< 15 September	17 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only keep !vote did not explain how to address the issues described in the nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Vulcan stories[edit]

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

Like List of Star Trek Klingon stories, I recognize that this is an article created in good faith to compensate for the likely deletion of Template:Star Trek Vulcan stories. But like the case there, it fails the parameters set by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, is style in an in-universe fashion, is open to interpretation, is subjective, (due to both those species appearing in nearly every episode), and essentially fails for the same reasons that the template is up for deletion. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ill-defined. This is worse than the situation for the corresponding Klingon episode list, because the Vulcan-human tension pervades the series. Is essentially very episode of Enterprise included? How about First Contact? Seyasirt (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and clarify. Any problems as described in the nomination statement can be addressed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The only thing that comes to mind is that it's an editor's interpretation of what a Vulcan-themed episode would be, which sounds like something only fit for a user's page or a Buzzfeed article. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per similar reasoning on the Klingon one. Reyk _YO! 07:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar reasoning as on the Klingon AFD. —Mythdon 10:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that this list is not suitable due to concerns e.g about the inclusion criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Klingon stories[edit]

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

This page fails the basic parameters as outlined by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, is completely in-universe in style and add virtually nothing that is contributory. It's also entirely subjective and open to interpretation, as some of the main characters who appear in the series are Klingons, so we may as well name every episode. I understand this is approached in good faith as an alternative to Template:Star Trek Klingon stories, which is also up for deletion, but this specific categorization needs to go altogether. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague and borderline fancruft. Once Worf enters the picture, is any episode not a Klingon episode? Which ones aren't? Does what is basically a cameo in Into Darkness sufficient? Seyasirt (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand and clarify. Any problems as described in the nomination statement can be addressed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that, as the whole basis of this article sounds like a viewer's interpretation and fancruft. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- inherently original research, and unsourced. As Seyasirt points out, where do you draw the line between "Story about Klingons" and "Story with a Klingon in it"? On top of that, this list is an overspecialisation. Reyk _YO! 07:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as list can already be inferred in the individual articles. This is an entirely unnecessary compiling of articles and is useless fluff that adds nothing to expanding the coverage of Star Trek articles. Also agree with Reyk and Seyasirt. —Mythdon 10:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The topic lacks notability for a stand-alone list. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague and borderline fancruft. Since a major character from Voyager is a Klingon (B'Elanna Torres), would every Voyager episode qualify for this? I agree with the reasoning above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series) characters. And other articles as proposed. Sandstein 16:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armorhide[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series) characters, List of Transformers: Armada characters and List of Transformers film series characters per my reasons here. —Mythdon 09:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mythdon. ¡Boz zio! 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transformers: Generation 1. And other articles as discussed. Sandstein 16:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstorm (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Transformers: Generation 1, List of Transformers: Animated characters, List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. Content can be of use somewhere but without independent reception of this character, there have been no reviews on this character neither as a toyline character nor as a Animated/Cybertron character, then incorporating appropriate content into those articles suffices to the coverage of this character on Wikipedia. Similar to my comments here. —Mythdon 09:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mythdon. ¡Boz zio! 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spineless Books[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company tagged since January 2009. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are claims of other publications and other people, none of that actually establishes or shows how this specific company is independently notable; certainly nothing to suggest basic improvements, let alone keeping. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced essay on a unremarkable publishing company. My searches do not turn up anything significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 12:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Storm Stephanie[edit]

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

I am requesting the deletion of Subtropical Storm Stephanie as there was not a subtropical storm named Stephanie. The name Stephanie was assigned by the Adopt a Vortex project of FU Berlin to an mid-latitude area of low pressure, which several unofficial sources thought may have been a subtropical storm. The author has claimed that RSMC La Reunion monitored the system as a subtropical storm, but they do not monitor the Atlantic operationally and thus did not warn on it. Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I totally agree with Jason Rees. This is at the most a mid-latitude low pressure not much noteworthy. Pierre cb (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wouldn't this have been in the news cycle at least somewhat if it were true? I don't recall hearing anything about this at all.Dohvahkiin (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no - some subtropical and tropical cyclones do not make news headlines.Jason Rees (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeJust had a look at this, and it appears météo-france (of which RSMC is a subdivision) reported it to be 'Dépression subtropicale Stéphanie' and referred to it twice on social media here and here. Though it was indeed initially named through the FU Berlin project, the official french national meteorological service also adopted the name and categorised it as a subtropical storm. The naming system by FU Berlin has been used in previous articles such as here. The reason the NHC or RSMC La Reunion didn't report on the storm is simply because the Bay of Biscay falls outside their designated basins. Meteorologically speaking, this storm exhibited tropical storm force winds as shown by this ASCAT pass, and had a warm core closed circulation. If tropical depressions in the middle of the atlantic that have zero newsworthy impact such as TD9 last year require a mention, this storm ought to in some capacity. Whether it requires an article of its own is a different question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.12.222 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that Stephanie would not have been outside of the United States National Hurricane Centres area of responsibility, as they monitor the whole Atlantic including the Bay of Biscay and the North Sea. In fact you will find that the NHC initiated advisories on TS Grace, while it was located near 43N 18W. Personally I am happy to include the FU Berlin naming system in articles where appropriate and I would also be happy to add Stephanie to the 2016 AHS under a rule that we use to include systems in articles where the official RSMC has not monitored them but another NMHSS has. However, to do this we have to cite an advisory from the NMHSS themselves where they have called it a subtropical storm and then can not be putting in any met details, unless they come from a reliable source.Jason Rees (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I think that you can close this, it's fairly obvious that the consensus is to delete. Jdcomix (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find absolutely no reliable source to support even the topic title, leave alone the article's contentions. Lourdes 07:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 12:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle films[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previously PRODed but PROD removed by author. Elements of WP:CRYSTAL doesn't help. A newly invented form of film making but without any evidence that others have taken any notice of it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like there's an article on Daryush Shokof, so this might be something that could be merged into his article if there's any sourcing at all to show that he came up with the idea. Offhand the article for Shokof could use some work as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'd actually argue against merging now because I do see where the phrase is used prior to 2016 in articles like this one, which was written in 2009. Then there's this IMDb list that was created in 2011. My point here is that I don't see where Shokof actually created the concept or the term, which is what this Wikipedia article is claiming. To put it bluntly, there's strong evidence to say that if Shokof is claiming to have created the concept of puzzle films this year, that he is certainly lying.

Now as far as a general term, I do see that Wiley published a book about the concept. The editor of that book published a similarly titled one through Taylor & Francis a few years later. It looks like there is potential merit in an article about the term, which essentially refers to complex cinema (that might be a better article title), but this article isn't that and I'd actually recommend against leaving this article's history because I see that there have been concentrated efforts on Shokof's article where people have tried to actively promote him on Wikipedia. Leaving that article history could potentially encourage them to try to promote him in another article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site mentions John Hartzog, so maybe he originated the term? In any case the aforementioned site links to this article from 2001 that uses the term and refers to it in a way that gives off the impression that the term existed prior to that article's publication.

