like Amazon links. I may nominate that for AfD if I can't find anything for them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, so far I haven't seen anything to show that this was an ABC show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found it - it looks like the HooplaKidz show was broadcast on ABC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However... I can't really tell if the channel made the content or if they're just rebroadcasting it. There's no mention in the AM article of HooplaKidz and it mentions that the production company was Huminah Huminah Animation. Nor does the YT video credits say that HooplaKidz created this content or that it was specifically created for them. Offhand I'm going to have to assume that they were just rebroadcasting the content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an odd situation. The series does exist and was broadcast on ABC Australia as far as I can tell, but it was also broadcast on several other channels like Discovery Channel. This means that there's no clear redirect target and we also don't know in what context this was shown. There's no fanfare out there, so I get the impression that this was more filler material to show inbetween shows than anything else. Redirecting it to HooplaKidz isn't an option either since there's really nothing to show that they were the creators of this project and there's more evidence to suggest that this is something they broadcast on their YT channel rather than something that they were involved with creatively. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i was the one who originally prodded it as I didn't find any evidence of it with a quick search. Congrats on finding out where it is from, but if it is that hard to even find out what it is thats a dead giveaway that it doesn't deserve its own article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I was wondering why I couldn't find info for a ABC show with this name, I then looked over the links and noticed it was for a ABC in Australia! When you say ABC to me it either means the alphabet or the American channel, so yeah I was confused about that! Wgolf (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find when this was even from. Part of this almost feels like a copyright issue looking over the article. (Well not that it matters this article will probably be gone in a few days anyway unless if someone can find some type of notability before then) Wgolf (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced and unnotable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG, not notable in any way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all that has been said, including failure of WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Considering the difficulty experienced in just trying to verify its existence, it is highly doubtful that notability has been achieved. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's certainly enough consensus now and there's nothing for any minimal notability here. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Garcia[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, with résumé overtones, of a film and television producer. The referencing here is primarily to glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, with the sources that are actually about him in any substantive way being a press release, a GNG-flunking blog and his own staff profile on the website of his own company. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a producer into Wikipedia -- it takes reliable source coverage about him, not just cursory verification of his existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Some of the articles attached to this one, specifically Universal Groove are a mess of OR and puffery. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for AfD. The entire article is a promotional, puffery mess made even worse by the completely unsourced claims that Haim was on drugs the entire time. While it's likely that he was, this is the type of things that people sue over even if the person is deceased, so I'm lobbying for it to be completely deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All unsourced contents are removed and article has many reliable news sources Agarsamai01 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Agarsamai01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, it doesn't have a lot of good sourcing. It's got a lot of sources that mention his name in passing in articles that are primarily about somebody else — but it's got zero acceptable sources in which Garcia is substantively the subject of the coverage. Our rule is not anybody gets to have an article the moment his name is mentioned in a handful of newspaper articles about other things (a mayor's wife, for instance, does not get her own separate article just because her name is mentioned four or five times in news articles about her husband) — it's that he has to be the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and none of the valid sources here have him as their subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here suggests the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. to keep, I would need to find (and have looked but cannot find) profiles/interviews in significant media and/or a film that she produced/crated (not merely assisted on), and it would have to be verifiably significant (not cited to primary sources as some films listed on page now are.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm in agreement with the above arguments. Notability isn't clearly established given that so many of the citations go to questionable sources, and those that appear more reliable just barely touch on the producer without giving the details needed to support a real article. This looks like a pretty clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:09, 8 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bikeway selection[edit]

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

I tagged this article with Template:How-to, but I am nominating it for deletion because I do not see how this article can be written as anything but a how-to guide and it is mostly unsourced. AHeneen (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly referenced, but that doesn't matter. What matters is if there are significant coverage from reliable sources. I found these, very quickly, among the 260,000 hits returned by google search: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. It seems that the subject is covered by every US State, many US municipalities, and many, many foreign government entities as well (I noticed Australia, Quebec and UK sources). The topic looks quite notable to me. Jacona (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide...that's the way this article is written and I don't see how the subject can be treated in an encyclopedic manner (ie. how it can ever be anything other than a guide). See WP:NOTGUIDE. AHeneen (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep or Merge with cycling infrastructure, the material is generally solid as presented. Only the first sentence is phrased like a "How To" manual; the rest simply documents what the sources state. The criteria for bikeway selection is a notable subtopic of cycling infrastructure. A comparable article would be: Road traffic safety --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of tomato cultivars. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White Queen tomato[edit]

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

Opinion Article. Redone. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 12:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I would even ask nom to retract this afd as I see a plain, genuine article? DeVerm (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of tomato cultivars and redirect per Primefac below. I also agree that it's the best option I see presented. DeVerm (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - while "one of the best flavors of all tomatoes (...) It's creamy white in color and very attractive." is WP:PEACOCK at its best, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (removing the peacock material took me a tremendous 2 edits totalling 150 bytes...). As long as the article about the variety is sourced and non-promotional, I see no problem with a permastub. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of tomato cultivars and redirect per Primefac below, since that is the perfect target. One can always split later if needed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and add to List of tomato cultivars. I'm not sure why we need a one-sentence summary when the list actually provides more information. Primefac (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess keep v. redirect. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as simply not convincing for its entire independent article, best connected to the other list. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of tomato cultivars, as we generally do in such cases. Cavarrone 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of tomato cultivars, which presently has no mention of this cultivar. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 2 June 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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Canadian Junior Curling Championships[edit]

