The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete/redirect: I can see a few press mentions, mainly press releases or relating to the subject's attempted candidature (one of which I have added as a reference). The Independent People's Party (Ghana) itself seems of marginal notability at best, with a total of 679 votes in the 2012 parliamentary election and a deficit in substantial coverage, but it is a reasonable redirect target as the subject lacks WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BASIC notability in his own right. AllyD (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete both The sources available do not seem to be reliable sources. Both articles are about the same individual, so it is OK to delete both. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Beatty is only really notable for being Miss Utah, and this is not enough to establish notability. The coverage up until she won Miss Utah is all local coverage from St. George and southern Utah. The Deseret News article on her win makes about as much mention of other contestants. I did find an article from Today.com about her being at one point diagnosed as never being able to walk, but even if that is a reliable source (I don't know) it is not enough to suggest notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This took a while to investigate because there are 20 references, the article is by far laid out better than many of the other like articles with far more content, appearing to satisfy notability requirements. However, in looking at the references, the majority being local coverage, there is still a problem with the subjects notability. Many of the references are run-of-the-mill, local, or a primary source and I looked at all of them. 1)- "It's in the family - Five women in family named Miss Washington County" (The Spectrum: About her family ), 2)- "There is Something for Everyone at the Washington County Fair" (The Independent: About all of us; 404 error or Dead link ), 3)- "Krissia Beatty, Miss Washington County Finalist in Miss Utah Pageant" (KCSG: Finalist in Miss Utah pageant), 4)- "State Contestants: Utah - 2012" (Miss America: Primary source and a Dead link), 5)- "Miss Dixie Crown Passed To Krissia Beatty" (Dixie State University: Primary source), 6)- "State Contestants: Utah - 2013" (Miss America: Primary source and 404 error; dead link), 7)- "Ciera Pekarcik crowned Miss Utah 2013 at Capitol Theatre Saturday" (Deseret News: About Miss Utah 2013 Ciera Pekarcik and pageants in general and not about the subject), 8)- "State Contestants: Utah - 2014" (Miss America: Primary and dead link), 9)- Miss Nebo 2014 ( Miss America: Primary source, not significant), 10- "Miss Nebo Krissia Beatty crowned as Miss Utah 2015 Saturday" (Deseret News: Miss Nebo again), 11)- "Miss Utah 2015, Krissia Beatty" (Miss Utah pageant, a primary source), 12)- "Krissia Beatty, Miss Nebo Crowned New Miss Utah 2015" (Gephardt Daily: Crowned Miss Utah), 13)- "Miss Nebo Krissia Beatty crowned Miss Utah" (KSL-TV: Miss Nebo crowned Miss Utah), 14)- "Miss Nebo Krissia Beatty crowned Miss Utah 2015" (Daily Herald: Miss Nebo crowned Miss Utah), 15)- "Miss Nebo Krissia Beatty crowned Miss Utah" (The Washington Times: Miss Nebo crowned Miss Utah), 16)- "State Contestants: Utah - 2015" (Miss America: Primary source and dead link), 17)- "DSU student Krissia Beatty crowned Miss Utah" (The Spectrum: Miss Utah), 18)- (Daily Herald: Utah County contestants in general), 19)- "Miss America Show Scholarships 2016" (Miss America: Not about the subject just Scholarships in general), 20- "The 2016 Miss America Competition Scholarships & Awards" (Miss America: Primary source and 404 error page, Dead link.)
Conclusion: With all the references Krissia Beatty won Miss Utah and did not place in the Miss America 2016 pageant. The majority of the references are a collection of news reports, primary sources (those that are not dead links), and are predominantly related to the single event of Miss Utah that is just not enough for article inclusion. Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no problems with this well-written article that need the attention of AfD. Encyclopedic coverage of topics such as this one is at the heart of the reason that Wikipedia exists, to be the sum of human knowledge. Unscintillating (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is easy to find more sources, I clicked on one article and found:
"Beatty received a celebratory send-off in St. George Aug. 22...in the Gardner Center Ballroom on the DSU campus."
Comment The suggested added source is another local, southern-Utah source that is a reaction to the one win. We either need coverage far outside of her local area or extended coverage over more time to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In researching the excellent workmanship in this article, I see that the nominator has not posted a notice of this AfD on the article creator's page. Further, the AfD notice itself has no edit comment, diff. Unscintillating (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination says that it doesn't know if [1] from today.com is a reliable source. A Wikipedia search for "today.com" shows that the term is a redirect to Today (U.S. TV program), which says:
Today (stylized as TODAY), also called The Today Show, is an American news and talk morning television show that airs on NBC. The program debuted on January 14, 1952. It was the first of its genre on American television and in the world, and is the fifth-longest-running American television series. Originally a two-hour program on weekdays, it expanded to Sundays (a one-hour program) in 1987 and Saturdays (running for two hours) in 1992. The weekday broadcast expanded to three hours in 2000, and to four hours in 2007.
Comments -- sources offered or available do not establish the subject's notability as do not address the subject directly and in detail; local coverage is not sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the sources from the article that are not obviously press releases or primary sources:
Comment And the sources offered are still almost all Utah sources covering the event. None of the sources suggest this is more than routine one-event coverage, nothing approaching sustained coverage we need to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:N notability were really the issue, a resolution could come with mini-bios that don't require notability. When the solution is said to be WP:DEL8, the claiming of lack of notability ignores WP:ATD, so is not policy-based reasoning. Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why the "delete" in bold, when you've made an argument to merge? If you read the paragraph just above, it says, "If WP:N notability were really the issue, a resolution could come with mini-bios that don't require notability. When the solution is said to be WP:DEL8, the claiming of lack of notability ignores WP:ATD, so is not policy-based reasoning." Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we've amounted a considerable amount of these AfDs closed as Delete simply because all there is, is participation in those pageants which is not inherited independent notability thus delete. SwisterTwistertalk18:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Clear and blatant company advertising since all of this is either company-focused or so are the listed sources, with those also either being firsthand PR or second republishing of it, I unsurprisingly found only PR advertising and PR interviews and a heavy focus of it, at that, therefore it shows the company is passionately capable of advertising itself, Wikipedia should of course not be involved with it or encourage it. The history itself shows the repeated attempts of removing advertising, only for advertising-only accounts to come and replace it, therefore it shows there's no actual benefits here or that we should mistake anything of it, when it's clear advertising. SwisterTwistertalk21:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may possibly be that the parent company, Icreon, is notable. (There's not enough information given to immediately convert it) But I don't see the subsidiary could have been intended for anything other than an advertising listing. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. I've attempted in the past to clean up the article by removing massive amounts of promo copy, but it does not appear that there's anything there. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although several participants argue for salting, I don't yet see a pattern of repeated re-creation making this necessary. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievably kept in 2012 but, then, again, the comments were naturally of "The major newspapers are enough" or "This is enough for significance", but we all know that's not the case now, not only because of the mass advertising, but because of the sheer fact we cannot confide in these publications to not publish such advertising, everything else is literally all advertising, either firsthand or secondhand. At best, not only considering this, but the fact a past deletion was for G12, Delete and Salt would be best, given that past experiences show this will only be restarted and we'll be back at AfD once again, with another or the same advertising user (in the case of this article advertising-only accounts are obvious). SwisterTwistertalk21:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have added a couple of references, one from the previous AfD. Visible coverage shows the firm operating in Indian municipal government [2], in Dubai [3], in joint-venture call centres, etc. These passing announcements are sufficient to verify that it is a firm going about its business (despite the paucity of references), but I am not seeing substantial coverage which can demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination has no WP:DEL-REASON, includes no wikilinks, and could have been speedy closed as having no argument for deletion. Arguments to change WP:NOT belong at WT:NOT, and a WP:RANT violates WP:SOAPBOX.
Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.
The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in the world named John Smith—just the notable ones.
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent sourceand a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.