I also found this book through Edinburgh University Press that uses the term. It looks like it's most certainly an alternate term for complex cinema, but it looks like puzzle films is slightly more common. It's not a very prevalent term overall, but it does look like there's been some academic coverage. Again, it looks like claims that Shokof created the genre this year are false, unless he's using the term in relation to a complete separate type of film. However even if this is true, the article would still merit deletion because the genre as written in this article is non-notable. I'm searching under the general term "puzzle film" and can't find anything reliable that mentions him - and not really anything that mentions him at all, really. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the latest in a series of attempts by SPAs promoting Shokof (see, for example the history over at "amenic filmmaking". The fact that the term "puzzle films" shows up elsewhere does not make puzzle-films-as-supposedly-defined-by-Shokof notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the keep arguments have addressed the concerns about WP:GNG not being met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Slater and Rhyno[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Nikki♥311 20:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know they're the first ever smackdown tag champs. Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle were once too. Fails GNG, routine match results don't cut it.LM2000 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Benoit and Angle weren't an official team, but these two are and I see them being around for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes an official team and what does that have to do with WP:GNG? See WP:CRYSTAL regarding last part of your comment.LM2000 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They only just got together so a page isn't really needed plus I don't see Rhyno staying with Slater long just because they are the first Smackdown tag champs doesn't mean anything in terms of having their own page. Browndog91 18:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe way I see it is that right now, Heath Slater and Rhyno are quite a prominent tag team and I do think people will end up searching for them. But I do think once the team has descended, we can delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0737290632t2x273n (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GNG. Notability isn't temporary.LM2000 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The exact sort of team that does not deserve an article. Slater is notable. Rhyno is notable. The team is a single storyline. oknazevad (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the other two keeps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F9C0:D998:350F:2FAE (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

— 2605:6000:5644:600:F9C0:D998:350F:2FAE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. LM2000 (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can delete the article if they don't last long, but for now I say we keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:C0D:211E:96C6:67C1 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

— 2605:6000:5644:600:C0D:211E:96C6:67C1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. LM2000 (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are the first Smackdown tag team champions, they come out to the ring together, and they were just pitted just because, they're basically the new Team Hell No and they still have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.188.49 (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rashi Yadav[edit]

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

Not yet notable WP:NMODEL: has participated in several beauty pageants, but not won any. Only passing mentions in reliable sources. Already speedy deleted twice. Little Will (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NMODEL. Being merely a contestant in Miss Earth India is insufficient for WP:ANYBIO. ubiquity (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pageant candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Doesn't meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Anup [Talk] 05:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's best to delete this article right now. If this person becomes notable in the future, then the article can be recreated
Thank You
CyberBrinda (comment) 10:09 , 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't even make it on a list to disqualify under WP:GNG. From the article: "She took part in Miss Diva 2015 pageant and could not make it to the top 7. As of September 2016, she is currently selected as a finalist of Miss Earth India 2016 pageant.", so there is less notability than Pankhuri Gidwani. @CyberBrinda: I can sympathize with you wanting to keep this article but there has to be a line somewhere, or no line at all, which is chaos. "If" the subject wins "Miss Earth India", and not just places, which I assume would be Miss Earth India 2016, out of the other 80 or 90 contestants, and there is more notability, you can request the article be reinstated by an admin. A better solution would be to create articles under current WP:policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy) that includes Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources (a policy section), Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (content guideline) instead of inundating Wikipedia with articles that should be in another article, or articles that do not currently belong on Wikipedia at all. Reliable secondary sources is a criteria for inclusion by establishing notability to ensure the Reliability of Wikipedia. We need to continually build an encyclopedia based on these principles, that are reflected as the Wikipedia:Five pillars, and not on personal likes or dislikes or what "might" happen in the future. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Otr500:, I myself have already voted it for deletion and I have mentioned the same thing that you have said above.
User:CyberBrinda (comment) 11:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Participating in a pageant unfortunately is not a credible claim of significance. We have seen recently that winners of USA state pageants have been redirected to the event articles per WP:BIO1E. Over here, there is no claim of a win, so this is an unambiguous delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Pratyush (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Jenkins[edit]

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

Not notable, and no reasonable claim to notability either. I expect there will be notices in trade magazines, but that won't show notability . DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined DGG's speedy earlier because, to a Brit, the position at M&S seems an adequate claim of notability -- M&S has been the most important vendor of women's clothing and particularly lingerie in the UK for at least 50 years, and the column inches in the mainstream press devoted to its advertising strategies and declining/increasing market share are accordingly prodigious. There again, I'm not sure there is enough coverage of Jenkins' biography to merit an article at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still concur with the fact there's still (regardless of any apparent claims of significance) nothing actually substantiating her own substance and convincing article; the article simply states the information about her work, that's basically it.... SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lublin. Sandstein 16:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelitatem et Constantiam[edit]

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

No indication of notability - it's a phrase that someone used once, that's it. I'd speedy it but it doesn't fit into any of the categories and I doubt nominator is or knows someone who lived over 300 years ago. Smartyllama (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand A search finds a smattering of additional sources; this isn't E Plurbus Unum but it seems to merit an entry. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This Article shall remain: The phrase has been used both by the King (a former authority), and current City Authorites. It is the starting sequence of the document.

The document is an official Bill, signed by the King. There is a possibility to add more sources to this. The motto is used along with Coat of Arms, as the symbol of Lublin. Current reference has been made to official site, where legal decisions and acts of law are stored. Dear Smartyllama, can you assist me in working out, how to make this article more Wikipedial, please? Thanks!

Poland B (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. There are no policy-based reasons to keep this stub but the partisans will sure argue the point. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lublin: surely we do not need a full article on a city motto, or perhaps the target would be History of Lublin, if we had it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lublin. While some mottos can be notable (For Your Freedom and Ours, etc.) this one does not appear to be discussed by any sources except briefly in the context of this city, and said sources are not very significant (I couldn't find a single book mention). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lublin, which presently has no mention of this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lublin; the subject does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lublin. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Prisoner. Characters in The Prisoner is also suggested as an alternate merge target. I leave it up to whoever performs the merge which of those makes the most sense.

In either case, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Prisoner cast members[edit]

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

Delete: as pointless list of names (some red-linked) which provide absolutely no info at all, nor are notable per se. If the list contained the names of the characters played by these actors, I guess it would be OK, but still unnecessary and unneeded. Quis separabit? 19:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either to The Prisoner or Characters in The Prisoner. There is no reason for Wikipedia not to include this information about a seminal TV series, but it would probably be better included elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show is heavily reliant on guest characters and this could be important info, but I feel it's better covered in another format elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if this is deleted the content won't be available to put in another format elsewhere. What's wrong with merging, which can't be done if this deleted? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These aren't cast members. They're just guest stars. There was only one cast member, which would make for a really short list (on which he would still be sixth). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the IP, to Characters in The Prisoner Specifically, the delete !voters do not explain why WP:ATD-M, a portion of deletion policy should not be followed. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters in The Prisoner and The Prisoner as content is better included there, as per the other merge voters. —Mythdon 10:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If better sources are forthcoming, an article may be drafted at Draft:Tron Tunnel Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tron Tunnel[edit]

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

Can't find a single source confirming this, highly unlikely claims, possibly a hoax. Yintan 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of buzzwords but the whole thing doesn't seem to make much sense and with a complete absence of sources about "Tron Tunnels", this at least fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read about this elsewhere before. I'm working on trying to find a source for you guys. Please give me some time. I've got a book. I'm just trying to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.228.67 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several kinds of nonsense (quantum encryption has nothing to do with Tor - it is a totally different category of technology), and none of the citations mention the "Tron Tunnel". Smurrayinchester 05:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Hunt[edit]

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

Being CEO and selling a company is not enough for inclusion here. There is nothing here to really sell the article for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still deciding how to vote on this. In the meantime, here are two independent, reliable sources not used in the article that provide nontrivial, personal coverage of the subject:
- Keeps, David A. (March 7, 2014). "Q&A with Holly Hunt". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on September 2, 2016. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
- Kirwan-Taylor, Helen (December 9, 2014). "Holly Hunt and the Power of Neutrals". Design. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on September 2, 2016. Retrieved September 2, 2016.