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

Bare listing of stats with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CURLING notability guidelines. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That link leads to a wikiproject, not a community adopted guideline. I'm not sure what bearing it has on notability.- Mr X 15:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Curling/Article_Guidelines#Curling_Events -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, two people cannot create a guideline the overrules WP:N, per WP:CONLEVEL.- Mr X 17:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of debate over the last five years proves the consensus. Though, if you disagree with the guidelines, you should take it up at WP:CURLING first before putting up a random article for AFD. Don't you think that would have been more reasonable? -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not really how it works. The curling project can propose a guideline and notify the relevant public fora to get broader input. At that point, if participants believe a list of curling competition stats are appropriate for inclusion, then the new guideline will have some authority. - Mr X 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the issue here that you actually don't think this is notable? Or would you happy if I found some sources indicating widespread coverage? Obviously, more recent versions of the event have plenty of coverage, and can be referenced with online sources. 1996 pre-dates the internet era, so I would be happy to find some newspaper coverage. In terms of notability, I would argue that it falls under the greater scope of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#individual seasons, as it is similar to a collegiate season in the Canadian curling context (a national junior championship would receive far more coverage than a national collegiate championship in curling). -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for me is that it is a sprawling collection of stats, flags and redlinks, although I see that you have improved it by adding text. A Google search and the word "junior" in the title are what suggested to me that this was not notable. If 2-3 independent sources can be found, I would gladly withdraw the nomination and instead add a cleanup tag to the article.- Mr X 18:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. I was planning on heading to the library this weekend, so I will find some independent sources. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are you coming from, and I fixed up the large collection of redlinks. One thing to keep in mind is the basic format of the page and the collection of stats, though sprawling, is also found in events with huge coverage, such as the 2016 Tim Hortons Brier, just to name one example. The main difference between the two pages is that the 1996 Juniors had much less coverage, and is therefore much more simplistic. Overall, I think this particular event, along with similar events, has enough notability to remain on Wikipedia Thatcurler (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the guidelines of the curling project, which is a start. Copious content, this is more than a one line stub, so that counts, too. Structurally little different than its parent page, Canadian Junior Curling Championships. Esoterica, but let it be. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 4 June 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 List of Autobots. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aerialbots[edit]

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

This character grouping does not establish notability. There do not appear to be any significant sources that could be added. TTN (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator: you've already nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Predacons for deletion. Do you intend to nominate List of Autobots as well? If so, merging this there seems pointless. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above Buttons0603 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Autobots for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Rhodes[edit]

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

Yoga teacher. This was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but is now listed here to determine notability per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 1. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 13:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. There are only mere mentions of him on Google news. They are just his name in a list of other yoga teachers. None of the articles are about him. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything I find when looking for sources is either a mention, promotional featuring, or a puff piece that should be read as non-independent promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely includes Cunard's sources below.

1. "In the yoga world, many superlatives go along with the name Darren Rhodes. ..." ... "YogaOasis locations Call 322-6142 or go to www.yogaoasis.com ..."

2. "These top yoga teachers have dedicated themselves to their practice at an early age ..." ... "Where to find him:..."

Puff pieces, clear promotion, of growing business built around a new "style" of yoga. This is clearly organised business promotion, and Darren Rhodes aka YogaOasis should be treated as a new company and required to meet WP:CORP, which it does not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists typically write leads that try to "entice" the reader. See the Poynter Institute's explanation:

An effective lead makes a promise to the reader or viewer: I have something important, something interesting, to tell you. A good lead beckons and invites. It informs, attracts, and entices. If there’s any poetry in journalism, it’s most often found in the lead, as in the classic opening of what could have been a mundane weather forecast:
Snow, followed by small boys on sleds.

Providing basic information about how to contact the subject if the reader is interested in learning more is good journalistic practice.