Keep as per DGG in the first AfD For context, here is the version of the article as edited by DGG. "Keep The references are fully sufficient to show notability , They include article from the major English -language Indian newspapers , articles that are substantially about the subject. (The ones just mentioned would be in addition to that, but the article can stand even without them. It's time people actually looked at the article history before nominating, as they're supposed to, instead of judging by the state the article happens to be in. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)" Further review shows that the topic started in 1999 and is getting attention in Google books, which confirms the first AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My standards have gotten higher, in line with the general improvement of WP. I did not realize 3 years ago the low reliability of Indian press coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: So a company started by a woman (or family) in the Emirate of Oman, with their headquarters in India, getting in the legal news in the US for hiring program engineers in Massachusetts, and involving themselves in bidding in Ukraine, with annual revenues of 100 to 250 million US dollars, and 2000 employees, are a matter of generally-flawed Indian press, with no specific press problems identified? Please compare with your previous !vote in this AfD, which is also awaiting a response. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. but certainly feel free to re-create if/when it is confirmed that the show will continue for another season. Joyous! | Talk00:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This series has not been renewed for an eighth season yet. We're still months away from hearing such news, assuming it does get renewed. Actually I think this might go under speedy deletion. MatthewRD20:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
One of the purposes of lists is that they can include entries that should have articles but don't yet, so red links are perfectly valid. I find it very difficult to believe that there is not more than one notable building in the whole of Chad or of the other countries listed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. A list of historically, socially, or architecturally significant buildings and structures of any of these countries would be great. And many examples come to mind, none of which are on the these lists. I'd hold off on deleting these articles. Prburley (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of these unsourced list articles were created in 2011 and have barely any contribution since then, and only until I've nominated them for AfD, people actually seem to care. I'm happy to withdraw the rest of the AFD's so long as we don't end up with list articles of this nature again. I also forgot to mention List of buildings and structures in Gabon. Ajf773 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are being told this because your last comment implied that "barely any contribution since then" is a reason for deletion. And what does my lack of registration have to do with the subject under discussion here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for AfD are at the header of the nomination. In five years with nil effort to make them worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia - hence the AfD. And in my opinion, editing Wikipedia should only be for registered users, it's far too easy to switch to another ip and conceal an editing history.Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete There is no significant independent coverage of this event except for reporting its results. It is not a not a major international judo event since no world ranking points are awarded. I don't believe the event can inherit notability because some notable judoka have competed in it. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable business. This is a vanity label with a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. With few exceptions the bombardment of sources is PR, listings and Zone Music Reporter. Their charts are not good charts and they don't provide any coverage about this label. The Soundonsound pieces [4][5] do not mention this company or aomusic or Tiger & the Helix and are Wikipedia:Fictitious references. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, put aside the named mentions of other people, there's simply nothing for actual substance here and there's nothing for a convincing independent article hence delete which is the solution for solving such concerns. SwisterTwistertalk00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. Secondary source coverage basically only discusses the existence of a script; it appears that the musical has not had any public performances. Brianga (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ground stated in the nomination—that this play, hasn't (yet) been produced—isn't a sufficient basis for deletion, if it's otherwise notable under GNG or another standard. (Compare Category:Unproduced screenplays.) The article does cite multiple examples of substantial coverage in major reliable sources, and many more are apparent. However, all the cited coverage appears to have come in one short spurt around April 20-22, 2016; the one cited source outside that date range contains only a brief namedrop of the play. This may suggest that Jeb! The Musical's notability was essentially ephemeral, and insufficient to sustain a separate article. A better solution would be to merge and redirect this to Hamilton (play)#Legacy and impactHamilton (musical)#Legacy and impact (or to a new section limited to parodies) where other parodies such as the off-Broadway hit Spamilton[6][7] should also be mentioned. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC) --corrected 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hamilton (musical) - I created this article when the topic was trending. The amount of sources definitely serve as grounds for inclusion on the Hamilton article, and I don't feel the content should be deleted entirely. Hammill Ten (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Echoing User:157.235.66.80, we really seem to have no idea because of the lack of English sources, leaving us unable to tell if the references document notability or not. Suggest leaving the article for now, and perhaps someone more multi-lingual than we are can help. Joyous! | Talk00:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are three findable Ghits in reliable sources, if you disregard the article title and search for him by his real name, including a 2009 Boston Globe feature, a 2015 BBC News feature, etc. Here's the Google News results from that search. Note that two of those five are for his politician father, not him. So with just three that I could find, he would meet the definition of "multiple" just barely. NeutralShawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete I have no ideaThe BBC Feature seems significant but we should be careful to avoid undue weight and peacocking. Entirely promotional, credited albums don't appear to have been published, reviewed, or even mentioned in some cases. This article is full of non-notable redlinks, weasel words, and outright lies that overstate the artist's importance. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I legitimately have no idea anymore. This is one of those rare cases where almost every reference to a famous person is from non-English sources, even if it's about things that he did in English-speaking countries. I don't have the context to know if these Kora Awards are major or niche, so I'm going to respectfully back out of this discussion. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Questionable notability at best, and the primary contributor to the article appears to be running a strictly promotional account for the sole purpose of promoting this author/artist/whatever and his works on Wikipedia. I'm looking for the axe here and perhaps some WP:SALT. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails GNG as all sources are routine or self-published. Calabro was not credited in the notable works mentioned here. Article is being used to direct traffic to Amazon pages for his books. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This just seems to copy and organize the contents of Category:Lists of songs and its subcategories, which makes this list subject to continual maintenance and being out of date, while the categorization method should be more complete and easier to navigate. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me17:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how this is beneficial since it does not include any features that aren't already available within the existing category scheme (per WP:NOTDUP). Would a list of discographies that just copies the entire contents of Category:Discographies be beneficial? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Lists of songs. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP, and also as an easier means for users to access song list articles compared to having to having to click through all of the subcategories on the category page. WP:LISTPURP being met is evidenced in part per the 28,867 page views the article has received in the last 90 days. Deletion would simply make this content more difficult for users to access. North America100002:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this is a hoax. Nothing could be found about this person. the claim that he is the "nephew of Nigerian musician 2Face Idibia and great-nephew of Oba Ogundipe Arapasowu I, the 39th Olubadan (Lord of Ibadan)" is laughable. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hey Oluwa2Chainz, you made a good point. Although Tune Day has claimed to be related to the late Olubadan, there is no information online that can be sourced to validate such a claim, so in accordance to the rules, all references to it have been removed. Thanks for calling it to our attention. Aside from that, the reason you may find it tough to find information about Tune Day is that most of his information seems to be under Tunde Junior, which is an alias used in many of his viral videos available online. Similar to how Drake used to go by Drizzy casually. Hope this helps a bit. Lastly, i've added two more references to show proof of the relation to 2Face Idibia. There was even an article on a blog when 2Face Idibia's kids were staying at Tune Day's family home in the states a few years back. Trying to find that as well for you. Lilsonic (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC) REMOVED BLOCKED EDITOR !VOTE[reply]
Keep. I've figured out why you might think this is a hoax page Oluwa2Chainz. I assure you it's not. For some reason, the results you're looking for can only be found if you search the web for Tune Day's alternate name Tunde Junior, as sometimes publications credit him with that name. To show you what I mean, please click the Find Sources bar below.
Delete - Wow, there are a lot of interesting !votes here. Unfortunately, the support for the article comes from either Blocked or Anom editors. Discounting that, the article contains a number of references; however, the references are for unrelated topics, not for the artist in question, from YouTube, or from Twitter. There are no in-depth articles about the artist in question. Given that I have to !vote to delete. reddogsix (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the keep votes are from sockpuppets/anon IPs, and don't provide policy-based reasons for there votes. As noted above, most of the "references" aren't actually about him, or only mentions him briefly. The coverage is not sufficiently in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Joseph230222:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :: Cross-checking the references from independent sources, it seems the coverage of this article is validated in multiple reliable places. Digital Trends, HotNewHipHop and VIBE especially aren't small-time publications by any means, but each site seems to have not just referenced him, but actually featured him. I see the sockpuppetry/anon IPs mentioned above which raises concerns but, the article seems to have been revised to reflect the suggestions of the voters. Also, the WP notability guidelines seem to cover such an article based on my earlier points. I say it's worth a keep, or a few revisions to remove any thing that doesn't mention the article outright. ScooterbeeZy (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC).— ScooterbeeZy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as everything listed is trivial and unconvincing, and nothing else is being offered here as better substance and improvements, instead simply emphasizing there's nothing to improve, enough said. SwisterTwistertalk04:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mentioning that the article lacks non-trivial support here backs up my suggestion above regarding a few revisions. Such as, making improvements to the article. No one said there is nothing to improve, at all. What would either of you suggest as an improvement? I suggested removing any references that don't mention the article outright, if you look above. ScooterbeeZy (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Removing unrelated "references" does nothing to add support to the article. I happen to agree with ST. How about adding non-trivial support, you think? reddogsix (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, a lot of references... but these references are all either trivial mentions that don't even state who the subject IS, or where there is good information, the source is completely unreliable (reddit and imdb, for example, are definitely not reliable references). I did a google news search for "Tunde Ogundipe" and came up with nothing. I also searched for ("Tune Day" +dj), which comes up with nothing. ("Tune Day" +music) comes up with an article that has a record of someone tweeting "TUNEDAY!" in relation to a completely different artist, and the article calls it a meme, but doesn't explain it ([14]). I searched for ("Tune Day" +actor), and came up with nothing. I even searched for ("Tune Day" +nigerian) and found nothing. After all this, plus the offhand reference to being a meme, I can't even firmly confirm that this is a real person, or if it's just something the internet made up one day on a lark, as the internet is oft wont to do.
I would be willing to change my !vote on the condition that someone can provide the existence (inclusion in article not necessary) of at least two references from reliable (non-user generated, bylined under 2nd party editorial review) non-local sources that contain a substantial mention. I don't necessarily need an entire article about the subject, but at the very least, the mention needs to identify the subject, and why the subject is notable. Fieari (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but rather must be shown and sourced to have already passed a notability criterion for some other reason before becoming candidates -- but nothing here shows or sources that at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At first I thought this was one to cut, but as I clicked past the first couple of pages of a Google News search, I started to find a significant amount of regional and some national coverage on his campaign and events leading up to it. The Wall Street Journal article that I added was what first caught my eye. I believe that there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and even build a pretty darned good article on this subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know which Google you were searching, because on my Google he gets just two pages of purely local campaign coverage and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, and there isn't even a third page of results to click past the second page to. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy--it's the second time this has happened. I'm unable to repeat the search. Last night I clicked on the "news" link above and it gave me tons of stuff, including a WSJ article that I put in the article. There were more and I intended to return. Now I cannot find them. I'm confident it was the "news" link above and not any of the others. I am baffled.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible you searched without quotation marks the first time? If I do that, I do get additional hits where people whose first name is Tobias are sitting alongside distinct people whose last name is Schlingensiepen. (And I should also note that the WSJ reference is not an article about him in the news section of the WSJ, but a campaign-style biography of him in their "database of campaign-style biographies of every candidate in the entire country" section for the 2012 election. So it's just WP:ROUTINE coverage, not WP:GNG coverage.) Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... the search is working again and yielding more results. I'll stay on keep for now but I won't be offended to be on the losing side of this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His highly distinctive name pretty much guarantees the accuracy of a Google search. Though this person exists and is presumably a very nice guy, he fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. I found no evidence of notability for any other reason. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete the WSJ article was a listing [15] (extensive, but, still, a listing) the Journal's "Project Election" page; not a "real" article. Rest of the articles I found [16] were local and election related.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Ron has made multi-million dollar deals with notable corporations such as Foxwoods, CVS, Big Y, and other notable corporations as outlined in his Wikipedia page. User talk:CTWealth23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely damned as an advertisement with clear attempts and refusals to not change it as such, the comments above as it is only state "But he's worked with other companies and he's known for it!" or "His company clearly shows he worked with major companies" but that means nothing if it only exists as advertising, hence that's what matters, and why deletion solves it. SwisterTwistertalk01:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not offering any opinion about the disposition of this article, but would point out the nominator here has repeatedly blanked it. This is was it looked like at the time of nomination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @86.17.222.157 The nominator, User:Abdulla Sahil, didn't blank the page, his only edits to the page were this and this. It was actually the author who blanked it, therefore it may qualify for G7. Where the confusion may lie is that User:Ameer Abdullah the author actually added the AfD template to the article, but Sahil nominated it by creating this discussion and putting it in the AfD log. However, there's something more strange going on here, so i'm going to send GiantSnowman who's an admin a longer message. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Google search for the organization names turns up a few references, mostly to Wikipedia. Google News search turns up nothing. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article starts with this organisation title, and then goes in to describe Islam in Kerala. If there are some coverage in regional language sources, then Islam in Kerala is the most appropriate article to write about it. As of now, fails WP:ORG. I don't know if it really does exist or ever existed. Anup[Talk]03:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 J. Philippe Rushton. Consensus is that this should not be an article topic. There's not yet consensus about whether any content should be merged and where to, so this redirect is a temporary measure until subsequent discussions figure out what to do with the content in the history. Sandstein 09:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This theory is a fringe theory which is treated at the article about J. Phillippe Rushton who created it. The article was created by an editor who cited his own article in favor of the theory published in a journal with a reputation for publishing low quality racialist research without rigorous peer review. It did not cite any of the many works ridiculing or debunking the theory. The article is best redirected either to Race and intelligence (which is the wider context for the theory) or to J. Philippe Rushton where it is described as well as the main criticisms of it. Given the long history of POV pushing in this topic I fully expect this discussion to be affected by offline canvassing, as the appearance of a newly registered account within an hour of AfDing this article already suggests. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Rushton. In general, I haven't seen much mention of the cold winter theory in discussions of recent human evolution, and while it's been mentioned by a number of other authors not currently cited in the article and may yet be vindicated by future research (inasmuch as we now have many known education/intelligence alleles, and research is gearing up on detecting signals of natural selection using ancient genomes & contemporary whole genomes), it does not seem to be a particularly important topic at the moment and would be better off in context in some other article - Rushton being the obvious one - until it can be expanded out into more than a stub. --Gwern (contribs) 18:35 19 November 2016 (GMT)
KeepTheory is discussed seriously by multiple scholars in mainstream journals and is not fringe by definition. See [19]. ·maunus has a history of misrepresenting views he doesn't like as "fringe". ·maunus's speculation that I was canvassed offline is entirely untrue and the only POV pushing is his relentless and dishonest attempt to misrepresent academic views which he doesn't like as "fringe", which indeed has a long history. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors opinion of "particularly important" is irrelevant. Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the original theorist. This is shown in the references. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well is it false that only Rushton discussed this? And is it likely that Maunus didn't know that? Surely dishonest censorship is worse than the so called "incivility" of pointing that out? How should I phrase this to be civil? Maunus accuses me of being canvassed offline above. Should I put in "suggests" to be civil? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Given the long history of POV pushing in this topic I fully expect this discussion to be affected by offline canvassing, as the appearance of a newly registered account within an hour of AfDing this article already suggests." Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should I have written "Given the long history of POV pushing in this topic I fully expect this discussion to be affected by the dishonest tactic of pretending only one person discussed this, as Maunus's AfD statement suggests." Is that civil? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly more interested in how an apparently new editor knows that "maunus has a history of misrepresenting views..." but regardless, just stick to the argument about the topic and cease squabbling about how you think Afds should be formatted, or what you think of the nominator, and you'll be fine. I actually think there's a valid argument for keeping -- but you're messing it up with your toxic behaviour here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My "toxic behavior" (complaining about your silly formatting and the obvious dishonesty of the OP) shouldn't really affect the obviously bogus deletion effort here. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge somewhere, but no preference amongst the options already suggested. Maintaining a separate article is undue weight for this very fringe theory, and will be a magnet for racist POV-pushing. Joe Roe (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fringe theory having been discussed seriously in mainstream journals. Calling it "racist" is just irrelevant. Yes genetic racial difference theories are "racist" in some sense. Calling them "racist" doesn't disprove them. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to "prove" or "disprove" things. Our only concern is determining how independently notable this theory is so we can cover it with a neutral point of view and due weight. The proposition that there are racial differences in intelligence is fringe science that no mainstream anthropologist accepts, therefore this explanation of that difference—posed by notorious racist crank J. Philippe Rushton no less—is certainly very fringe. The only coverage in mainstream journals I can find is a single article in Intelligence and another refuting it. That does not constitute significant coverage. It might merit a line or two in a related article. Joe Roe (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's exactly my point that we're not here to prove or disprove. Or express personal distaste. Which is why I said caliing the theory/theorist "racist" (whatever you mean by it) is irrelevant. Pretty much just name calling. Your assessment of the status of the proposition of genetic racial differences among anthropologists seems pretty irrelevant, even if true which I doubt. The anthropological subfields of psychology or behavior genetics are relevant. Cultural anthropologists aren't trained in psychometrics or heritability estimates. They can say "we are all equal" though I guess. Not sure how relevant that sentiment is. The simple fact is that this has been discussed in mainstream journals, and by policy can have an article. Of course I expect policy to be ignored because you're "fighting racism" or whatever. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This theory is not about psychometrics or heritability estimates it is about human evolution, which is an anthropological topic. And the status of this theory among scholars of human evolution is that it has zero support and no scientific paper has ever been published about it in a mainstream journal about human evolution. It has been commented upon by only in the context of discussing the race/IQ topic - but it is not considered a serious hypothesis among those who specialize in the study of human evolution. That is why we can have it as a section in the R&I articles - but not as a stand alone article about a theory of the evolution of human cognitive abilities.·maunus · snunɐɯ·13:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an evolutionary theory based on a heritability estimate of psychometric variation. It's an interdisciplinary theory. One must estimate genetic variation before one can posit a theory to explain it. EO Wilson for one seemed to consider it valid evolutionary reasoning, so your extreme "zero support" claim is simply not true. Actually it's a lie. Please list all of the evolutionary biologists that have opposed this theory. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the theory is created by psychologists trying to play evolutionary anthropologists does not make the theory interdisciplinary. Dont shift the burden of evidence. Please list any articles about the theory published in mainstream evolutionary anthropology journals. Please show where it is mentioned in textbooks about human evolution. Please show me where it is mentioned in mainstream reviews of the literature on the evolution of human cognitive abilities. Wilson (who does not specialize in human evolution) has not published anything to the effect of supporting the theory, but is on record stating off hand in an interview that he didn't think Rushton's theories would be so ill received if they weren't about humans - which is not in fact a statement of support for "cold winter theory" nor peer-reviewed publication that actually would demonstrate scientific standing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·13:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to imply the theory is opposed by evolutionary biologists. There's Joe Graves I suppose, who publishes in "Social Texts". This is really the province of evolutionary psychology. Which anthropology journals would you expect to find an evolutionary psychology theory in? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you are simply not following. Joseph Graves is a geneticist with a specialty in fruit flies and scientific racism, not in human evolution. No evolutionary anthropologist who specializes in the development of human cognitive ability has to my knowledge even given mention of this theory in their works. You will not find it mentioned in works about human evolution. Probably because to the evolutionary anthropologist it is an absurd hypothesis to presume that mere temperature or distance from equator should exert a uniform selective pressure that favors the evolution of cognitive ability - in terms of an ecological understanding of interaction between environment and survival it is so simplistic that it is risible. Read some books about human evolution and see what the theories that are current in regards to the development of cognitive skill, I assure you that this is not among the serious contenders. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·16:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. I asked you to demonstrate that evolutionary psychology theories need to be verified in the evolutionary anthropology literature. You gave no examples. So until you can supply meaningful critiques of evolutionary psychology from evolutionary anthropology, we can just ignore your ad hoc hurdle. And even if you did supply it it would be a notable debate. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The theory regards human evolution, and all articles in wikipedia must by basic policy represent the scientific mainstream consensus in the given field. So yes, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate that evolutionary anthropologists consider this theory notable outside of its status as a curiosum in the history of scientific racism. It is not possible or necessary for me to prove a negative - evolutionary anthropologists do not write about it in relation to the evolution of human cognition because it is a non-starter. Mainstream anthropologists and scientists write about it only in the context of the R&I debate to debunk it as the flawed and invalid argument it is. You can find a slew of reviews of Rushtons book that mention it of course (generally negatively), but this shows that the theory is not independently notable, but only as a brainchild of Rushton to which it should be redirected.·maunus · snunɐɯ·17:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect somewhere Yeah, I don't work a lot in this subject area but as the full extent of Mikemikev's obsession with racial superiority theories -- here and apparently on Rationwiki as well as other forums -- it seems clear that we have a person with issues, who is working single-mindedly to advance his POV across a range of platforms. We don't need a fork article for this fringe theory. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Doesn't seem to be enough out there to sustain its own article. No strong feelings on where the redirect points, both options given above seem like reasonable targets. Ajpolino (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a detailed reply to this matter at the fringe theory noticeboard. Apparently, that was the wrong place to place it, so I will copy it to here.
Not well respected among the media or scientists in general, no. No hereditarian model is. However, the point of Wikipedia is not to cover things that are generally well respected, but things that are notable. Wikipedia covers quite a lot of fringe science already that is almost unanimously rejected by the scientific community. As an example think of the recent claims by Bem et al., which are covered in the precognition article. As this article's creator, I thought it suitable that Wikipedia should cover a well known theory in this area. Note, this area concerns differences in cognitive ability between human populations, not human evolution in general for which this theory is not very well known (as noted above). As an example of the notability, consider the discussion (p. 443ff) of this model in Earl Hunt's 2010 textbook, the latest comprehensive textbook in this field (532 pp.). Earl Hunt is quite critical of this model and instead prefers Diamond's model. He refers to them both as just so stories given their speculativeness. Hunt himself published a paper back in 2006 criticizing the results put forward by Templer and Arikawa.[1][2] As an alternative, I did consider putting this model under a person. The problem is that the model has been supported or positively discussed by a number of different authors over the years, making it difficult to place it under a single author. Rushton, Lynn, Arikawa, Templer, Hart, Jensen, Kanazawa and probably others. Thus, it seemed a bit difficult to place it under any of them. As Hunt remarks in his discussion, neither of these authors were the first to propose such a model, Herodotus was (p. 444). Should it be placed under him? That seems seriously misfitting. Thus, it seems to me that this model is notable enough to be included, and it is difficult to place under one particular person. I can think of two remaining options: 1) leave it where it is as a stand-alone article, and 2) add the content to the Race and Intelligence article. One could also consider the nations and intelligence article, but the model isn't really about nations, but about populations. Some nations happen to map fairly well to the populations that have been living there for some time, while in other cases (North America, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa), this isn't so. --Deleet (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I can add more references to the article (such as Hunt's criticism). I know the field well because I research the same topic, although I've not published anything for or against this model. --Deleet (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't? You cited this work as supporting the model "Kirkegaard, Emil O. W.; Fuerst, John (2016). "Inequality in the United States: Ethnicity, Racial Admixture and Environmental Causes". Mankind Quarterly. 56 (4)."·maunus · snunɐɯ·12:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to whatever article is the most suitable. Seems unlikely that this fringe theory article could even have enough content to justify a standalone article. It is a useless fork. Ceosad (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Templer, Donald I.; Arikawa, Hiroko (March 2006). "Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective". Intelligence. 34 (2): 121–139. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002.