Rebb ing 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. There is enough sourced material from the references in the article and the ones found by Rebbing (independent and WP:RS) about the subject to write a short verifiable article and it does not violate what Wikipedia is not.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 20:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 20:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NEXIST and Rebbing's sources, above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieari (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert: "It's JUSTNOTNOTABLE" isn't usually accepted as an argument for deletion. Would you care to explain why you believe the subject isn't notable? Did you even look at the available sources before voting? Rebb ing 14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the coverage plainly satisfies GNG. In finding the requisite significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, I primarily rely on the December 2014 Wall Street Journal article (cited above) and a March 2016 piece in Architectural Digest:

Renzi, Jen (March 8, 2016). "Inside Holly Hunt's Modern Apartment on Chicago's Gold Coast". Architectural Digest. Archived from the original on September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 10, 2016.

I also find the March 2014 Wall Street Journal interview (cited above) to be modestly significant. A passing mention in 1993 in The Free Lance–Star (a major newspaper in northern Virginia) obviously doesn't count towards coverage but is somewhat probative of the subject's enduring prominence in the design community:

Owens, Mitchell (September 18, 1993). "Fake Furniture: Knowable Knack of the Knockoff". Home Guide. The Free Lance–Star. New York Times News Service. p. 2. Retrieved September 10, 2016 – via Google News Archive. Others in the industry insist that imitations are flattering and that they pave the road for commercial success. Holly Hunt, who owns a Chicago showroom of the same name, said, 'Copying is part of human nature, and when a trend's in the air, everything's up for grabs.'

Rebb ing 14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as the Architectural Design link is essentially simply advertising and showing her own items; the second link is still not substantial enough for actually establishing substantial independent notability; examining this current article has shown nothing actually suggestive of why and how she has obtained enough substance and information for independent notability. As always, there's no inherited notability from the type of news source it is or who she worked with. The awards themselves include simply localized trivial business awards, none of it comes close to an actual major award. As always, this article itself hints at advertising her exact business and works, something that Wikipedia should not accept at all. Her career section essentially simply contains information about her jobs even including "bought a small showroom in Chicago's Merchandise Mart and changed the name almost a year later, becoming the first....brand has opened 10 more showrooms across the United States, as well as the recent opening of a London showroom" and then concluding how the company was sold. That's essentially all there actually is for this career section, apart from the other sections which contain the said trivial awards, the early life section (which goes as far to include her early jobs) and then the other parts outside of the sections (such as the lead that contains information what her occupation is and what her business is about). The nomination and Delete votes actually contain this itself exactly, in that none of it is significant and none of it ascertains independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm convinced by the sources Rebbing uncovered. The profiles by the Wall Street Journal and the Architectural Digest are substantial and meet the threshold of significant coverage for GNG. To this I add I source that I have found: here is a five page article by the Chicago Tribune which gives details on Hunt's early life and how she built up her business. For those asking what Hunt specifically did to set her business apart, the main points are that she designed furniture with a neutrally-colored palette and fewer decorative details, as opposed to the excessive ornamentation that characterized 1980s furniture, and hiring a French designer, Christian Liaigre, whose furniture made her business very successful. Altamel (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, the sources are enough to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Chicago Tribune coverage is compelling, referring to Hunt's company as "one of Chicago's most successful woman-owned businesses and one of the most influential furniture/design firms in the country". I believe that's enough of an indication of significance, and sources are satisfactory to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per variety of WP:SIGCOV sources listed above (and thanks for your research to the editors who uncovered them). Agree that Chicago Trib source is particularly compelling at establishing significance. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One delete, one keep, three comments, and two relists do not make for an adequate consensus. NPASR applies however. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 19:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The K.G.B. (band)[edit]

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

Notability and verifiability: the article is an unreferenced essay, with no sources listed. I cannot locate RS to confirm notability or what the article claims is true. The group does not appear to meet WP:NBAND. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - one major label album, can't find evidence it charted though - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that when I deproded it I indicated that there was a bio and a review at Allmusic, I'm surprised the nominator wasn't able to find these. The albums on Dreamworks and Stomp Records are possibly also a pass of one criterion of WP:NMUSIC. And here's the SF Chronicle article I found. I doubt my quick search that found all this picked up everything that exists. --Michig (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- yes, I was able to see these links, but they are not convincing. Allmusic profile is a brief paragraph:

Artist Biography by Heather Phares: "The Bay Area's soul-inflected alternative pop group K.G.B. formed in 1994 and earned a strong local following from their energetic live shows. They released a string of indie singles before signing to Dreamworks Records where they appeared on 2000's Road Trip soundtrack and issued the Space Cadet EP. The band, which is composed of Eric "Toby" Tobias (vocals), John "Johnny Genius" Murphy (guitar), Leo "Moses" Kramer (bass), Ben Kramer (organ/trumpet), and Tom Peyton (drums) released their self-titled debut in fall 2001."
SF Gate is local coverage.

Neither amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources, and the mentions are trivial or routine. They are still insufficient in combination. I don't believe the group passes GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a shame really that neither the AllMusic bio nor the SF Chronicle article get as far as mentioning all the stuff about MTV and the Road Trip movie, which seem to be the most notable parts of the band's career, or about the band getting dropped and eventually parting ways... we don't have any sources, reliable or otherwise, about this. I note that Davemcarlson wrote on the article's talk page six years ago that he thought the band were notable enough to keep their Wikipedia article – I wonder if he's come across any further information since then. Richard3120 (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely. Billboard article (up and coming) [1]. Full length review - Campbell, Chuck (12 October 2001). "Garbage takes a trashy turn". The Knoxville News-Sentinel.. Very short review - Harrison, Shane (4 November 2001). "Feed Your Machines: audiophile". The Atlanta Journal - Constitution.. review by "a freshman at Dundee Crown High School." (not a pro reviewer) - Thorne, Evan (21 December 2001). "Bionic Jive's debut album shows off its rock-rap potential". Chicago Daily Herald.. Broad enough to be not just local. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that NBAND is not met here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horseplay (band)[edit]

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

Can find no indication of subject passing WP:NBAND. —swpb^T 16:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet not just the one requirement needed, but 1 and 7. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