Cunard (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

Significant coverage of the subject:
1. Vinyard, Valerie (2010-05-23). "Poster perfect: acclaimed yogi". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  In the yoga world, many superlatives go along with the name Darren Rhodes.
  Simply put, the Tucson resident and YogaOasis owner is one of the most visible anusara yogis in the world.
  In 2008, Yoga Journal named Rhodes one of the top 21 teachers younger than 40 who are "shaping the future of yoga."
  The 38-year-old also is the face - and body -for anusara yoga, which means "to flow with grace" and was founded in 1997 by 50-year-old Houston-based John Friend.
  Millions of people have seen and imitated Rhodes' poses on the anusara syllabus poster that's sold worldwide and at YogaOasis for $25 and $35.
  The article provides over 1,000 words of coverage about the subject.
2. YJ Editor (2008-07-02). "21 Famous Top Yoga Teachers in America". Yoga Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07. ((cite news)): |author= has generic name (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Darren Rhodes is quite literally the poster boy for Anusara Yoga. You can find him on the Anusara syllabus poster, deftly demonstrating more than 345 awe-inspiring poses. His motivation for achieving such a feat wasn’t ego driven; it came from his belief that asanas create more than just physical change. “When I come across a posture I really want to do, I ask myself, ‘How do I have to shift physically, mentally, and in my heart to be able to do that?’” He adds, “I want to be able to do a posture because I know it will require transformation on all levels.”
  Rhodes grew up in a family of yogis. His mother took up the practice when he was in utero, and his father is an avid meditator. He remembers entertaining his parents’ friends by doing poses in the living room. In high school he began practicing in earnest, using a Richard Freeman video and going to local studio classes. But it wasn’t until his early 20s that he met Anusara Yoga founder, John Friend, and had one of the most shakti-filled experiences of his life. “John turned my yoga practice into a radical, rockin’ life celebration,” he says, “which is what I strive to share in my classes.”
  Yoga Journal is an established publication. See "How 40-Year-Old Yoga Journal Keeps Up With Yoga's Newfound Fanatics" from the New York Observer and "Yoga Journal Celebrates Its First 10 Years in Russia" from The Moscow Times. I strongly doubt it would publish advertorials.
Less significant coverage of the subject:
1. Panasevich, Jake (2014-07-30). "10 Tips for Practicing Yoga at Home". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Get inspired. A great resource for all levels of yoga practitioners is the "Yoga Resource Practice Manual" e-book by Darren Rhodes. Darren is an excellent teacher and yogi. His e-book is thorough yet concise, and it provides pictures of each posture. The pictures alone are inspirational. If you’re in it for the long haul, this is a great home-practice tool.
2. Cushing, April (2013-04-19). "The Yoga Resource Practice Manual with Darren Rhodes. {eBook Review}". Elephant Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  The manual is simplicity at its best, with straightforward instructions and great use of graphics and fonts that are eye-pleasing. The eBook also makes excellent use of links, enabling the reader to easily navigate the pages. For those looking for a yoga manual that is easy to use, informative, true-to-form and with outstanding photos, then this is it.
  ...
  One disappointment about the eBook is the inability to search for a posture in the index by the English term, as it’s only alphabetized by Sanskrit titles. It could be difficult for the user to navigate the index if they are unaware of the Sanskrit terms for all 360 poses listed in the eBook. You can search for the English term under the search feature on the i-Pad version, but many users may instinctively turn to the index first.
3. Simonson, Scott (2003-07-07). "Yoga, and foot massages, too". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Yoga Oasis has operated in Tucson for about eight years, said owner Darren Rhodes.
  Yoga Oasis tailors classes to a variety of styles, skill levels and interests, including pregnant women and a mommy/baby class.
  The primary influence on the classes is Anusara Yoga, Rhodes said. Anusara, meaning "to be in the flow," strives to enhance both the body and the heart.
4. Bloom, Rhonda Bodfield (2003-12-21). "Chanting: Giving voice to yoga". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Darren Rhodes, owner of Yoga Oasis, said misconceptions still exist about chanting, particularly since many of the chants are to specific Indian deities. He's had some students express concern that chanting may be in conflict with their own religion.
  ...
  Rhodes has a steady group of 25 people who come to his central location for the weekly chanting gathering on Sundays, and points out that a recent concert drew nearly 400 people. He's opening a chanting class at his East Side location.
5. Gutherie, Catherine (2013-02-15). "5 Steps to Parivrtta Paschimottanasana". Yoga Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  For Darren Rhodes, yoga teacher and founder of Yoga Oasis in Tucson, Arizona, yoga is more than a means of unwinding; it’s a tool for observing unhealthy patterns and working to transform them. Rhodes has witnessed such transformation in his own body: As a teen, he was diagnosed with scoliosis, or curvature of the spine, that left him in pain most days. He describes the feeling as “an eagle’s talons wrapped around the muscles on the right side of my spine.” Years of yoga helped him reduce the curvature from what was once 40 degrees to less than 10 degrees. “I’ve learned that my practice is more potent than my pattern,” he says.
  Rhodes’s message is simple yet powerful: When you become aware of unhealthy patterns in the body, you can awaken to the possibility of change. A skillful, conscious yoga practice provides the opportunity for taking an unhealthy habit and creating a new one that better serves you.
6. Weintraub, Amy (March 2001). "Tucson Yoga Tour". Yoga Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Darren Rhodes, owner of Yoga Oasis, has been a yogi since birth (his mother practiced and taught Bikram Yoga while he was in the womb), and his studio offers a wide variety of hatha classes, including Anusara, Ashtanga, Bikram, and Kundalini.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Darren Rhodes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's covers any notability requirement. The subject is: 1.) an author of a book 2.) a teacher of a branch of yoga 3.) owns a yoga studio.

1.) His book failed to meet Any of WP:AUTHOR's requirement: 1.) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2.) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. or 4(c) has won significant critical attention. Having his book mentioned in an article doesn't meet "significant critical attention."

2.) He teaches a branch of Yoga, Anusara Yoga, but he departed from the school and that branch of Yoga no longer is associated with him [88]. In the words of the article, he "blew up a yoga school." A former teacher of a branch of Yoga isn't anything notable.

3.) The fact that his Yoga studio was one of the fastest growing Yoga Studio does give it a close chance to meet WP:LOCAL but, sadly, the studio's only mentioned. There's no articles exclusively about the studio.

Even on the more general WP:GNG Guidelines, there's still a lot of problems with what was presented above. The Elephant Journal was a magazine that was sold at WholeFoods which now is online only [89]. It isn't a reliable source. The Yoga Journal is a reliable source but they're mere mentions of him with a paragraph about him. They're not about him exclusively. The Arizona Star is a good source but there's only 1 article where it's exclusively about him [90]. Again, not enough to merit WP:LOCAL. All in all, the guy's a former teacher of a branch of Yoga that no longer associates with him. That's nothing notable. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It makes no mention of WP:LOCAL. The Arizona Daily Star and the Yoga Journal articles allow the subject to meet this requirement.