^Hunt, Earl; Sternberg, Robert J. (March 2006). "Sorry, wrong numbers: An analysis of a study of a correlation between skin color and IQ". Intelligence. 34 (2): 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.004.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Only sourced by blogs. The article in The Guardian could have been a good source but Joost de Valk is not mentioned in this article. gidonb (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is the above then acknowledging deletion is needed given there's no actual substance, it's actually clear this man's article and the company's own have only existed for advertising since the company's own article in fact has under "Reception".....republishing of its own words, so there went the supposedly "independent coverage" if there's nothing as it is. SwisterTwistertalk01:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has not produced any notable work. Non-notable musician. Autobiography article. The1337gamer (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet WP:GNG: has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, current independent sources only mention Bodington Hall in passing. Ebonelm (talk)
@Andrew Davidson, you mean prize winning architecture which has been relocated for the past three years onto the main Leeds Campus and therefore is not at Bodington Hall? I agree the mural is noteworthy, but that just means the mural should have an article not that Bodington Hall should have one. Ebonelm (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I have removed the information you re-added about the mural from the article again as it is not relevant to the Bodington Hall, please do not re-add it. Ebonelm (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant and has been restored - the mural was commissioned to be a part of the building - removing this info on the grounds that the mural has been moved and preserved elsewhere is like removing any references to Peter Gabriel from the article on the band Genesis just because he is no longer an active member of the group.EdwardUK (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving a talk today about Wikipedia to a crowd of potential volunteers at an editathon. I showed them this discussion as a fresh example of such behind-the-scenes discussion. One of the audience said that they had been at Bodington Hall themselves. This further demonstrates that this was a substantial public institution and, as we see on the article's talk page, it touched a lot of people's lives. Andrew D. (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete There is no significant independent coverage of him and he doesn't seem to meet any SNG. He has no top tier fights in MMA, he lost his only kickboxing match, and he has never participated at a world championship or Olympics as a judoka. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
See WP:NRIVALRY and WP:NOTSTATS; the two teams play each other a lot but aren't geographically that close. The article needs to pass WP:GNG but I can't find any wide usage of the term Clásico de las M's and all I can seem to find are match reports and videos which aren't enough. Spiderone13:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Building company in Pakistan. Unsourced claims and, as far as I can tell, failing WP:CORP. They're on all the social media (Twitter, Facebook, Vimeo, etc) but nothing in reliable sources that would make them notable. Yintan11:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I'm the editor who speedied it. The single claim to fame, that non-notable prize, isn't backed up by the cited source so that leaves... nothing, really. Yintan10:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only source given to justify the existence of this article is an unreliable Wordpress blog. All I keep running into when trying to find sources for this rivalry are Wikipedia mirrors. There probably is some rivalry between these two teams but I don't believe that an article can be justified (see WP:NRIVALRY). At the moment, this article is nothing more than just a collection of statistics and match results (see WP:NOTSTATS). Spiderone10:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is arguably the biggest rivalry in the whole of Iraq. I can find hundreds and hundreds of Arabic sources that show this. However, seeing as Iraqi football is not covered much in other countries, you can find very few English language sources for this. Does that mean this article has to be deleted, even though I can find many Arabic/Iraqi sources which shows this is a huge rivalry? (i.e. do my sources have to be in English language or another language). Thanks. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They can be in Arabic but they must be reliable; all I can find are unreliable sources such as blogs and Youtube videos which are not acceptable. Spiderone16:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "The eyes of all Iraqi football fans on Monday afternoon will be fixed on Al-Sinaa Stadium which will host the match between Al-Shorta and rivals Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya in the Baghdad Derby. The green of Al-Shorta against the blue of Al-Jawiya is one of the big games that the Iraqi public awaits eagerly each season as both clubs have great history in terms of achievements in the league and the two teams' players form the backbone of the Iraqi national team."
Translation: "Al-Jawiya's top scorer, Hammadi Ahmed, will be missing for the Baghdad Derby with Al-Shorta. The match known as Baghdad El Clasico will be difficult for both teams as both teams are very strong technically."
Translation: "Hassanin Mubarak urged me to travel the length and breadth of Iraq, including Baghdad where there are the four derby clubs of Iraq (Al-Shorta, Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya, Al-Talaba, Al-Zawraa), to see for myself how football was popular everywhere."
Translation: "Given that the four derby teams of Baghdad (Al-Shorta, Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya, Al-Talaba, Al-Zawraa) are also the strongest four teams in the country, they were put in separate groups."
By the way, the 'unreliable Wordpress blog' you mentioned earlier was written by Hassanin Mubarak, one of the most well-known and knowledgeable Iraqi football journalists in the country, so it's not unreliable. Furthermore, in Iraq, all matches between the 4 derby teams are played at Al-Shaab Stadium (the Iraqi equivalent of Wembley Stadium) instead of being played at the club's respective home grounds, which is further proof that these articles are about the biggest rivalries in the country. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. There may be sufficient non-english sources to satisfy GNG, but I don't see it in what has been quoted above. Happy to change my vote if sufficient sourced prose discussing the rivalry as a notion can be added to the article. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retarget per nom. I don't see many major roles besides that series. JA wikipedia shows no devleoped article just a credits dump, and there are no news articles on him in ANN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AFD 1 was closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR. AFD 2 was closed as speedy keep by an admin that has completely ignored an existing guideline, WP:NPASR. That guideline grants me the right to speedy renom any article for deletion, regardless of how long ago the previous AFD ended. Repeating previous arguments in an attempt to reach a clear consensus. Also, I beseech all of you that are willing to contribute to this AFD to not ignore WP:NPASR. It is an existing guideline, and none of you (including myself) are above it.
Repeating previous arguments + Angus and Joe's analyses. Quoting Joe from the article's talk page, "After spending some time looking for reliable sources to use to support this article, I have come up with exactly zero. There is no evidence I can find online that this person meets the requirements for inclusion."
ANN/video game search results:
1) Crayon Kingdom (Cloud - main)
2) Doremi (Ms Seki - supporting)
3) Digimon: Data Squad (Kudamon - supporting)
4) Fafner (Yoko Hazama - supporting)
5) Setsuka (Soulcalibur series - main supporting)
Subject has yet to garner enough significant/lead roles to assert her notability, nor are there any secondary news resources to be found to write up a detailed enough bio. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as out of process and disruptive. I personally think you are correct that WP:NPASR allowed you to start the second AFD right away, though I also agree that it would have been much better for you to wait a couple months. However, the close to the second AFD specifically instructed you to wait a couple months. If you disagreed with that close, the correct forum was deletion review, not ignoring the AFD close and starting a third AFD. Just ignoring both the AFD outcome and the proper forum for challenging that outcome is disruptive, and this should thus be speedy kept. Calathan (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A farm in Norway. Can't find anything that makes it notable but can't find a proper CSD category either, so brought it here. Yintan06:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. Has never been elected to any office. Appears to be a clear case of promotion. The article creator name is "Pracharindia" which translates to "Propaganda India" in English. I am surprised how did this article survive for more than an year. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as clearly damned as an advertisement, not only because such "coverage" is ever actually paid for by the company itself in exchange for clear advertising in itself, thus there's nothing to suggest actual ingenuity let alone substance. SwisterTwistertalk01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as clear advertising and especially since it only cares to focus from a "business-listing motivated" perspective, not an encyclopedia one, let alone a Wikipedia-focused article, being actually independent and substance-supported, and that's not the case here at all hence delete. SwisterTwistertalk01:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteUndecided (Edit: I figure a red link is better to fix the pages at this point as opposed to maintaining them in current forms. While topic is notable, current pages are probably more likely to be improved by being deleted. End Edit) This is hard, because (and I'll only speak of CIA activities in Africa) while the general topic has a good literature, which is separate from the individual cases, and could be invaluable for the project...the general topic at this point appears as described by TTAAC. Is there such a thing as Delete without prejudice? Once again-I only went over the Africa content, and lack the background to decide on deletion on the others, but they look similar. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Stanleytux, aside the first two sources you provided (which are interviews), I still do not think the subject has been discussed in significant details. The third source is a gossip which obviously isn't enough to prove notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite : This article need to be rewritten means it should be move to draft space to meets its guideline apart from that reliable source are not listed on the article. --Music Boy50 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not particularly convinced by the sources and I don't see any awards/charting. I personally think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Should there be better coverage, I don't have any objection to recreation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, fails WP:BRANCH. Nothing worth discussing in the main page. I initially posted this as a PROD before noting that one was previously removed. BDD (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is: Assume the NY chapter is notable. Then readers of the main article can find out about the notable NY chapter and those interested in the NY chapter can have background on the organization itself.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a brief 1936 blurb and otherwise the parent organization's own publications do not support notability. I would just delete because someone searching for the chapter will find the information regarding the parent without a re-direct.--Rpclod (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep; if you add up all she has done, including the Special Independent Counsel Panel, I think we might get to GNG, but I cannot fully assess the article because I'm finding some Spanish-language sources example, but cannot read them. We may want to see if someone else can. SusunW? The article is a mess and needs work, but that's cleanup, not an AfD issue. I'd like to dig a bit deeper before tossing this one. Montanabw(talk)06:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw What she does is irrelevant to whether she meets WP notability criteria, as asserted by John Patrick Lambert. That she have adequate sourcing in reliable, secondary sourcing does. In this case, I was able to access all of the sources noted on the file as "dead links" and all are primary sources. The article appears to be original research. Thus the question became are there RS to document her. I find very few references that are not legal cases. I have no doubt that she served as a superior court judge, special prosecutor, and director of the legislative services commission, but I do not find sufficient sourcing to confirm that outside of using primary documentation. The one source you found fits the criteria, but I find no others that aren't minor mentions. I changed the location of my browser and still was unable to find sourcing. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Basically, I have seen WP:N as indicating that one good source (which one do you think meeds the criteria?) can be enough, though at least three is preferable. It looks like we have pretty good verifiability, so the question is if we have notability. I am reluctant to !vote delete on this article, but I am curious if you feel that it does need deletion, and am willing to take a second look at my original position in light of your assessment, which I respect. Montanabw(talk)02:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for a reason to keep, especially under WP:NPOL criteria, but just could not find it. Nothing rises to meet those criteria and references do not otherwise support WP:GNG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only unconvincing for the applicable notability, there's no ease of actually forming an acceptable article, so together with the fact of a currently unacceptable and non-notable article, there's nothing to suggest this is anything else but a clear delete. SwisterTwistertalk08:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this early IAR to avoid further disruption by the subject and his PR staff. Someone unconnected with the subject is welcome to try to start another article, paying full regard to BLP sourcing requirements. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After spending a rather lengthy period of time with Riz Story on IRC working through their concerns with the article, I find myself in the unfortunate position of not actually finding enough information to merit an article. In cleaning it up I actually added more ((citation needed)) tags than I removed. There are plenty of minor facts that can easily be verified (such as his membership in various bands and the fact that he has made movies), but I simply could not find any significant, independent, reliable coverage about him. I cannot find any independent sources linking him to the TogethermenT label, nor can I find any good connection between him and the artists he's supposedly worked with (other than the website's he's apparently created for them).