To editor In ictu oculi: We have no sources that demonstrate that. Since you created this page, I alerted you so that you could attempt to demonstrate notability, not so you could reiterate an unsupported claim. AfD is not a vote—if you can't support your case, you're just wasting everyone's time. —swpb^T 12:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all aspects of WP:NBAND. One review does not cut it for notability. And one self released album certainly doesn't cut it. Safiel (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Safiel, it does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. Ayub407^talk 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At first glance it may seem split, but mentions in article aren't the same as the significant coverage we expect to pass WP:GNG. Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria. Merely claiming the article passes WP:GNG is insufficient. Based on how policy views these, the consensus is to delete for a lack of meeting the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)/WP:ACTOR requirement. A minor television personality with no in-depth coverage of him, mentioned by the virtue of appearing on as a host on some shows. Bottom line, appearing on TV, even several times, is not enough to be notable, just like not every TV journalist, or journalists/writers in general, are notable. This person is just doing his regular job which involves occasional mid-level TV appearances, but he appears on TV not because he is notable, but because this is his job. PS. I nominated this for deletion 2 years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev), but nobody except article creator commented, and his main argument was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, neither of which are valid in an AfD discussion. PPS. This is a series of 4 similar articles about non-notable (IMHO) television workers, see Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Organisation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appearing on a contest operated by the European Broadcasting Union is extensive coverage and notability. Just like we have articles for Jon Ola Sand and Svante Stockselius. Sand is the current exec for Eurovision and the new exec for Junior Eurovision. Stockslius was the former exec for both contests. And both of those are seen as notable and fulfilling WP:GNG, so why is the rule different for a person who basically was in the same role? Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative option would be to merged all of the articles on BU Executive Supervisors into a list article, perhaps under the title List of Eurovision executive supervisors, and then list them in there. I could see that working just as well, and would avoid the argument of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not combine notable articles simply because guidelines like WP:ITSUSEFUL pr IDONTLIKEIT exists. Notability is based on the guidelines like WP:GNG. and he does pass that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * I see no merit for this nom. He is a television executive and by good sourcing that is confirmed. He was worked on major Eurovision events which as seen by millions of viewers, and have merit. passes WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in BIO states that television executives are notable by default. Nobody is denying that is his career, but all the mentions of him are in passing. Being on TV, or working for one, does not make one notable. Nor is being seen by millions, he was not the subject, just an organizer of the event that people where watching. Doing one's job, even if it means being highly visible, is not a criteria of notability in itself. All I hear so far is HEISIMPORTANT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary @Piotrus:, but I did propose an alternative solution as well as a !keep rationale. So not everyone is having the stance that "HEISIMPORTANT". However, one could counter-argue that view point and say that you're portraying across a "WP:WEDONTNEEDIT" attitude, which again is something to be avoided in debates like this. Executive supervisors seem to have some significance on Wikipedia, especially when there is a plethora of bios divided by company Category:Executives by company. There is also Geoff Posner, an executive producer who has a bio. By the looks they fulfil WP:BLP1E. Which would explain why the other EBU execs all have bios on them too. This debate needs someone to come along who is fully experienced and knowledgeable in this topical subject, as it may be a case of people misinterpreting policies, which then makes us all guilty of gaming the system. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and at least Redirect somewhere else as there's essentially nothing else apart from that one executive position, nothing else here suggests other substance or significant information for establishing his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still have not read anything else but IDONTLIKEIT rationales. and at least Redirect somewhere else as there's essentially nothing else apart from that one executive position,, is one of my favourite rationales here. He is an executive, the article does not claim otherwise, and the user also completely disregard his work for Eurovision events. Do I need to say more.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Producers and Teevee executives are almost never notable, especially the run of the mill types like this guy, and we've had so many AfD's of these folks that end up being deleted that editors should probably just use the Prod instead. We are not a web host or LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TV executives are not presumed to be inherently notable, and the subject does not meet GNG to qualify for a stand-alone article otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOLABS[edit]

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

WP:GNG concerns that are shared with SwisterTwister -NottNott|talk 18:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD because although the user removed the trivial award, the honesty is that the article overall is simply not substantial or significant enough for accepting notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to this, so apologies if the formatting of this response is incorrect. I'm just curious why the award that was previously mentioned was described as "trivial." Frost & Sullivan Award (or Frost and Sullivan Award) is cited on, by my count, 50+ other Wikipedia entries, including: Lockheed Martin A2100, Genesys, West Corporation, Keysight, Metaswitch, Sartorius_AG. Frost & Sullivan is also a notable enough company to have been deemed worthy enough to have it's own entry on Wikipedia. Would award from a company with the reputation of Frost & Sullivan not then be noteworthy, and positively impact the notability of a company? Redbridge talk 03:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, MOZ ranks Frost & Sullivan as having an extremely high page and domain authority: https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/links?site=http%3A%2F%2Fww2.frost.com%2F&filter=&source=external&target=page&group=0&page=1&sort=page_authority&anchor_id=&anchor_type=&anchor_text=&from_site= Redbridge talk 18:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable software company going about it's business. Tone is advertorial so WP:PROMO applies. Frost & Sullivan Award are low-reputation industry awards; they are generally pay-per-play in the sense that the company needs to pay for the "right" to publicize the award. Not useful besides putting it on a company website. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fair enough. I concur with K.e.coffman. Redbridge13 talk 14:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blanked by author, taken as deletion request Jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled Workers Union[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines or even general notability. I couldn't find anything about this with Google; it may be too soon for an article for this new organization. Seems to have been created by someone within the organization, possibly as a platform for their views. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially if one excludes Australia from the search query "disabled people's union" -australia (because there is a different Disabled People's Union in Perth, Australia), one can see easily from the 21 hits that there's no coverage of this organization. Fails notability. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per G7: "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request." The creator has removed the last of the text:[2] there's no article there any more. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I've tagged it as such. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pure advertisement. I'm going to delete as speedy G11, and protect against re-creation DGG ( talk ) 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdera[edit]

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

PROD removed but I still confirm it, as not only have I examined everything here and found it to simply be PR, trivial coverage or in between; my own searches are not finding anything better than exactly this. I'll note this was deleted several months ago as A7 and G11, and they frankly still apply. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everipedia[edit]

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

Article WP:OWNed by a single user who removes maintenance tags after shuffling links around. Every ref is an interview fluff piece and several make rather ridiculous claims (e.g. the INC.com interview: "Everipedia is disrupting Wikipedia.") Author keeps citing Breitbart and Huffpo blogs despite being told repeatedly that these are not reliable sources. Nothing establishes notability because the creator of the website was directly involved in the writing of every ref.