The Elephant Journal has editorial oversight so it is a reliable source.

The Yoga Journal article here provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject, which is significant coverage.

SmokeyJoe's demand to treat a person as a corporation is unsupported by the guidelines. This is a biography and the reliable sources are about this person—not about his company. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

SmokeyJoe's smearing of journalists like Valerie Vinyard of the Arizona Daily Star for writing "puff piece[s] that should be read as non-independent promotion" is a serious charge not backed by any evidence.

Cunard (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Cunard. The sources meet WP:N in my opinion. In fact, I think the US news source is undervalued a bit by Cunard... Hobit (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent, in your opinion? The US news source mentions him as the author of an eBook being advertised ($24.99 in iTunes), the article is a "how to" article, authored by a colleague of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any ads for the book, even after turning off the ad blocker and going to the actual site. And what do you mean by colleague? Both are Yoga instructors or that they both work for the same person/company? Both being instructors isn't any type of COI that would prevent it from being independent. But if the author of the article has a financial interest in the book, that's different. Hobit (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Panasevich, the author of the U.S. News & World Report piece, is a Yoga trainer based in Philadelphia. (Darren Rhodes is based in Arizona.) It makes no sense to disqualify a source because the author is a "colleague of the subject" of yoga. SmokeyJoe has provided no evidence that Jake Panasevich and Darren Rhodes have a close professional affiliation, so I am assuming that "subject" refers not to Darren Rhodes but to yoga. Cunard (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as enough to have as a likely search, not independently notable though. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting a redirect to? What is Darren Rhodes not independently notable from? He's received significant coverage in Yoga Journal and Arizona Daily Star, which means he is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review additional sources that were provided. Nakon 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT -- blatant self-promotion and hype. -- insufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article and do not see any promotional wording in the current article. The article is neutrally written and cited to reliable sources like Yoga Journal, Arizona Daily Star, and U.S. News & World Report. But if you see anything you believe is promotional currently in the article, please explain so I can rectify the issue. Cunard (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Cunard and Nakon's views that the sources provided are sufficiently independent to the subject. The extent of coverage cited by Cunard above add up to pass notability requirements. Deryck C. 10:21, 10 June 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. User:XPanettaa's added sources were added a week ago without challenge. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro (DJ)[edit]

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

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY, Beatport is not a notable chart. None of the performances are referenced. The artist should have at least one record in the national chart. No album release. Karst (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found two chart listings. First as part of a duo Alvaro & Chaosz / "I Want You" was 4 weeks in the National Dutch Singles Top 100, where it peaked at #79 (also on #9 in the Dutch Dance Top 30). I also found the following chart position: Alvaro - Make It Funky which peaked on #11 in the Dutch Dance Top 30. So he's notable enough. However WP:PRIMARY is at stake though. There are better sources for any one who likes to rewrite the article. Google "Alvaro" "Jasper Helderman" dance 1987 and find i.e. Omroep Flevoland, DDance, etc. Ymnes (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find that certainly addresses part of the notability issue. I tried to see if there was a page on nl.wikipedia, but there isn't? Karst (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of an article on another Wikipedia doesn't tell anything about the notability on English Wikipedia. Chart listings do though, as I showed here above. The only thing we need is someone that is interested in rewriting part of the article (and understands Dutch and can write well in English). Ymnes (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just red the above test quickly. But if you give me Dutch prose, I'll translate it into English. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation cannot be done because of copyrights, but I gave two links here above: one is a biography and the other is some additional information from Omroep Flevoland (and I gave a hint which words to search on Google, if you need more). The two links may give enough information for a little article on this musician. Ymnes (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added ((BLP primary sources)) to this article, so that anyone has to improve this biographical article by adding secondary or tertiary sources, because this article relies too much on references to primary sources. XPanettaa (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does. And the third-party sources mentioned appear to be local. I also observe (and that's what it is, just an observation) that since the AfD was posted, little has been added to article (see this diff). Karst (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: I think you should expand this article too, as you have expanded the article MOTi back in April, because this article has not yet been expanded, the sources are all primary and none of the performances are referenced. XPanettaa (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I've been batcalled. Unfortunately I don't think I can help much on this one, couldn't find any English sources at all to prove it's not WP:TOOSOON except those charting Dutch singles. That really should be enough to save the page, though, fits wp:Musicbio fine. Earflaps (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: Okay, if you can't help much on this one and couldn't find any English sources at all, as you have have expanded the article back in April, you should find sources for those charting Dutch singles instead. XPanettaa (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to find sources myself. That really should be enough to save the page, though, fits wp:Musicbio fine. XPanettaa (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added references for those charting Dutch singles. From now on, it is now notable enough and fits wp:Musicbio. XPanettaa (talk) 20:46, 1 June 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 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Hof HaSharon[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage outside of a few mentions. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest this would be solidly independently notable, the information suggests nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Tolzman[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines for automatic notability outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL, nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Makris[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines for automatic notability outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL, nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Makris is a successful sports executive by holding both a NBA D League position and NBA Franchise. He also played in the NCAA Football and has an MBA. Des Mois Register, USA Today have articles about himBasketballfan12 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USA today article is a passing mention in an article about the Grizzlies, and the Des Moines Register article is a very short article, and while being admittedly about him, fails to represent significant coverage of Chris Makris. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of significant coverage. Per WP:WHYN, we need enough coverage so a whole article can be written, and multiple sources so that balanced coverage exists to meet WP:NPOV. Note that I don't generally consider SB Nation, one of the sources cited in the article, to be a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rikster2 and Bagumba's reasoning. A D-League GM is not a notable figure. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining it!Basketballfan12 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing convincing of solid independent notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tharik Hussain[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography of a freelance writer who does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or any of the more specific biographical notability criteria. The subject seems to be best known for a BBC radio documentary nominated for a New York Festivals World’s Best Radio Programs award. However, I don't think this is a "well-known and significant award or honor", and at any rate the subject hasn't won one; the production he worked on was only nominated.