This is Riz Story responding to the assertion that I have no connection to my label TogethermenT. My site is a currently being targeted by vandals. My company TogethermenT has many many websites. I will list just a few, all of which clearly exhibit full copyright claims by my company TogethermenT films, which I founded in 2000 and am the sole owner and CEO. www.awinterrose.com - www.anyoneden.net - www.etherealmusic.net - www.lilithcentral.com - https://www.facebook.com/cooperalanmusic/?fref=ts -
There is also the release of my album A WINTER ROSE The Official Soundtrack which contains every artist that the person below falsely claims I have no connection to. The artist manager can be reached for further verification that all of the artist mentioned are on contract with TogethermenT and work directly with me. The album credits and the numerous BILLBOARD Hot Singles Charts top ten songs also mention my label - The credits clearly state my name as composer and producer and I own 100% of copyrights and publishing for the music referenced on my page.
Lilith, "Badass Bitch" went to #1 on the BILLBOARD Hot Singles Chart, i wrote, produced, and released the track on my label, TogethermenT - ETHEREAL "Scattered Time" went to #5 on the BILLBOARD Hot singles chart, i wrote, produced, and released the song - COOPER ALAN'S first single went to #6 on the BILLBOARD Hot singles chart, i produced, arranged and released the single on my A WINTER ROSE official soundtrack album. All of these songs appear on my album A WINTER ROSE Official soundtrack on EVERY digital store including itunes, amazon etc.
As for the assertion that my page should be deleted, it's been up for over 16 years at which time I signed my first of many worldwide record deals. MAJOR WEB COVERAGE CURRENTLY UP: ALLMUSIC.COM, BILLBOARD, ROLLING STONE, METAL HAMMER, NME, VARIETY, EXTRA TV, MTV etc etc.-
As a director I currently have a film coming to theaters starring major hollywood names. See IMDB for verification - A WINTER ROSE Starring Billy Zane, Paul Sorvino, Theresa Russell, Kim Whalen, Taryn Manning, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meopa (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meopa, once again you either intentionally or accidentally fail to read what has been posted. I never said you weren't connected to TogethermenT (or any of your artists/projects); I said I couldn't find evidence of such, and nothing approaching significant coverage of you as an artist. I have repeatedly asked you (on IRC and on the article's talk page) for suitable references and you have continually failed to give them. Primefac (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beside facebook, itunes, variety, BILLBOARD, company websites, hundreds of pages of google results, spotify, over 250 online stores and endless press.. what exactly would you consider to be "evidence of such" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meopa (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some of that "endless press", actually. I looked through probably forty google search pages (both generic and GNews) and came up with nothing more than brief mentions (and, of course, the references on the article as it currently stands). The Variety411 piece is a good article, but it's the only in-depth coverage I can find. Primefac (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search of the name RIZ STORY will reveal a 20 plus year, international career in music and film. press in variety, rolling stone, BILLBOARD etc is easily searchable. Everyone of the artist that he works with appear on this album A WINTER ROSE Official Soundtrack (LINK: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/winter-rose-original-soundtrack/id1163031474 )
the variety article mentions that i am a "long time veteran in the music business". who sent you to try and delete my page? I think the wikipedia community would like to know why your out to erase my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meopa (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be technical about it, you did. It's called the Streisand effect; you asked for help in IRC to fix your page due to recent vandalism. I was attempting to do so when I realized that it might not be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, but so far I remain unconvinced.
Two notes: first, please add new comments at the bottom of a page. Second, make sure to sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who's posting. Primefac (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person exists and has had a relatively minor career in show business. The majority of the sources brought forward are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Variety411, for example, is a directory site, not a reliable news site. Facebook is the exact opposite of a reliable source. LinkedIn is not a reliable source. And so on. Mentioning a slew of unreliable sources is a waste of editor time. Most of these are passing mentions at best. I do not see a single reliable source that devotes significant coverage to this person as a biographical topic. Three solid reliable sources are better than dozens of lower quality sources. And I do not see even one solid reliable source. What I do see is a big effort at self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. There are plenty of other websites for that. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HUGE wall of text from the principal COI editor. Contains sources for those interested.
KEEP PAGE - there is a long list above of international press from both major and minor outlets dating back to 1995. He has been signed to several major labels and appeared at europe's largest music festivals. his band ANYONE is an international act having released albums on both the ROADRUNNER LABEL and TogethermenT label and they currently have a song on the BILLBOARD Hot Singles chart "fly away" at *8.
"SAVE PAGE" As a director he works with Billy Zane, Paul Sorvino, Taryn Manning, Theresa Russell, Edward Furlong and is releasing a major film in the largest theatrical distributor, REGAL CINEMAS.
Keep Mr Story
if you step back from all the nonsense, I think there's sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The first Anyone album got some reviews, he worked with Lilith on her "Badass Bitch" that did OK in the charts, he's made films that have got some attention. If one could dig through the self-promotion and walls of text, I believe there's enough left. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
PROOF THAT RIZ STORY wrote the music he claims to have written - LINK: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2175470/soundtrack
NO LESS THAN 4 singles from mr. Story's album A WINTER ROSE The Official Soundtrack are currently in the BILLBOARD Hot Singles Chart - ALL TOP TEN, including LiLITH "Badass Bitch" which reached #1 two weeks ago.
MTV ARTIST PROFILE: http://www.mtv.com/artists/anyone/biography/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60DC:400:BC1A:5212:4860:D180 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
KEEP PAGE FOR SURE! He is clearly an international figure:
MTV ARTIST PROFILE: http://www.mtv.com/artists/anyone/biography/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60DC:400:BC1A:5212:4860:D180 (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep Mr Story/User:Meopa is acting in the best possible way to get his article deleted and I've referred his actions to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_from_Riz_Story_.26_team, but if you step back from all the nonsense, I think there's sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The first Anyone album got some reviews, he worked with Lilith on her "Badass Bitch" that did OK in the charts, he's made films that have got some attention. If one could dig through the self-promotion and walls of text, I believe there's enough left. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Riz Story is on expedition leading a team of divers for NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in FIJI. I am a long time staff member at TogethermenT and it has been assigned to me and my staff to guard the wiki page of Mr. Story that has been in existence without question for 16 years running. We do NOT wish to do this but are merely guarding the well earned reputation of MR. Story and his extensive achievements in both music and cinema. The vandalism of the page began 2 days ago and culminated with a LOCKING of the page from myself and my staff. Then came the movement to delete Mr. Story's page despite our supplying over 100 international press examples, ranging from MTV - VARIETY - BILLBOARD - EXTRA TV - BLABBERMOUT - LOUDWIRE - etc etc. Rather unexpectedly, administrators are taking offense to our efforts to protect Mr. Story's wiki page, classifying it as "self promotion?" we provide links to everything we state about Mr. Story, and in fact have left out much of note in order to keep his page concise. Also of note is that we have not built or maintained the page (aside from important updates this year), but rather it has evolved naturally at the hands of the public. This vandalism and motion to DELETE Mr. Story has required us to go the defensive and protect Mr. Story's web presence those who seek to downplay his career. JULIE WIESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meopa (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
another wall of links
A SMALL SAMPLING OF INTERNATIONAL PRESS:
MTV ARTIST PROFILE: http://www.mtv.com/artists/anyone/biography/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60DC:400:BC1A:5212:4860:D180 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that instead of posting a massive wall of links Meopa picks, say, 5 that look like the best ones and put those up for review. Nobody is going to review such a huge number of links and a handful of high quality sources are much better than huge numbers of poor quality ones. Hut 8.517:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does look like the subject has credits on notable/potentially notable works and has worked with notable people and as part of a notable band, but I don't think he passes WP:GNG himself in his own right. The citations in the article don't demonstrate notability - they either aren't reliable (the Facebook/YouTube links) or aren't covering the subject in much detail (e.g. the LA Times article, which just mentions his name). I admit I haven't looked at all the huge number of links posted above but the random sample I looked at weren't impressive - again they either weren't reliable, didn't cover the subject in much detail (sometimes just a picture), and many had both problems. As an aside it looks like the subject and his staff have been closely monitoring and controlling the page with the expectation that they would be able to control the content of it. That simply isn't how Wikipedia works: we have our own standards which we stick to, people who work for the subject shouldn't be directly editing articles anyway per WP:COI, and yes people can write about the subject in a way you don't like. Hut 8.517:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Riz Story - I've been informed that an individual who goes by Primfac is trying to delete my page, which has been on wikipedia for 17 years... Lol. He (primefac) seems to have control over wikipedia and has unilaterally overseen the effort to delete my page and has currently locked it so no one but him can edit it. I trust the wiki community will protect the facts which are contained on my page and facilitate the harmonious relationship that I have had with Wiki for nearly 2 decades. Cheers! Rip Story
Riz, thanks for commenting. I thought you were in Fiji. I also thought that I'd been talking to you since yesterday. Crazy, huh? I really suggest that you stop posting the same damn links every time you post, it's getting tedious. I had nothing to do with the page being protected, and I am clearly not the only person able to edit the page. At the moment I'm just trying to firefight you and your PR team from continually hampering this discussion by posting inordinately long walls of text on it. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your listed as the only person who wanted my page deleted. why exactly? There is a massive internet presence regarding my career - and every time my staff post it you scold them and hide it under a green tag, as if it's not pertinent. If your mission is to personally attack me at least be honest about it.