Also contains WP:PROMO (for the site itself as ostensibly better than WP), WP:SYN (for the preceding reason and the links to the Ben Carson vandals), WP:POV for editorializing a joke made by Jimmy Wales, and WP:WEASEL ("it is said to") when referring to unverified claims made by the creator. Jergling (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage beyond self-promotion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete the closest thing to a reliable source I can see is this, which doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG threshold alone even if it is found to be reliable and intellectually independent (both of which are doubtful). The behavioral and content issues mentioned in the nomination are not good reasons to delete the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The INC article is by a user who pumps out a different native advertising listicle every 2 to 4 hours. I highly doubt it's an independent source. It's kind of like the blogs section of Forbes, where it looks like a Forbes article but it's actually just free adspace. (What is the CEO of a startup doing writing blogspam, anyway?) -Jergling (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few users, including myself, have worked on the issues. I think we've cleaned up the weasel words, fixed the quote attribution, and added some encyclopedic perspective. There are still no independent sources, however, and I've been hard-pressed to find one. Jergling (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a growing site and passes GNG based on WP:SIGCOV. There is a lot of sources for this article. I do not own the article. I simply tried to fix the article. I am requesting the article be userfied for about 6 months while notability is better established. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: what three specific sources did you find contain the most significant independent coverage of the subject? VQuakr (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are others [3] , [4] even other sites are using it as a course [5] BlackAmerican (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First link if written by a founder. Not independent. Morningnews is a laughably trivial mention. If those are the best two you have found, then I feel quite comfortable concluding that your claim that the article meets GNG is not supportable. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if it makes you feel better. Feel free to check out my other articles created to see if you want to improve or tag for notability. BlackAmerican (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I heard about this site ~8 months ago and I was surprised that it didn't have a Wikipedia article. Mediocre wikis that obsessively rant about Wikipedia tend to be covered here before they break into the top 10k on Alexa. Maybe the audience of a wiki naturally enjoys such drama. The small number of sources is indeed a problem. I found three news sites that have not been mentioned yet, but their references to Everipedia are incredibly brief. All other sources I found are interviews... I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many. Connor Behan (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you failed to find significant independent coverage, you are voting to keep? re: "I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many." Time is money, you know; suckering investors is full-time job. And you want wikipedia help him in this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've only been a stickler for independent coverage when it comes to backing up a claim. An interviewee with a conflict of interest doesn't establish veracity but I think he can still establish notability. If the site were truly non-notable, wouldn't all these podcast owners decline or ignore the "please interview me" emails from Mahbod? Connor Behan (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I might be bias, full disclosure, I work on the site, but I don't see why if RationalWiki and Citizendium have big pages on wikipedia, why everipedia can't have its own page. In terms of alexa ranking and everything, everipedia is similar if not better to these sites, and in terms of media sources it's at least comparable. But again, since I work on the site, the wikipedia community can decide itself if the everipedia page should stay or be deleted. Thanks for listening to my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument in AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Mr. Lem, actually you're totally right. I didn't know that. Never seen that rule before, I'll admit I'm not very good at the whole notability requirements thing, I never really agreed with it. So do with the page as the community sees fit. GoldenSHK (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So because of the nature of this business and its similarity to Wikipedia, does keeping it at this time sort of promote it, give it a measure of prestige and credibility, and actually help to make it notable? Could keeping it alter its fate? If so, should Wikipedia be doing that? Is that a reason to delete? Should this be recreated in a year when it gets going? Should this be a consideration? I'm not sure whether this should be a keep or delete. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, that's a pretty philosophical question. Wikipedia won't add to it's growing prestige. I would say that the site is growing and that is confirmed by Alexa [6]. I don't think that having a site on wikipedia would grow it more than a search engine, but I believe that deleting the article only shows some of the inclusive behavior that exists on wikipedia. Deleting the article can take away from possible individuals who would want to edit it in the mean time or individuals who would recreate an even worse version until we all decide that it is finally notable. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackAmerican. Hmmmmm, well, respectuflly, I think Wikipedia would give it prestige. It is a question of how much. Tons of companies want articles for that reason, the same way they are hungry for news media coverage. And saying it wouldn't because it is growing anyway or that search engines grow it more is not a logical argument, to me.

Deleting does not show inclusive behaviour and deleting would not be because of any such behaviour.

I am just suggesting that we ought to debate whether or not it should be deleted because an article could create notability. It is supposed to be notable already. Wikipedia is not in the business of providing or notability.

Finally, your suggesting that deleting it can take away from those who would want to edit it is exactly making my point for me. An article would draw editors toward it, increasing its chance of becoming notable. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting it doesnt make sense. Everipedia has a roughly equal viewership as rationalwiki despite being live for a fraction of the time. With rationalwiki being among the most prominent online encyclopedias online, that is saying something. Even if that wasn't the case, there are still sufficient sources discussion the subject. Also any site that is being seriously discussed as a potential rival to Wikipedia is probably notable. Pwolit iets (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not "seriously discussed" anywhere but in promotional babbles. Therefore it is nominated for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Staszek Lem. I'm not seeing any serious discussion. The refs are lousy and I'm don't see anything else out there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seem to be no reliable, independent sources, the only coverage being promotional. 'Keep' votes have so far failed to address this. -- Begoon 23:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about turning it into (or merging it into) an article on Moghadam? The better sources here are interviews with him and/or about him, and there are a whole lot more articles about him. He certainly meets WP:GNG even if this site is on the fence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is being used by a number of sources as a News Source, thus showing its notability. This included Yahoo [7], CBS Los Angeles [8], Voices of Detroit [9], News.com [10] , The Epoch Times [11] , Slate.com [12] , CBS San Francisco [13] , CBS Tampa Bay [14] and more BlackAmerican (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the article, everipedia has scraped 5,000,000 wikipedia articles, and "has no notability requirements for content and as a result allows users [to] create pages about anyone or anything". I don't think "some lazy journalists use unreliable source to scrape factoids and images" is a claim to notability, unless an RS or two were to document the phenomenon. Seems like a good reason to be more careful if we rely on those sources which you've demonstrated doing it, though... -- Begoon 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: irrelevant; GNG doesn't say anything about being used by news sources. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is subjective it already passed the WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:SIGCOV. BlackAmerican (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the opposite of subjective: "GNG doesn't say anything about being used by news sources" is a verifiable statement of fact. WP:SIGCOV is the same section of the same guideline as GNG; the two are synonyms. You have asserted the article meets GNG without providing any support for the assertion. WP:GOOGLECHECK is a how-to guide that is not germane to a discussion about deletion. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails basic GNG - there are not sufficient independent sources about everpedia yet. Probably just WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot view the Bloomberg ref because I'm in China where that site is blocked. So, from what I can view, I am not seeing what is needed to support this article -- not even close. This fails GNG and in particular the general notability guidelines for organizations. Maybe in a year they will have the media coverage, but it doesn't seem to exist now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Powiets and sources like ones above and this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? The one you linked is a student newspaper. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article was written by Elaine Lee, an undergraduate student at University of Pennsylvania. Oh, and she has an article at Everipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Pennsylvanian is a viable source (it has its own article in Wikipedia) which has won many awards; is there anything in their article on Everipedia that you think is untrue? Another source in-depth and in-depth and in-depth. Yes, sources are a bit raunchy but such is life in the twenty tens. Magazines like Slate have used Everipedia photos. For us at Wikipedia, to not have an article on what is clearly a challenger-type encyclopedia, makes it look like we're afraid of competition. We're not. At least I'm not. Everipedia copy-and-pasted my History of citizenship article so at least they're copying the best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the DP from my time at Penn. I stand by my statement that it is not sufficient to establish notability per GNG. I'd have trouble being convinced that any college paper could be used for GNG evaluation in any context, but in this case the personal connection of the website's founder to the college means that source also fails the "intellectual independence" test. Breitbart and the other advertising was already addressed above. We are evaluating this article using the same criteria we use to evaluate notability for all subjects - whether it is a "challenger-type encyclopedia" is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My question stands: what, if anything, in the DP article about Everipedia do you feel is untrue? See, the article rings right. In my view, the DP is a quality publication with a reputation to uphold (Penn's, the students, etc), many of its writers go further in journalism and become notable such as Benjamin Ginsberg and Stephen Glass. The supposed "connection" between the founder and the college is unlikely to cause distortion or misrepresentation. Generally, college papers from top colleges, Ivies, and big state universities are excellent sources; (colleges from smaller Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools may not be.) The Daily Pennsylvanian has been cited numerous times in Wikipedia such as here and here and here. Regarding sources, if Breitbart won't float your boat, there are others such as here and here and elsewhere. Plus, there's also this factor -- Everipedia claims to be a competitor to Wikipedia, a challenger -- in that sense, established Wikipedians (myself included) have an inbuilt bias to not report it, to claim it is not notable, etc -- but that seems like a conflict of interest, as if our own egos as Wikipedians are spurring us to delete this article out of jealousy or bias -- that is, we need to be broadminded here and welcome competition, even upstarts that criticize our project -- and let Everipedia succeed or fail on its own merits.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG pass, but be careful about this article being controlled for promotional use. I removed a flagrantly wrong exaggeration of Alexa rank that through their own misstatement had been echoed into the media. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Spotorno[edit]