The draft's current referencing is mostly made up of articles that Hussain himself has written, which do not help show notability. I also did my own search of Google, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books, Highbeam, JSTOR and Bing. My search revealed only one independent reliable source with in-depth coverage of Hussain: this article by the Waltham Forest Guardian. However, it is only a local newspaper and as a result does not carry much weight. Hussain also gets two mentions in this book. However, it is only a brief discussion and I do not think it supports a finding of notability.

That is the extent of the independent sources I was able to find about the subject. Again, the majority of the references this search turned up were to articles Hussain himself has written, or to the radio documentary he worked on—these do not help show notability. /wiae /tlk 21:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author has left a comment on the talk page of this deletion discussion; I'll reproduce it below for easier visibility. /wiae /tlk 20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the AfD, I would like to say that my notability is in a field that is very niche and still developing/emerging, especially in the western psyche. The Muslim Travel Market and the Muslim heritage of the west. I would also like to add that quite clearly the revelations I have made - Discovering America's oldest mosque, a Sinan military fortress and a 600 year old Muslim community in the Baltic are certainly of note, and this has been acknowledged, albeit not necessarily in a written article as such. None of the above appear anywhere on the internet or in many public sources otherwise. As for the citations I make that link to writing by myself. I usually do this to evidence claims I am making about what I have written about - such as the Baltic Muslim or where it has appeared - writing for Thomson Reuters. I cannot see how else one would evidence such a claim except to lead the reader to the source. At present it is true that global media has not written much about the work I have done, but I expect that to change. The only ones that have are niche or local media as in the case of the newspaper mentioned and this LB24TV interview. I also have evidence of appearances on British Muslim TV, Islam Channel and BBC Radio where I am discussed in this light - for my specialism in the Muslim heritage of the west and travel writing about Muslim travel. I have not yet got round to connecting the relevant citations therein. In part because sometimes the citation is difficult to make as the programme may have been was live and no longer available, however, I do know the specific details in order for this to be confirmed and verified independently. I also feel I have been transparent about the fact that this is an entry about myself. I would appreciate it as one message states, if someone else was to assist in editing it in an unbiased way if it is felt that this is the case at present. The Wandering Musulman (talk)

Delete. One, "my notability" indicates a clear conflict of interest and an autobiography, both of which are strongly frowned upon here. We are a private not-for-profit, not a public webhost. Two, "very niche and still developing/emerging" screams "not ready for prime time". Three, this is a soapboxing: "clearly the revelations I have made..." Stop that. We are not a public forum. Finally, this is likely a copyright violation: "I make that citation myself". Bearian (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were still an admin, I would speedy delete and salt it. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the rationale of the nominator and the previous comment. The vast majority of the article is sourced to primary non-independent sources. The very few third party sources that exist do not make it clear why the subject is notable. The subject wouldn't pass WP:AUTHOR either. In the present form, the article is purely a case of WP:PROMO and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there is much to add after the nom, Tharik's own statement and nice summary from Bearian. This is classic self promotion, taken to next level. Well done Tharik! But sorry, this is not WordPress. --nafSadh did say 05:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing suggesting any actual solid independent notability, despite the information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ironi Kiryat Ono[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests it's otherwise notable in the basketball field and there's nothing at all to suggest notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Hadera (basketball)[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Played in the Israeli Basketball Super League. See e.g. 2000–01 season. Number 5 7 22:09, 2 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Rehovot B.C.[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing here at all to suggest notability in its field and nothing else convincing of anything better whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Acre B.C.[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggestive to suggest its notable in its field and anything otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Migdal HaEmek B.C.[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to assume it's otherwise notable in its sport field and nothing for any basic notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Emek Yizra'el[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggestive of the needed solid independent notability, nothing to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Kfar Saba B.C.[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing to actually suggest its own notable article, apparently professional but perhaps nothing else aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Bat Yam B.C.[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's only partly informative but nothing actually suggestive of the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 5 June 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 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Hevel Eilot[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggestive of the needed solid independent notability, nothing else convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 5 June 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 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Be'er Tuvia[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggestive of independent notability or anything otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 5 June 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 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beitar Kfar Yona[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing here at all actually suggestive of independent notability, nothing to suggest anything particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 5 June 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 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Nesher[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Professional? Yes. Anything else to suggest its independently notable and capable of its own article? No. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 5 June 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 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Emek Hefer[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing to suggest, other than being part of that league, that it is notable in the own field, or anything else otherwise convincing of notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 5 June 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 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Boylan[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines for automatic notability outlined at WP:NBASKETBALL, nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary or passing mentions only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhengzhou Esli GAC[edit]

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

Incoherent - claims to be in Washington and in China. No working references. Rathfelder (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits on Google News, EBSCOHost, etc. Nothing to establish notability. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete if its existence can't be verified then there is no point to the article. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 4 June 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 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremis Smith[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines for automatic notability outlined at WP:NBASKETBALL, nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary or passing mentions only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep, since there are no BLP issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Lengel[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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username)) or ((subst:canvassed|username))