As mentioned in the comment by Crash below, I nominated the page, I'm not unilaterally deciding it should be deleted. I am not personally attacking you. I am making it easier for others who are engaged in this discussion to find the actual, well, discussion. I have hidden the links provided by your staff because wading through 300 lines of links just to find the actual conversation is difficult. If I say "here are 300 lines of links" then it's easier to digest. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Actually, no, they are the one that nominated it. There's a difference. Notice all the ones saying delete? Yeah, we're the ones that think it needs to be deleted. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride18:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The TogethermenT staff has provided 100's of international press links, websites, albums for sale, films currently in theaters, films from the past, links verifying everything on the RIZ STORY page which has been in existence for 17 years. And yet, there is a motion to delete the page? Is wikipedia a mob rule? Up until 2 days ago, I thought wikipedia was about facts. I guess not. Riz Story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riz Story (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorting through the links provided, I would say these 3 are of better quality: [20], [21], [22] However, they all related to the act Infinika/Anyone, so that would imply a merge to Anyone might be one solution. Better sourcing for the film work would justify a separate Riz Story article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
You may well judge it trivial -- and I might not disagree -- but we do have a vast category structure for fictional things and elements and I can't see why a list for such foods cannot take its place alongside List of fictional beverages, despite the fact that it was deleted back in 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods, and then speedily deleted two years later as a recreation of a deleted article, I actually think such a list would be in keeping with how we interpret WP:CLN today. Problem is, I don't see any evidence of the potential for this recreation: the current list has but one entry, for a never-to-be notable "edible device" in a video game -- and it is video games in which the creator is apparently solely interested. Were this list to be revived, I'd suggest maybe belatedly taking the matter to DRV to see what had existed before, as I think CLN allows for such a list. But I have little confidence at this time that this ill-named, ill-considered list has the potential to grow into something notable. It would need a lot more TLC and stewardship than what we see now, from a well-intentioned new editor. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list deleted in 2007 was completely indiscriminate, hundreds of one-off joke brands and products from various TV shows and the like (even including jokes from David Letterman, so not even limited to dramatized depictions). It had fewer bluelinks than are present in Category:Fictional foods. postdlf (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Being a bad article is not a criterion for deletion; the topic itself is acceptable. But if it's not improved, I could see reconsidering. Matchups01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very broad subject that can never really be anything more than listcruft. It seems like similar articles have been created and deleted several times before, and this one should share their fate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Keep" does have a good case, and I almost voted that way. However, it occurred to me that we would need to have a source that said each food is really fictional. The South Park Cheesy Poofs were really produced and would have to be taken off the list since no longer fictional.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the face of it a consensus to at least redirect, but considering that what seem to be relevant sources were added at the very end, I think that "no consensus without prejudice to renominate" is more appropriate. Sandstein 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has obviously been part of a political boycott. sources are available to be added. bad shape article but that is not a reason for deletion, articles can and should be fixed. We do not evaluate article standard but article notability. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ -- as the nominator, I take offense at "Has obviously been part of a political boycott", and am equally confused as to what you are talking about. If you wish to debate the quality or wisdom of the nomination, that is one thing; throwing around nonsensical accusations of political bias is quite another. Quis separabit?18:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rms125a@hotmail.com - And I should not "take offense" to your rationale for deletion? "Delete: as non-notable singer." - what is that? Come one. And for the rest of your comment, it is just nonsense. Come up with a better rationale for deletion instead of throwing a tantrum. BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: No, you shouldn't take offense at me because I did not initiate this squabble by claiming you had a "political boycott" in an AFD you had initiated as the motive for this AFD, which it is not. I nominated Irwin Smigel for deletion, so am I anti-Jewish American dentists?? You basically accused me of bigotry and I should bring this entire incident to ANI for an admin opinion.
And as far as not understanding what "non-notable singer" means, while I wouldn't have thought that difficult to understand, as everyone else seems to understand it, I will spell it out for you: She does not, IMO, meet the threshold for notability as her entire career -- according to her article which as far as I know you have not bothered to update or improve in any way since the AFD started -- consists of NOT appearing (for whatever reasons) at "the first ever Eurovision Song Contest hosted by Israel". And what she would have sung ("Seviyorum") had she shown up is irrelevant. Quis separabit?21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you nominate an article about a boycott, how can you then interpret a rationale about boycott as directed to you. The comment was not directed at you but to the article subject. Your response was aggressive and bad faith and I will not respond to this anymore. P.S I am Swedish. BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eurovision involvement and also, looking at timeline, we will need to find pre-google sources to do a lot of work here, so again, an example of quality versus notability. Notability is met. Montanabw(talk)07:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ, well you're no Dolph Lundgren or Isabella Rossellini conversationally, so I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were imputing to me an attempt to AFD ("boycott") the article because of the subject's nationality (Turkish). Evidently I misunderstood that but you could have been a lot clearer. Sorry. I did not nominate an article about a boycott; I nominated an article about an insufficiently notable singer. The boycott incident which kept her from performing at the Eurovision Song Contest in Israel is mildly interesting but nowhere near compelling enough to push her over the threshold to notability, IMO. Yours sincerely, Quis separabit?21:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's literally only significance and a known status for this one contest, and nothing else, so not only suggesting there would only be such attention for this, but that there's nothing else for actual notability in any other capacity, regardless of whether she won or not. SwisterTwistertalk07:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pure, IDONTLIKE. Eurovision is the largest music contest on television in the world. Sources are available. You might not be a Eurovision fan but that is irrelevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence has been provided by any of the delete !votes that WP:BEFORE D1 establishes a preliminary notability concern. One statement that at first appears to be a "weak delete" restates the bolded comment to explain that it is now a redirect argument. Nor has WP:BEFORE B6 been mentioned. Please ping me if a WP:BEFORE D1 argument is proposed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Right now, she is nothing more than a "could have been a contender". It's tragic, but not notable. By the way, Turkey is a Muslim-majority secular country, but is not an Arab nation. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adding a couple of sources now, including a 2007 profile article. Note that I needed to use a Proquest search to locate sources, I'm fortunate to have access. Searches look very different to editors not connected to powerful search engines,. If I could change the world....sigh
Not claiming that this is the most elegant WP:HEYMANN I've ever done, but there was significant attention paid to her career in English back in 1979, and by Turkey's national English-language daily newspaper in recent years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Not sure how the nominator was unable to verify that the subject of the article is an author since there is this Vibe interview, Broadway World article, Madame Noire article, all about her book, "Giving Face." Since some of these articles are interviews, I'm not going to !vote, but I'd like to encourage Arg3nt1n0 to do WP:BEFORE when nominating an article next time. If additional sources are found, please ping me. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD removed even though I informed the author user of this not satisfying WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF and they acknowledged it, even when I said this man's career was simply too soon, so I'm not sure why this was removed; likewise, there's still nothing suggesting better as there's nothing significant and WorldCat or GoogleScholar. SwisterTwistertalk00:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concern was expressed in lack of the subject’s coverage on WorldCat and GoogleScholar. Contrary evidence was found in reference to a variety of libraries holding the relevant author’s book and multiple references in GoogleScholar. See references below.
The subject appears to have relevant media coverage regarding his expertise in Tulpamancy as a featured scholar. See link of popular media and press below (third link was present before request for deletion).
DeleteComment - The subject has obviously written, but that is what professors do. What shows that the subject himself is notable? Has the subject received positive or negative coverage? I am not seeing that, but I would like to give others and opportunity to comment.--Rpclod (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable implantologist and associate professor. Sources support that he actually exists but do not support his education, personal and career history. Phyo WP(message)01:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Negative, this self-published source in Burmese mentions only brief personal history about his ethnicity and his family, and mentions that he is a teacher and clinical researcher. This self-published source does not support the article. Phyo WP(message)21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing but a local dentist and nothing else to suggest otherwise, his cites are simply trivial, especially in his field, so I concur with Xxanthippe above that there's no genuine notability here. SwisterTwistertalk07:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The nominator, Davey2010, thinks it might be the case that tabloid sources cannot be used, however, our official guideline, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, does not say that. Davey may be thinking of the essay Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, but even that does not say do not use them. It merely says that they "should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims." From Davey's later comments, I am taking it that he no longer supports deletion, even though he has not offered a bolded !vote. SpinningSpark19:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had a longstanding major role in one of the most significant series on British television (Casualty). Hasn't done a lot else significant, admittedly, but that was most certainly not a "bit part". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna lie the list of things they've been in is impressive however they've been in 26 TV programmes/films yet there's barely nothing to confirm any of it (found a few mentions but nothing substantial), As they were born in the 60s/70s I don't expect sources to be amazing etc etc however I do expect a bit more than just a few mentions, As with any other AFD I have no issues at all with redirecting or ofcourse if you can find anything substantial I'd be more than happy to Withdraw. –Davey2010Talk15:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He thinks drama school was a waste of time, sneered when the teachers told him to dance with an imaginary ball and scored the lowest mark in the year when he graduated. But for "the boy most unlikely to succeed", Vincenzo Pellegrino is doing pretty well for himself.
Although he has since made a name for himself in Casualty, Where The Heart Is and now MIT: Murder Investigation Team, he is still angry about his time as a drama student.
...
Vince's grounded attitude is largely down to growing up in a struggling working-class family in Liverpool. His Italian dad Dino and mum Sylvia worked hard to send their three children to college. His sister Nicky, 38, is now a journalist in New Zealand and his brother Eduardo, 27, is doing a PhD in theoretical physics.
When Vince left Mosslands Comp with three A-levels, he didn't have a clue what he wanted to do. He was kicked off a sociology course at Birmingham Polytechnic after a few days and returned to Liverpool, then went to work alongside his dad at a fridge factory.
...
He was 23 when he finally decided acting was his dream job, but studying drama at Manchester Metropolitan University was a rude awakening.
He may play one of telly's most likeable guys, but Vincenzo Pellegrino says he'd prefer it if audiences hated him occasionally!
The Liverpudlian actor, now into his second series of Where The Heart Is as hunky nurse Chris Eckersley, isn't entirely happy with his nice guy image. But judging by his current storylines, he's not about to lose it.
...
So don't expect Chris to become a permanent Skelthwaite resident. He's happy to go back for another series, but anything longer term is doubtful for the actor, who's single and lives in Bristol.
...
When he's filming Where The Heart Is Vincenzo lives in a hotel in Huddersfield, and he has been guilty of the odd prank, including one which meant hotel guests being evacuated in the night!
NEW dad Vincenzo Pellegrino says he has the perfect incentive too work hard - his new baby daughter.
Daughter Hattie - short for Harriet - is now seven months old and the former Casualty and Holby City actor says she can already wind him around her tiny baby finger.
...
Vincenzo, whose Italian roots come from his father Dino, lied about his age to get his first TV role in Crocodile Shoes. He played an 18-year-old when he was, in fact, 26.
He went on to take up the role of hospital porter Derek "Sunny" Sunderland in Casualty and Holby City and now owns a house in Bristol where the programmes are filmed.
His medical credentials continued with him playing district nurse Chris Eckersley in ITV's Where the Heart Is and forensic scientist Dr Fergus Gallagher in MIT: Murder Investigation Team.
Casualty porter Derek 'Sunny' Sutherland is one of Vincenzo Pellegrino's first major TV roles. But he's no newcomer - Vincenzo starred in the movie Peggy Sue and also in Jimmy Nail's Country & Western saga, Crocodile Shoes.
Name: Vincenzo Pellegrino.
Age: 30.
This article cannot be used to establish notability because it is an interview, but it can be used to verify information in the article.