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

Simply not notable per WP:GNG. None of the four cited citations provide that sort of coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well, as a sacrificial lamb candidate running against an incumbent who will win. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual fails every possible test of notability. ALPolitico (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for the US house are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chapper[edit]

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

Not notable. Not covered by any reliable source. The fact that the app only has 16 users further prove that it isn't notable in any way. AdrianGamer (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I see no coverage of this one-month-old app not even available through a mainstream source, and with 16 users I wouldn't expect there to be. Largoplazo (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frankly this is a WP:CSD... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion A7. No significance or importance of the band was asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Fuse Box[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage from any reliable sources. Not notable. One of their song, Pulse, gets some pass-by mention only. AdrianGamer (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Dominican Republic[edit]

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

While some outlines add value, this appears to hold little that the article should not. Reduplication. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or move to draft space – It is a standard navigation aid, part of the outline system at Portal:Contents/Outlines. All outlines go through this phase of development. A quick look around WP shows that there are hundreds of links that could be added to this outline. If you delete it, you are saying that outlines that are a work-in-progress are not allowed. That defeats the purpose of the wiki (collaboration). In order to grow big, an outline has to start small (just like every other stub). Stubs grow because they are allowed to sit there until people come along and add to them. (That's Wikimagic). Please do not create a gap in the outline system. Also, the outline is currently undergoing overhaul/expansion, which should help speed up its development. Navigation systems are not subject to the redundancy argument. Otherwise, we wouldn't have categories, plus lists (including outlines), plus navigation templates, and so on. For further information about the benefits of redundancy in Wikipedia's navigation systems, see WP:CLN. Someone please close this discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist 17:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

f you delete it, you are saying that outlines that are a work-in-progress are not allowed. That's a straw man. I am saying that this particular outline, among others, is not a useful addition to Wikipedia, and, no matter how complete, really never will be. Outlines are not universally useful. For some subjects, they are merely needless duplication. That, among others, is one of them. Anmccaff (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a straw man. I was responding to your observation that the outline "holds little", which is synonymous with "underdeveloped", and the opposite of "holds a lot". But the brunt of your argument is redundancy, which is not a valid deletion argument, per WP:CLN. Also, you have not shown how the outline is not now, nor never will be useful. Not just useless to you, but to users who may have different learning styles than you. Concerning usefulness...

Country outlines are useful in several ways: They are lists, which some users find easier to navigate, and some editors find easier to compile/edit. They all share the same format, which makes it easier to look things up once you get familiar with the order of presentation. This also makes it easier to compare countries. Outlines are a type of tree structure, which show the relationships between the topics by their relative position on the tree. For this reason they serve well as tables of contents, and site maps, which tend to be easier and faster to browse than paragraph/prose format. The scope of each outline is the entire coverage of its subject on Wikipedia. If you cram all this list information into root articles it tends to bloat those to unwieldiness, and usually splits the list up in inconvenient ways and non-standard orders. Outlines are also useful as planning and revision tools (see Outline (list)), and can help WikiProjects develop and maintain Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects by providing a bird's eye view. Some of the best country outlines in my opinion are Outline of Iceland, Outline of Japan, Outline of France, and Outline of Australia. The Outline of the Dominican Republic has the potential to be as good as these. The Transhumanist 19:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The nom did not specify duplication of what. As for "value", this is not a an admissible argument in deletion discussions. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Transhumanist’s argument. Nika de Hitch (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the outline has been greatly expanded over the past couple of days, and now compares to other well-developed country outlines. See before and after. The Transhumanist 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Standard sort of navigational page. Not seeing any compelling reason to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest there is nothing standard about a little-used system that comes close to being a one-man show. Anmccaff (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STAND:

Outlines, from the general (Outline of mathematics) to the somewhat specific (Outline of algebraic structures), are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, and are indexed at Portal:Contents/Outlines. A type of tree structure, they are hierarchies of subjects organized as a structured list including headings, subheadings, and list items (usually bulleted, and preferably annotated). For more information, see outline (list), and WikiProject Outlines.

Unless you're saying that countries are not topics and don't belong among the outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines, it's a standard sort of navigational page. Regardless, I wouldn't agree that they aren't topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like there are legit claims that sources exist, not all of which were contested, confirming that the topic meets WP:GNG. An overlap in interests per se is a weak claim to non-independence; a direct conflict of interest or a relationship is what is usually meant by that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Barnett Abrahams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – no claim to notability made, school principals aren't inherently notable. The article was deprodded with the suggestion that the Jewish Encyclopedia was an independent source. I would disagree with that. The Candlestick-maker's Encyclopedia might be a reliable source about a certain candlestick-maker, but per WP:IS it's not an independent source, as it has a vested interest in the subject of the article. Even if you do accept that volume as an independent source, it appears to be nothing more than a version of Who's Who, as evidenced by one of the succeeding articles, which is four sentences long. It certainly doesn't provide evidence of the subject's notability in the wider community, as required for Wikipedia. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow appears to have born twice; I'd always seen being born-again as belonging to a different religious tradition. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff: I'm sure how the second birthday crept in but I removed it; the sources appear to agree on 1839 as the correct year. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everyone in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [15] is notable, and his inclusion in this, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History [16] meets the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple in-depth reliable independent sources. As for the nomination's claim that having overlapping interests makes a source non-independent: it is to laugh. Independence, in this context, means that the source had no direct financial or personal connection to the subject, which is as far as I know true. If we could only use sources that were uninterested in our subjects, we'd have very little to write about, because the mere existence of a source would call into question its independence (why did they write about that subject unless they found it of interest?). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, though, that the nominator does have a point -any- in-group notability can be magnified, inside the group, whatever the group may be. I can't see how that might apply to the DNB, though. Anmccaff (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locality or specialization of a source can definitely sometimes be an issue — we don't tend to give much weight to small-town newspapers reporting on locals — but that's a very different issue from saying that a source is not independent. I tend to agree with Nsk92's reading of this comment: to say that only non-Jews can be neutral and independent about people who happen to be Jews is outright offensive, on par with saying that only men can be neutral about people who happen to be female or that only white people can be neutral about racism. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update. There's an obituary of him in The Times, fragmentarily visible here. I haven't added it to the article because I don't have subscription access or some other source where I can read it, but I this strengthens the already-clear case for WP:GNG. Also, his retirement made newspapers as far away as Indiana [17]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access to the Times obit and I added a ref to it. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have "clipped" the article here; if I understand the newspaper.com license correctly, the clipping should be visible to everyone. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Jewish Encyclopedia as an independent source. It is a topical encyclopedia on a broad topic. Similarly, it would be perfectly find to use, say, a Mathematical Encyclopedia as an independent source for a Wikipedia article about a mathematician, unless there was actual close connection between that mathematician and the publishers of that encyclopedia. So to suggest that the Jewish Encyclopedia should be excluded as independent source for Louis Barnett Abrahams because he is Jewish is absurd. More than that, it's offensive. David Eppstein makes a convincing case above for why the subject satisfies WP:GNG. There are additional sources if one cares to look for them. E.g. there is an obituary about him[18] in the 1919 edition of Burke's The Annual Register. A search for his name in the archives[19] of The Jewish Chronicle returns several hits, including a May 6, 1938 article referring to him as "correspondents remember that Louis Barnett Abrahams, famous headmaster of the Jews Free School, London...". Also a short article [20] about the presentation of several portraits, including his. Etc. Certainly passes WP:GNG by over a mile. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he is extensively covered in this book[21]. Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school principal. Article is literally a direct copy of this. Wikipedia is not a repository or a mirror, take it to WikiSource. ¡Boz zio! 04:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is an official Wikipedia policy. ¡Boz zio! 05:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's about including quotations in articles. It is irrelevant to the question of basing the actual text of an encyclopedia article on another (old enough to be public domain) encyclopedia article, something we used to do a lot more regularly. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I have now completely rewritten the article so that it is no longer a quote from another source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did you figure that he is not notable? He is specifically covered in the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, in the "Palgrave dictionary of Anglo-Jewish history", there is an entire chapter about him in the book of Gerry Black "JFS : the history of the Jews' Free School, London since 1732", there is a published obit in The Annual Register, and so on. How is he not notable again? Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to be notable. If Wiki had been invented while he was still alive, with his credentials, he would most likely have been included. Three books, etc. We forget that Wiki is very biased to the late twentieth century when online sources became widely available. I think it would be easier to edit away from any close paraphrasing (or "copying") than to argue. I'm an admin & crat on Commons, we are trying to find a picture for this article which is how I found the discussion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comfort women . After disregarding the walls of text by the now-blocked D.H.Lee and the obviously canvassed or sockpuppeted opinions, we're at 4 delete and 2 merge. That's consensus not to retain this as an article. The redirects allows editors to determine editorially which, if any, content merits merging from the history. Sandstein 16:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Kidnapping of Korean Women in 1930's[edit]