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

Subject lacks notability, and is not widely-recognized in any of the areas asserted in the article. The article claims the subject is best known for writing a play which received minor coverage from two indie sources, and has a twitter page with 8 followers. Generally, many of the sources constitute self-promotion and/or possibly paid material, such as a play review. However, whether or not these sources were indeed self-promotional in nature is moot, as the subject does not meet the test for notability that would be expected of a notable playwright. Upon searching for the subject's work, one of his performances was seen on youtube, which was not very well attended or widely viewed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHqAmNTSH4). Sources for activism notability include a youtube video with 48 views of the subject walking down the street during an occupy protest, and some insignificant coverage.)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric10 (talk • contribs)

Delete His play on the Appalachian Trail might be notable (although that I am doubtful of) but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria for notability: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." indie sources are not mentioned, just that the sources be independent. Similarly Wikipedia Does Not Care How Many Friends You Have: "the number of fans, followers or "friends" (in the Facebook sense of the word) the subject of a biographical article has accumulated is brought up as an argument. **This information is irrelevant** and citing it ought to be considered an argument to avoid."

There are not "Two indie sources" one of the many cited sources is the Appalachian Trail Conservancy ^[1], which is the national non-profit which oversees the entire Appalachian Trail. That's not Indie, that's an American Institution. There is also an Interview on the Manhattan News Network ^[2], which is local television for New York City, the youtube views are irrelevant because it's just a copy of the broadcast which went out to a city of more than 9 million people. Another source is the Associated Press^[3], not Indie and even if it was as previously stated "Indie" is irrelevant, it's independent published secondary sources which is the criteria which has been met. Subject is also mentioned in an article on Salon by Natasha Leonard^[4]. Subject has print publications via Smith and Kraus Publishing and the play was produced by The American Theatre of Actors on 54th Street. Another source is from the blog of Rogue, the lead singer of the Cruxshadows and another source is a press release featuring a quote about Subject by Edward Tyll a famous radio personality who's been around for decades. Another source is Huffpost Live^[5], which is nearly network television. ^[6]

Also, if you look at the edit history of the page, this position has been backed up by multiple independent wiki editors, when Esoteric10 put it up for speedy deletion multiple times ^[7]:

{|"(cur | prev) 22:23, 19 April 2016‎ Adam9007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,372 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (Undid revision 716096021 by Esoteric10 (talk) Article credibly asserts significance. It's a lower standard than notability.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:32, 19 April 2016‎ Esoteric10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,387 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (participating in the occupy movement and writing screenplays does not pass the test for noteworthiness.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:05, 18 April 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,372 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Journalism) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:05, 18 April 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,372 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Collaboration with Rogue) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:03, 18 April 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,368 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (speedy declined, makes credible claim of significance) (undo)"

Finally, The criteria for notability for creative professionals is:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

Yes. Edward Tyll^[8], Kentucky State Poet Laureate Gurney Norman^[9], Rogue of the Cruxshadows.^[10]

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

Yes. Wrote the First Play About the Appalachian Trail.

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Yes. Multiple independent periodicals and reviews ^[11]

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Yes. The play running for three weeks at the American Theatre of Actors is a "significant exhibition" as are the readings at Dragon*Con.

You can't reasonably argue that someone who's covered by the Associated Press, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Salon, The Huffington Post, is in direct collaboration with a major international rock star with hundreds of thousands of fans worldwide who topped the International Dance Charts over songs by Madonna and Beyonce in 2005, hiked the entire Appalachian Trail and participated with distinction in a major cultural touchstone like Occupy Wall Street isn't notable. Also, subject meets all the criteria for notability for creative professionals.

There is absolutely no criteria for deletion. Subject is notable and the article credibly asserts significance. Plankhead (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Just to answer a few charges here:

" Generally, many of the sources constitute self-promotion and/or possibly paid material, such as a play review."

Theatre reviews are not paid for, and though quotes from them can be used for promotion by subject or subjects company independently, they were not used for promotion in Subject's article, they were simply used to establish credibility and notability, as reviews are one of the criteria for creative professionals notability.

"one of his performances was seen on youtube, which was not very well attended or widely viewed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHqAmNTSH4)"

This is a performance at The Flea Theatre ^[12] performed by the Bats, their resident acting company. A second source backs this up ^[13] This is the standard production level for that company and an off-off-broadway 99 or less seat theatre could easily have been considered "well attended" as well as fulfilling the criteria the notability criteria of significant exhibition due to the Flea's prestige.

Youtube video only used to source the existence of the play, as it is not listed on Subject's website.