User:Davey2010, I am aware of no such policy, nor of a hard line between "tabloid" and "non-tabloid" newspapers. My understanding is that major daily papers may carry more or less weight, but that the papers cited confer some degree of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi E.M.Gregory, I couldn't tell you where or when but I recall someone somewhere saying that a few tabloid newspapers shouldn't be used, If these can indeed be used I would happily use them but as far as I know these couldn't or atleast shouldn't be used?, Anyway I'll ask at the help desk now, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good find - If anyone can find anything beyond a two-bit mention I'm always happy to withdraw however as there's a few deletes above I can't really withdraw. –Davey2010Talk16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I ran a proquest search, in addition to the 3 TV series, he's done quite a bit of stage work, here (TRUST NO-ONE Which former soap star is telling the truth in this mystery?, Beacom, Brian. Evening Times [Glasgow (UK)] 28 July 2005: 16.[24] ) for example, is an article about a play he's, Framed!, based on a Malcolm Rose thriller, that describes him as a "soap star) and references both Casualty & Where The Heart Is. Quite a lot of stories came up, actually, I scanned the listings and there seemed to be more than enough to put a pretty good article together.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory - Wait sorry I wasn't saying the source you provided was a two-bit mention - I was meaning as an overall thing - The source you provided is perfect, Ah I can't access that one as I need a proquest account (and it doesn't seem to recognise "English Wikipedia" as an Institution lol ... You can't blame me for trying! :), Anyway thanks for providing those 2 sources, I've asked at the Help Desk so if those others can be used I'll add them in, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I did get that. Just, your comment prompted me to run a Proquest search, just checking my judgment. I'll be interested to hear what editors on that board have to say about your question. Also, I have been involved in AFDs where Noms in the position you are now in iVoted keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right sorry, Well thank you for finding more :), One editor reckons we can use them with caution but not sure how that can work out ?, As much as I love and follow IAR I really can't use it here, Sad times!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk18:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deleted once before as advertising and suggestive paid advertising at that, and it was now contested with the sole basis of "Haystack TV is a company that has a service I use. This is a popular service with a strong online presence. The article was well done and I had contributed some edits" which is not only unconvincing but it's not showing how the past concerns of both advertising and the overfocus with advertising can be fixed, if at all. The author account is now confirmed as using other accounts and thus is no longer active, and the article had no other contributors; my own searches are not finding anything but trivial PR.
The listed sources here consist of also what the company would have for its own advertising, not only are the sources repeated perhaps to enhance the illusion of sources, but sources such as TechCrunch and literally other local PR-publishers, notorious for republishing the company's own words, are not convincing for any notability or substance, and we should not mistake them as otherwise. SwisterTwistertalk05:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not show WP:ORG notability and the writing suggests the possibility of WP:COI. Frankly, the plethora of self-congratulatory comments about scoring $1.7m in private equity suggests this is a very small fish.--Rpclod (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Unsourced page with plot devices and unneeded game show results that have no real use and add nothing to the main article. Nate•(chatter)01:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This jargon-filled over-wordy formulation of a rather common idea seems to be based on one person's views, without any evidence of general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The contents read like mushy nonsense to me, but then so do a lot of well-documented post-modern topics, and they are notable, so that's not a good criterion. As far as this one goes, it seems to involve at least a small group of a half-dozen to a dozen of academics, starting in 1999, and at least four universities. I don't see how the statement that it is "one person's views" can possibly hold. Personal value-judgements aside, it seems prudent to keep the article and to tag and hopefully improve it, rather than to delete it. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 two "keep" opinions do not address the arguments for deletion and indeed barely make an argument of their own. Sandstein 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. this was last nominated 4 years ago. This is a relatively small shopping centre by WP standards of 15,000 square metres LibStar (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial local place nothing here for actual independent notability or anything to suggest anything of it, especially since it's obviously trivial to begin with. SwisterTwistertalk03:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:1E (her alleged notability stems from maybe being very old but maybe not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday") and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. There is no Wikipedia policy that grants automatic notability to people of an extreme age (numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits), which makes WP:N the relevant policy. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. She seems to have had brief bursts of attention and a handful of clone or near-clone obituaries after her death, meaning that she lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish her from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. There's nothing here of encyclopedic merit that could not be covered by the longevity claims article. CanadianPaul14:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the three sources are dead, but appear to be simply routine obits mentioning this doubtful longevity claim (which is in keeping with the common "people in Region R live a long time" trope). EEng09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Utterly non-routine obituaries that back a strong claim of notability, as the world's oldest person. That the claim is unverified and potentially false is no more a reason to delete this article than to delete the articles for Black helicopter, grey alien or Bigfoot; nor do sources have to be readily linkable to be reliable and verifiable. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From [25], "Varvara’s usual diet comprises fresh fish (she eats it in the raw after flaking away small pieces with a knife)". That's "a vague mention that she enjoyed eating fish"? I don't see that as "vague". Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject fails our notability guidelines. The only coverage is routine and trivial. Being especially old, in and of itself, does not confer notability. It take non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to do that. I can't find that here. David in DC (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a snowball's chance in hell given we've clearly stated not all such subjects are inherited notability, and especially not in a case where "it may have been". SwisterTwistertalk07:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim is verified by one source (the National Archive of Yakutia) that this was the oldest person alive in August 2008. If someone needs a notability guideline, Anybio#1 and Anybio#2 appear to apply. The important thing is that this is not Wikipedia's opinion, but the opinion of sources we consider to be reliable, such as it is. To some extent, deleting the information would be suppressing information we believe to be reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." What award or honor has the subject received? I see nothing. ANYBIO criteria #2 is: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Again, there is no contribution other than happenstance old age, which WP defines as not inherently notable.--Rpclod (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that the Slovak Super Liga is fully pro. While this is accurate, it is also not relevant as he is yet to play in that league. His one appearance for Slovan Bratislava was actually for the B team in the 2. Liga. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soccerway source says his appearance was for B team, and none for A team. And [26] doesn't seem reliable, as it's a management site where he seems to be a client, so his 16 "appearances" are probably for the B team. Joseph230207:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject appears to fail guidelines for biographical articles, specifically WP:BASIC and WP:ATH. Although a Google search did yield some references to the subject, they did not meet the standard for in depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Found coverage appears to be far too brief and in some cases trivial to establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject. That said I have added this to my watch list as it is entirely possible that Mr. Henderson may at some point rise to that level.
The article creator is encouraged to peruse the linked guidelines and if additional sources exist that may lend themselves to establishing encyclopedic notability, please add them.
(Note: I intended to PROD this article however it has previously been deleted via AfD and so I am sending it back. I am fairly sure that the time difference and changed circumstances of the subject preclude CSD.) Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence, leaning keep. I accept that he doesn't pass WP:ATH on a basic reading. I tend to think that we might treat a transnational competitions such as the 2016 European Weightlifting Championships as equivalent to the WP:NOLYMPICS. The article is well written and not harmful. I'm unsure what we gain by deleting it, and more sure that we gain by its retention. I think a better outcome of this nomination might be a discussion at WP:ATH on notability & transnational competitions. --Tagishsimon(talk)17:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the sentiment, but elevating all transnational competitions to the same status as NOLYMPICS would be a bridge too far for me. It would open the floodgates and seriously undermine WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Setting aside WP:ATH we still have the problem of BASIC. ATH does not automatically confer notability. You still need in depth coverage from reliable sources and I am not seeing that. That said I have a feeling that Mr. Henderson may well end up ringing the N Bell at some point in his life. I recall the original article about a young weightlifter in high school. This strikes me as a highly motivated young man who is going places. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the six refs in the article. Five of them are completely trivial. The one that is not appears to be, if not trivial, than at least well short of in depth in its coverage of Mr. Henderson. Both individually and collectively they do not come close to satisfying GNG/BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Ad Orientem said, all but two of the sources are from the International Weightlifting Federation, the British Weightlifting Federation, or the Welsh Weightlifting Federation. None of these can be considered independent under WP:GNG. The same goes for the County Council webpage, it does not appear to be a newspaper, but just a government website. That just leaves the BBC, which is a single mention in a team list. That basically leaves the total number of found sources at zero. RonSigPi (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen in Olympic sports competitors in World Championships not be presumed notable. This includes swimming and wrestling that, like weightlifting, do not have sport specific guidelines. While I tend to view World Championships as meeting WP:ATH, I don't see continental competitions and the like rising to that level. Can we really presume that sources exist to meet WP:GNG for all competitors at say the 1971 Asian Weightlifting Championships? I just see no evidence of that coverage existing and nothing has been provided to convinced me that such coverage can be presumed to exist. Also, this is a British/Welsh weightlifter that competed at the most recent European Championships. English online sources, if they exist, should be relatively easy to find since it's his native language and the sources would not have rotted yet. I did my own search and all I could find even remotely worthwhile was this - [27]. And I still find that source routine. The rest appeared to be from pages of weightlifting governing bodies, so not independent sources. Unless the sources are found, then delete. RonSigPi (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, no. The article only mentions him twice (a third time in a photo caption if you want to count that). It does mention him breaking British junior records, but the article focuses on Holyhead and Henderson is one of many lifters given passing mention. If that is be best, then I continue to stand by my delete. RonSigPi (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not my field, but in general, I share the widespread view that the existing guidelines for athletes are if anything excessively broad, and I do not think it would be a good idea to broaden them without the agreement of the general community. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Sounds like someone who votes delete while not having read the article! I can list tons of articles that are not listed at WP:Nsport (weightlifting is not listing at WP:Nsport) while there are, and I created 1000s, of weightlifting pages. Sander.v.Ginkel(Talk)22:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like someone who HAS read the article. Beyond which see WP:OTHERSTUFF. And if editors are deliberately creating articles that they know do not meet the community's guidelines and standards, that would be a source of concern to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject may well become notable one day, but he is not there yet. I would have thought that the threshold would be a medal at something like the European Championships . StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ithink my articlr shouldn't be deleted because i made it so people could know the history of interstatete routes Tren ligero gdl (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As redundant to Interstate Highway System. It's poorly-written and almost unsourced. We allow new editors to write articles under the mistaken belief that their contribution will be useful. This is case in point that new users frequently cause more problems than they solve. Chris Troutman (talk)21:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wow, from the look of this article you'd think VanderLaan was an NBA star. After a series of promo pieces for him created by paid shills we now have a new page created in consultation with the subject himself. Yet again using Wikipedia as promotion. The issues from last time are fairly much the same, he has not played in the meantime.
Not notable?. Article looks impressive but on closer inspection you can see the issues. VanderLaan has not played at the top level. He was not selected in the NBA Draft. In the USA he was in the NBA Development League, NBA Summer League, American Basketball Association (2000–present) and Continental Basketball Association, not making it to the National Basketball League (United States). He did lead a stat in the 2006 CBA but this was in the short lived revival period. Is that good enough? It might meet the letter of WP:NBASKETBALL but this was after CBA had lost much of it's significance. In Spain he played for Ricoh Manresa in the second tier Liga Española de Baloncesto as a bench player[28].