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

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

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

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

Revisionist history, angry tone, concentrating on individual horror stories rather than the overall issue. This is a WP:POVFORK, a non-neutral attempt to bypass the usual considerations of WP:WEIGHT and balance. It should be deleted. This article talks about the beginning of the Comfort women program, so anything salvageable should be carefully integrated with the comfort women article. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comments' I don't see relevance to Comfort women program: the test speaks of "Korean brothel operators". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. D.H.Lee is trying to remove a very large chunk of Korean women from the mainstream narrative of the comfort women topic, by saying that these women were something else. If he succeeds, then the comfort women program is made that much smaller, and its political fallout is correspondingly smaller. D.H.Lee is aiming to smooth relations between Korea, Japan and the US. I'm all for smooth relations, but I don't think a whitewashing of history is the right way to get there. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As you admitted below, Korean women constituted the majority of comfort women and they were coerced by the Korean operators and traffickers. I'm not denying that the Japanese military coerced local women in the battlefields, such as Dutch women in Indonesia and Filipino women in the Philippines. By excluding Korean women the number of comfort women coerced by the Japanese military would be smaller because that's the truth. Not because I'm whitewashing history. You have conceded that Korean women were coerced by the Korean operators below, but because you don't want the political fallout to be smaller, this article should be deleted? That makes no sense. --D.H.Lee (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per, at a minimum, WP:POVFORK. Brianga (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry at all. I've simply translated the Korean newspaper articles from 1930's. Why erase crucial primary sources? If we surpress evidence, we will never realize the truth. --D.H.Lee (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources, greatly preferring secondary sources to primary ones. The main problem here is that primary sources are being used by D.H.Lee to contradict the mainstream narrative of the comfort women issue. Here's the mainstream version: the United Nations Commission on Human Rights says that the comfort women case was a system of sexual slavery instituted by the Japanese military, a system which started in 1932 but was greatly expanded in 1937 and throughout World War II. Your article talks about some aspects of the comfort women program, but it is designed to contradict the mainstream view. That is what makes it a WP:POVFORK, and that's why it should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My article is not challenging the mainstream view of other women. The Japanese military did coerce hundreds of local women in the battlefields, for example Dutch women in Indonesia and Filipino women in the Philippines. What my article is pointing out is Korean women weren't coerced by the Japanese military. The Korean activists' narrative "Tens of thousands of Korean women were coerced by the Japanese military" is not based on fact. And many of the members of the activist group have arrest records as North Korean spies. Please read the following article including footnote #9. It will answer all your questions. http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2014/10/summary-of-professor-park-yuhas-book.html --D.H.Lee (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence says that you are not challenging the mainstream view, but the rest of your comment goes on to obviously challenge the mainstream view. Per WP:POVFORK Wikipedia does not have multiple articles giving different views of the same subject, but works by consensus to create one article which reflects the consensus of reliable secondary sources, and, if that consensus is not overwhelming, also covers minority views supported by reliable secondary sources. A blog post such as you link above is not a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as original research. There are no sources which specifically single out the article subject, namely "... in 1930s". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of you have misunderstood this issue, let me copy the link to what Binksternet and I have discussed in his talk. It will show why Korean women and other comfort women are two distinct issues, and it has something to do with North Korea. So please do read the whole thing.　https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Serial_Kidnapping_of_Korean_Women_in_1930.27s 　

If you don't like that blog, then read The New York Times article and others. They address the same point as the blog. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/world/asia/south-korea-comfort-women-park-yu-ha.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=2 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2009/05/10/books/book-reviews/continuing-controversy-of-comfort-women/#.VLzLMpX9mcx

. --D.H.Lee (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read the diary written by a comfort station worker analyzed by Professor Choe Kil-sung. It may surprise you.　http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Chapter-51.pdf　For your information men who appear in this diary have Japanese names, but they are all Koreans. This diary was discovered in 2013, and it certainly sheds new light on Korean comfort women. Please realize that the guy who witnessed the day to day operation of Korean comfort stations should know more about Korean comfort women than all of you. Here are the names of comfort stations and their owners that appear the diary.　http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0189045814.jpg　--D.H.Lee (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a memoir written by a former Korean comfort woman, Mun Ok-chu. (English translation at the bottom)　https://www.facebook.com/notes/606052749474399/ --D.H.Lee (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is contrary to the great mass of research on the topic. For instance, Professor Toshiyuki Tanaka writes in his book Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation that coerced Korean women constituted the majority of the comfort women, and that local Koreans of every stripe were complicit in getting girls and women into the Japanese comfort women program. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Tanaka is he can't read Korean, so he hasn't had access to any sources in Korean. He can't read the Korean newspaper articles in 1930's, he can't read the diary written by a Korean comfort station worker. It's amazing to me that someone pretends to be an expert and writes a book without being able to read sources. Please also note that Tanaka was witnessed several times in attending Japan Communist Party annual conference, and he has also visited North Korea in the past. Again I agree with you in that local Koreans of every stripe were complicit in getting girls and women into the Japanese comfort women program. In wars, soldiers sometimes rape innocent women. To prevent this from happening, the Japanese military asked businessmen to recruit prostitutes and operate comfort stations. The Japanese military sent orders to comfort station operators and traffickers not to recruit unwilling women.　http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=8155355946.jpg　Japanese businessmen followed the order and only recruited willing prostitutes in Japan. But Korean operators didn't follow the orders. Many of Korean comfort women's fathers had debts from alcohol, gambling, etc. and sold their daughters without daughters' consent. The Korean comfort station operators took over their debts, and depending on the amount of the debt, each woman's contract length was determined. Korean women were not allowed to leave until their debts were paid off. --D.H.Lee (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the communism is dead in the West, but it is very much alive here in East Asia. Communist agents from North Korea and China are everywhere in South Korea and Japan. Typical example of that is Tanaka and Yoshimi. They are the posterboys for them. Here is a photo of a Korean school classroom in Tokyo.　http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=2644588014.jpg　Schools like that exist everywhere in Japan. It's madness.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me summarize