"Sources for activism notability include a youtube video with 48 views of the subject walking down the street during an occupy protest, and some insignificant coverage.}"

This youtube video is an archive depicting an arrest via a prominent OWS livestreamer. Views do not matter because Wikipedia Doesn't Care How Many Friends you Have. It is used to establish the time that the arrest took place and involved another activist^[14] and backed up with NYS legal documents surrounding the case^[15]. It is not simply "walking down the street" and other sources for Activism include The Associated Press, Metro NY, Salon, The Star Ledger, Valley Free Radio, and the KKRP broadcast of the Cecily McMillian interview inside Rikers Island. None of which can be considered "some insignificant coverage". Penitentiary^[16] Plankhead (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note: this user is the creator of the article and likely the subject of the article himself. We need some more unbiased eyes on this article, please. Esoteric10 (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Per the original nominating post.~~^{[note 1]} The rationales provided by the poster above (who is presumably the subject of the article) are wholly inadequate to meet the general test for notability. See: WP:GNG. Also, is there stated policy against the subject of the article that is being nominated for deletion being able to vote on keeping their own article? Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me. Esoteric10 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user is the CREATOR of the article. He at least has a vested interest in keeping the article, but more likely is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric10 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Request Speedy Keep~~^{[note 2]} 1) User Esoteric 10 cannot vote a second time and cannot "Delete" or vote "Per nomination", let alone both Because Esoteric10 IS the original nominator. You can't vote to agree with your own vote (see Misc. Advice) ^[17]

2) User Esoteric10 has now accused me of being the Subject. This is ridiculous, look at my edit history, I've been around for years ^[18] Esoteric10's accusation is a violation of Assume Good Faith.^[19]

3) There is no stated policy against an author of an article voting on their own article. It's patently ridiculous to put an article up for deletion and refuse the author a voice in the process. Also votes are mostly irrelevant as Wikipedia is Not a Democracy and votes themselves are not the primary criteria for deletion. The criteria is "Does X Article conform to the rules" which, as I have established, it does. Votes are only one way with which Administrator's judge consensus.

3) Since my own Good Faith has been called into question, I'll point out that nearly all of Esoteric10's edits are far-right libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, bitcoin^[20] etc. as such, they have a vested political interest in taking down an article about an anarcho-communist, and in fact has been the only one trying repeatedly to take it down since the 17th.

All of this together: the objection to only minor sources while ignoring major ones, the failure to properly tag the initial nomination followed by voting for and agreeing with that same nomination, the User History and the repeat attempts at taking down the article in multiple ways along with the violation of AGF have demonstrated Esoteric10 to be behaving in Bad Faith^[21] as such, I request a Speedy Keep.Plankhead (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user is the author of the article. It's not a leap to assume he is also the subject of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric10 (talk • contribs)

Request Speedykeep Speedy Keep subject passes WP:GNG and nominator is clearly vandalizing for personal reasons. The nominator knows the subject personally and is using this as a way to antagonize the subject. Its a small, petty attack. Pitiful, really. NoLifeKing17 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)NoLifeKing17NoLifeKing17 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And now we have a sock-puppet problem. This is getting absurd. the only unbiased vote who is not a brand new account and has not edited the article before voted to delete. This article has no business existing, end of story.Esoteric10 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please open a sockpuppet investigation against this user if you believe there is a sockpuppet problem using the procedures outlines in WP:SPI. Plankhead (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article subject in this article is covered significantly in numerous and multiple reliable sources WP:RS including local and national coverage. Therefore the subject easily passes WP:GNG and should be retained as an article on wikipedia. The threshold of notability has been crossed. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no universe in which this article is a speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric10 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you are trying to accuse me of "vote collusion" because I chose to vote as speedy keep that is a very serious charge with no proof or diffs. You need to strike out and retract that nonsense ASAP, because I consider that statement by you Esoteric10 a personal attack! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey everyone, I hope I'm doing this right. I'm Brenton Lengel, the subject of this article. I recently got a series of Facebook messages from someone I know claiming that he was trying to take down my wiki article, and basically laughing in my face about it. Here's screenshots of the conversation with his name redacted: http://imgur.com/a/YBWEb

I don't know if this has any weight since I'm the subject of the article, but since I see people are talking about conflicts of interest, I figured this might be relevant information.