This article, even more than the last, is a major bombardment of routine movement reports, routine game coverage, primary sources and database listings. Wikipedia is not the venue for former athletes to stroke their own egos. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator Per WP:NBASKETBALL – "Basketball figures are presumed notable if they- 3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League." Nick VanderLaan led the Continental Basketball Association in rebounding in the 2006–07 season. User:Duffbeerforme's personal opinion on the league's status at that time is irrelevant. Per the last AfD, of which only three users voted, both of the users who voted "delete" said so mostly based off the fact that 1. the referencing was poor and 2. there were not enough independent sources (you can see the previous attempt from 2015 here). I found multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources of which the subject is VanderLaan himself: [29][30][31][32][33]. And per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" – here are two ESPN sources that detail VanderLaan with more than just a trivial mention: [34][35].
In the last AfD, User:SCMatt33 (who voted delete) noted that "If there's not significant, independent coverage from his time at Cal, Virginia, or in the pros, I don't see him meeting GNG". Per my sources listed above, there is significant, independent coverage of VanderLaan from his college days. There is also decent coverage from his time in the Continental Basketball Association during the 2006–07 season i.e. an article can back-up the league-leading rebounding stat rather than just a list of statistics.
Per my post at Talk:Nick VanderLaan – yes, I have been in contact with Nick VanderLaan himself. He reached out to me via Australiabasket.com earlier this month to ask if I would be willing to create on article on him. He actually picked apart User:Duffbeerforme's previous AfD and detailed how he thought he was a notable figure – I have been around Wikipedia for many years now and I have never had any player request an article from me (Conflict of interest never crossed my mind). I decided to commit to a draft after finding multiple sources on VanderLaan. I created this article from scratch and without bias, like I have done with every other basketball player article I have created. I took this article on as a challenge, and it turned out really well. I have no personal connection to VanderLaan, nor am I actually overly fussed over the AfD for this article – I am much more personally connected to articles I have created on players I actually follow and/or admire.
Weak Keep - Three reasons why I am voting weak keep this time, rather that delete as last time. First, technically the article does just squeak by WP:NHOOPS criteria with the subject leading the CBA in a major statistical category (rebounding). Second, the article is very well-written with good references. While that alone does not show notability, the significant number of authoritative references in conjunction with the borderline notability pushes the article into the keep zone. Third, the author specifically contacted me and I voted delete during the first afd. Not an argument for notability, but clearly shows that the author is not trying to sneak a non-notable subject back into WP.--Rpclod (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's definitely at the fringe of notability, but I think he's notable enough. He spent most of his college career with major programs, and actually got playing time with them. And it seems that he was at least on the radar of the NBA, with a couple summer league invites. Most important, there is enough verifiable information available to put together a quality article, so I'm fine with us keeping this. (And there's nothing in the article that strikes me as promotional.) One suggestion: maybe the article could explain why he went from a Division 1 college to an NAIA school. The sources briefly mention some sort of eligibility complication; is there anything more to say? Zagalejo^^^02:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this, which states "Vander Laan played his first two college seasons at California before transferring to Virginia, but will move again because of limited playing time." DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by that phrasing. Does it mean that he transferred both times in search of more playing time? Or are you saying, "He transferred again, this time because of a lack of playing time"? The Wikipedia article says that he transferred from Cal to Virginia for personal reasons.
The main thing I was initially wondering about is what I read here. It says, "He played two seasons at California and has one year of eligibility remaining if he plays in a program that is not NCAA Division I." I was just wondering how all that works. I don't remember hearing of another player who needed to leave Division 1 entirely in order to keep playing college basketball. Zagalejo^^^17:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the playing time – he averaged over 20 minutes per game at Cal but I guess wanted to leave the program for personal reasons. He then played his junior year at Virginia, but didn't get enough playing time (15 mpg). In order to play a fourth season straight away, it seems he was unable to transfer to a Division 1 school. Does Division 1 not require a player to play four seasons within five years? He had already sat out a redshirt season (2001–02), so transferring to another Division 1 school in 2003 would have required him to sit out another year and therefore lose his eligibility i.e. 1999–2004 is five years, so he would not have been able to play in 2004–05 if he sat out 2003–04 – there are cases of the NCAA giving players clearance to avoid sitting out, perhaps this was not granted?? Why he specifically choose an NAIA school is unknown (instead of Division II for example), but it does appear to be eligibility related, like you mentioned Zagalejo. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NBASKETBALL per above, regardless of editors' opinions of the CBA at that time. If the state of the article and persistent problematic editing are a problem, that still is irrelevant to this discussion. AFD is not cleanup and that can and should be dealt with by page protection and editor sanctions, not deletion. Article is well-written and well-sourced and written by an experienced editor, so I'm not concerned about WP:COI anyway. But if people are, deletion still isn't the answer. Smartyllama (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Keep votes earlier stated it was questionable as it is, and this last one states about "AfD is not a cleaning-needed place", because he is in fact only a college player, regardless of whether attention was given or this or that, because the solidity of basketball notability explicitly states major league players are in fact notable, not colleges players being a compromise hence Delete. SwisterTwistertalk08:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOur own policy on notability in basketball has been met ("led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association"). If there are concerns with that part of the policy, perhaps discussion needs to be initiated that changes it, but for now, it is what it is. If the concerns are that the article is too detailed for a minor player, then an overhaul of the article, not a deletion, is in order.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete/restore prior state: This article was repurposed by User:Abhijitroy66 from a redirect to the murdered blogger Avijit Roy, which was a reasonable redirect as there is also media coverage under this spelling [36]. Now it is instead providing an autobiography of someone who is co-founder of an ezine (which I have proposed for WP:PROD) and has been assistant director on a new film: these are insufficient for WP:CREATIVE or wider WP:BASIC notability. I suggest that the AfD concludes by restoring the article to this revision. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Its content that is directly related to the subject is all unsourced and the overall content seems to be OR synthesis. The term "Turkmen Armenia" (or "Turkoman Armenia") appears to be not used in RS sources dealing with the history of Armenia. The history detailed in the article is already covered in other articles such as Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. The article appears to be OR, created to explain why the word "Turcomania" appears near to, or in some cases replaces, "Armenia" on some European maps published in the 17th and 18th centuries. That itself is an interesting issue, but personally I have never seen any published explanation for the term's usage on these maps. The real Turkomania, aka Turkmenia, now called Turkmenistan, is a completely different entity in a completely different part of the world. For this article to exist, sources have to exist that use the specific phrase "Turkmen Armenia".Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. Looking back at the article's history, its creator says that it was created because "To better organize the history of Armenia, a page for the Turkmen period is required". So the phrase "Turkmen Armenia" is probably derived from those maps mentioned, rather than the article created to explain them. There is a gap in Wikipedia's direct coverage of Armenia's history during the periods covered by this article (setting aside its indirect coverage in articles like Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu). However, the article's title is not one used in RS sources and the grouping together all of the history of Armenia during the periods covered by this article seems to be not one followed in RS sources. So the OR synthesis argument for deletion remains unless an alternative title that is legitimate can be suggested. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment What do you think of Seljuq Armenia? Perhaps it's not related since its a spin off the Seljuq Empire article, but this Turkmen Armenia concept could be worded differently. Perhaps Armenia under Turkic rule? Still seems vague and OR. I'm not sure who came up with these vague concepts. It's a bit like saying Turkish Greece. There is a Spanish version of this concept called Al-Andalus, but I don't really know what the Turkic tribes called Armenia back then. Would be interesting to research. If it wasn't Armenia (I would assume it wasn't), then I'd support deleting this OR article and merging the information into either Aq Koyunlu et al., or a new article with the name they actually used back then if any particular as of yet unmentioned Turkic name was used for the region. --92slim (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thing Seljuq Armenia is another possible AfD. Perhaps even more so than this article. The Seljuks ruled almost nothing in Armenia - whatever they had captured they very quickly either gave away to local allies, sold, lost, or just walked away from. The Saltukids, Shah-Armens, Shaddadids, etc., were not Seljuks, nor did they even have territory that abutted Seljuk territory. But there is a gap in the history of Armenia that needs filling. Maybe an article with just a time period title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has been little better than a stub for years, has only one source that doesn't call the article by name, and provides no additional information that several similar articles already provide. --Nucdian (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see no particular consensus to delete this article. It is possible that it would be better renamed as the event, rather than the person, but that is not a matter for AfD. Enjoy yourselves at the article's Talk page. Joyous! | Talk02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was an American kidnapped and killed by anti-American guerillas. The fact that some of his brothers would later be notable is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that WP:NOTONHERITED is being misunderstood here. It reads: "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. " It does not apply to topics that, as here, can be verified with coverage in many books - not only books about the notable brother, but books about the era and events in Laos/southeast Asia; and by accounts in every major American newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing that given the ongoing coverage of this double political murder of these 2 young men in both Australian and American sources, the article might be best moved to a new title Killing of Neil Sharman and Charles Dean, with both names redirected to the new article. These were two promising young men, but careers were incipient at the time of their deaths, so there is relatively little to write about their lives, but their deaths have attrancted widespread, ongoing coverage which was particularly intense in the international media at the time their bodies were found and repatriated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea to me. FYI - I am the author of this article. I wrote it at the time Howard Dean and discussion of Charles Dean were every day events in the media. Seemed more notable then than it does now. :) Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I did a little expand, source, only the tip of the iceberg of the sourcing that exists. I trust that editors returning or coming new to page will look a sources now on the page and run searches (I used search term "Neil Sharman" + Laos) on terms that will reveal more sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note on sources that in addition to the enormous amount of international coverage at the time of search for and recovery of the bodies in 2003/4, there was press coverage at the time of the disappearance, in the years following, and in the years since 2004. Coverage was unrelated to Howard Dean and can be found in bout the American and Australian press. I have added some of it to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
McSorley doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH -- see the guidelines provided for notability of college athletes:
"College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."
I'd especially note the sources used for McSorley (beyond routine coverage) are heavily dependent on media affiliated with his school. It may be better to use his name as a redirect to Penn State Football or another related article. Csrwizard (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally we find that Division I FBS quarterbacks at programs such as Penn State tend to generate enough press to far surpass WP:GNG and that clearly is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No longer needed. Almost every Frank Zappa album (of which there are about a hundred) is currently being distributed through this label. So if this page were to be updated accordingly, it would overlap quite a bit with Frank Zappa discography. Also from that, there are only about a half dozen or so releases on this label that are not Frank Zappa releases. Only one article links here (the page for Zappa Records), which at least indicates to me that this isn't a very useful article. Friginator (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "No longer needed"/"isn't a very useful article" is not a valid reason to delete an article. See WP:AADP. Please describe a valid reason to delete, per WP:DEL-REASON, or withdraw the nomination. Pburka (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See "Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept." I recommend a merge into Frank Zappa discography.--Rpclod (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.