Either way, thanks Plankhead for making this article about me! I'm really flattered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.37.241 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has zero weight, because regardless of my personal feelings about you, you are not noteworthy enough to have your own wikipedia article. Sorry. I guess you shouldn't have been that guy who makes a wikipedia article about himself and boastfully shares it on his facebook page. Esoteric10 (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:37, 1 May 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 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject in this article is covered by multiple reliable sources WP:RS Therefore the subject passes WP:GNG and the nominator has an admitted COI Stockton22 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article itself cites multiple international sources including Salon, The New York Times and Al Jazeera. The subject unambiguously meets the criteria in WP:GNG. Zwilson (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the article cites many good sources, for the ones I checked, they only are tangentially about him or don't even mention him at all, but rather about people who he's worked with or things he's done. His play verifiably is not the first work of drama about the AT. ^{[citation needed]} Bearian (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please verify the above claim because the Appalachian Trail Conservancy says it is the first work of theatre about the AT^[22] also, while there are some sources which are tangential, these are used to establish specific facts about the subject, usually relating to his political activities, which are relevant. The Fifth Column interview ^[23], The Episode of the Narrative Breakdown ^[24], The Flea Theatre Interview ^[25] and the Episode of Let them Talk ^[26] are all good sources, indepented of subject and each other, and directly about the subject and his work. Plankhead (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is ridiculous, there are plenty of great sources and the nominator admitted they were just doing this because they personally disliked the Subject. 24.206.185.87 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC) editor has no other contributions to Wikipedia other than this !vote.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The most reliable sources provided don't actually mention the subject at all, or are only passing mentions. The only sources that really cover him specifically are blog posts, press releases, and the subject's own web site. Very few of the "speedy keep" commenters appear to really know what that term really means--it's for nominations where the subject very obviously is notable (which, even if my own assessment is incorrect, is most assuredly not the case), or for which the nomination was indisputably in bad faith (debatable, perhaps, but not indisputable). Moreover, most of these "speedy keep" !voters have relatively few edits in general or in AfD discussions in particular. (To be fair, the nominator doesn't have a long editing history either.) Regardless of the motives on either side here, the article itself does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. --Finngall ^talk 22:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the reason people are voting speedy keep is the facebook admission of Bad Faith on the Nominator's part. It's easy to miss but I don't see how bad faith isn't indisputable after Esoteric10 messaged Subject with "You Mad?" and then proceeded to admit his motivation was over political differences.^[27] Esoteric10 even confirmed it was him who sent the messages in this thread. Steene01 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article are of three types: trivial mentions, non-reliable, or non-independent. Searches did not turn up anywhere near the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG (News - 1 trivial mention; Highbeam, Newspapers, and Scholar - Zip; a couple of trivial mentions on Books). In addition, what brought me to this particular AfD discussion is that one of the folks who is !voting keep has begun to canvass for other keep !votes. While checking out a talk page of someone on my watchlist, I came across their request to come here to try to save the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep and a verified trolling nomination - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still going through the sources to see if the subject is indeed noteworthy and determine how I'll vote. But I have a question. Does Esoteric have any evidence that the creator of the article is also the subject? This is a claim he makes repeatedly. Given that writing about yourself is a conflict of interest and is something that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, if said evidence exists then it should be presented. Otherwise, repeatedly making said claim is purely speculative and amounts to personal attacks and poisoning the well. Alexander Levian (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(or Speedy Keep if that is indeed correct) So, I don't know if my vote counts, because I joined wikipedia because of this page (I'm glad I did and I do intend to stay if that helps). Full Disclosure: I'm a fan of Subject. We aren't personal friends or anything but I used to listen to his radio show and I've seen two of his plays. I saw the article shared on social media and thought "oh cool!". Later I saw the repeated takedown attempts and thought they were trolling or vandalism and so I made an account. I've stayed out of this because I'm new, and I kinda put my foot in my mouth on the talk page, (for which Plankhead set me straight). I see alot of people getting stuck on the Salon and New York Times sources. But these are not the primary sources that the article rests on, they're just incidentals (Salon is proof of Subject's relationship with the Yippie Museum and his self-identification as an anarchist, NYT is proof of the Museum's closure.) The article stands with or without them. Stuff like the Fifth Column Interview, The Narrative Breakdown Episode, the MNN interview and the Associated Press "Who's Marching" ^[28] story talk directly about the subject and his plays and those are the sources that are repeatedly linked. This coupled with Esoteric10 going on facebook to taunt The Subject^[29] and Esoteric10's admission to it in this very discussion(scroll up)confirm a troll nomination/Bad Faith and unless wikipedia has a rule that the only periodicals that count are the New York Times and similar publications, I think this is a very obvious keep. Plus Huffpost Live spends some time talking about Subject and his plays and politics and that's got to be up there with at least Salon.^[30] Steene01 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be properly sourced. I really don't see any issue. The request for deletion seems to have been done solely for personal reasons [91]. The person making the request has poisoned the well by repeatedly asserting that the page was created by the subject (an act that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia). I asked for some evidence of this a few days ago but no response has been given. I see no evidence of that the page was created by the subject and I see nothing wrong with the sources. If someone would like to present a better reason for deletion, I'm all ears. But until then, I think the article should stay. Thank you for your time. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, this is quite the horrific mess, as I guess you'd expect from the numerous comments that appear jumbled up above. The nomination appears to clearly have been made in bad faith for personal reasons that aren't relevant. When it comes to the page itself, however, I find myself in agreement that while there are a lot of citations these appear to almost always be either quick, side mentions (an article about X just refers to Lengel, not going into that much detail about what's he's done) or publications that go into helpful detail yet aren't likely reliable sources. He's clearly a personally accomplished guy, yes, but 'notability' in the Wiki context isn't a function of talent or achievements, just of proper sourcing. I'm going to add that, from reading Lengel's own statements in the Imgur.com link, it appears that he takes exactly the right attitude about these things: he has his own life while a page is just a page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references note:

The Deseret News article is at http://deseretnews.com/article/765602123/Who-is-marching-in-Charlotte-to-protest-the-DNC.html as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While going through the sources, I googled one of the print magazine articles and came up with this: seems Independent, Non-Trivial, and Reliable to me: [92]; Steene01 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this was not transcluded to the log before its first relist, this can be understood as the 2nd relist. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now at least for now. As an uninvolved Wikipedian, this nomination has become a mess. I cannot follow all the deleted/redacted votes and extensive quoting from the edit history. As for the article itself, it appears to be a standard article about an artist. Some of the awards for his works appear significant, showing that his work is regarded as having some quality. The article should at least be provisionally kept, perhaps trimmed significantly, and if necessary, be relisted for deletion at a later time when it is no longer attracting apparent fans. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've looked at a few references, and they establish notability to my standards... that is, they are from reliable sources, and they make sufficiently significant mentions. While I haven't seen a single article specifically about him, the artist, independent of his works... well, that's not really a reasonable expectation for an artist. They're always going to talk about the work first. The standards for an artist is whether he has a significant number of works, each of which are notable. He meets the standards. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ User Plankhead (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC) redacted this vote, for the reason that Esoteric10 is the original deletional nominator
^ Can't vote twice! - your "keep" vote is already recorded above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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