(1) The activist group Chong Dae Hyup (many of its members have arrest records as North Korean spies) has done such a great job of spreading the false narrative on Korean comfort women that it became the mainstream narrative.

(2) Because of this false narrative, the South Koreans hate the Japanese so much　http://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/08/21/korean-independence-day-continues-to-stir-the-pot-for-japan-korea-relations/　that they don't want to cooperate with Japan on security issues.　http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/the-strategic-cost-of-south-koreas-japan-bashing/news-story/9aedca016ccd0b2f775f95e3b03838a5

(3) All of you, by refusing to look at anything but the mainstream narrative, are unknowingly complicit in activists' scheme.

(4) North Korea says "Thank you." --D.H.Lee (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a great article by the U.S. Ambassador James Glassman

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/10/japan-vs-us-no-japan-is-not-killing-us-were-killing-japan-our-staunchest-asian-ally.html　--D.H.Lee (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Fox News article says nothing about the serial kidnapping of Korean girls and women during the 1930s. You appear to be making this deletion discussion into a political advocacy of US–Japan–Korea solidarity against North Korea. That strategy is not going to save your article. What you need to do is find reliable secondary sources talking about the exact issue of serial kidnapping of Korean girls and women during the 1930s. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to provide three sources. First, I quote from the following website.　http://www.sdh-fact.com/essay-article/630/

Police Crackdowns on Abduction Crimes in Annexed Korea
As Fig.2 through 7 of the Appendix clearly show, newspaper articles published during the
Annexation Era indicate that Korean Police made efforts to crack down on kidnappings and
abductions. Fig.2 means that a little girl ran into a police station as she considered that the
police was reliable and trustworthy.
It appears that kidnappers and abductors were Koreans, and so the blame for Korean crimes is
being shifted to the Japanese Army/Authority.
The following table shows the total number of policemen in Annexed Korea as of 1938. The table
shows approximately half of the lower-ranking police officers of the Korean Police was
comprised of Koreans.
10
Koreans Japanese
Inspector 9 62
Captain 89 388
Lieutenant 157 738
Police officers 8,542 11,784
(Source: Korea Governor-General Office of Statistics, 1938)
Provincial Parliament Election Results of 1933
Fig. 8 of the Appendix is a newspaper article from the Asahi-Shimbun Korea published on May
11, 1933. It shows election results of 13 Korean provincial parliaments. According to the article,
approximately 80% of the newly elected parliament members were Koreans. (Korean names
usually consist of three Kanji-characters while Japanese names usually consist of four or five
Kanji-characters.)
Under such a governing body, how is it possible for Japanese officials to “draft 200,000 Korean
women as military sexual slaves for the use of the Japanese Imperial Army” as the
Coomaraswamy Report claims in Paragraph 61?
The newspaper articles and statistics clearly demonstrate that Korean Police, which conducted
crackdowns on kidnappings and abductions in order to provide security and peace for the local
people, is unlikely to be the culprit behind the forced recruitment of 200,000 women and girls.
Moreover, no entity or organization can commit forced recruitment of 200,000 women and girls
under the eyes of the Korean Police and/or Provincial Governments.
Japanese Military Order 745
Fig. 9 of the Appendix is an order issued by the Ministry of the Army on March 4, 1938. The title
states: “Subject: Regarding Recruitment of Girls and Women for Military Comfort Stations.”
The essential part of the order is the latter half, the translation of which is:
“Inappropriate recruiters and disorganized manner of recruitment may cause the recruitment
methods to be classified as kidnapping which leads to the disgrace of Imperial Army such as
police investigation. This notice is to raise the awareness of such problems relating to the
recruitment of women. Army Headquarters require your sufficient care to avoid errors that may
cause social problems. Under close cooperation with Military Police and police stations of the
municipalities involved, efforts should be made to maintain the reliability and authority of the
11
Military.”
From this order, you may discover that the Imperial Army of Japan considered kidnapping of
girls by the recruiters/procurers was the disgrace that would lead to the police investigation and
eventually cause the loss of “reliability and authority of the Military.” In fact, the Army order
required sufficient care of girls and prevention of social problems by NOT using inappropriate
recruiters who may resort to kidnapping. The only logical conclusion that can be derived from
these facts is that civilian and army military police forces made efforts of policing the
unscrupulous recruiters and/or procurers and it is very unlikely that the Japanese
Army/Authority committed the offence of slave hunting of girls that would certainly cause
“social problems.”
YOSHIMI Yoshiaki, a Japanese researcher well-known for his deep-rooted hatred toward the
Japanese Army/Authority used this Army HQ Order No.745 as evidence of “military
involvement” in 1992 in his malignant attempts to damage the reputation of the Japanese
Army/Authority.
Of course, the Japanese Military was involved in the installation of comfort stations in occupied
territories in China and South East Asia and provided transportation to and from the occupied
territories because they were all war-zones. Medical care was also needed to prevent venereal
disease in order to keep the fighting capability of soldiers. (The Army Expedition to Siberia in
1918 originated the use of comfort stations. During the Expedition, out of 70,000 army men,
10,000 men were crippled due to venereal disease. This experience caused the Army to consider
the need for comfort stations.)
How is it possible for the Japanese Army or Authority to forcibly mobilize 200,000 women and
girls, who were under constant watch of so many Koreans employed as police officers and local
government officials? If they were kidnapped, there should have been violent resistance by their
fathers, brothers, or boyfriends. At least there should have been numerous eyewitness accounts
in police archives or private diaries. However, no such evidence has been presented by the
Korean Government.
Korean procurers many have kidnapped women and girls and Korean recruiters or brothel
operators may have resorted to “coaxing and intimidating.” However, these matters had nothing
to do with the Japanese Army and/or Authority.

There is also a Wikipedia in Japanese for "Serial Kidnapping of Korean Women in 1930s"

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9C%9D%E9%AE%AE%E5%8D%97%E9%83%A8%E9%80%A3%E7%B6%9A%E5%B0%91%E5%A5%B3%E8%AA%98%E6%8B%90%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

Use google translate to understand what it says.

Here is an article in Korean that analyzes "Serial Kidnapping of Korean Women in 1930s"

http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=history&no=1283822

Again use google translate.

All three sources are in accordance with my article.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article in English that translated the above article in Korean.

http://koreannewsreports.blogspot.com/　--D.H.Lee (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Be sure to remove the correct kernel version and not the current one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:99:2DFF:1:3854:9792:A537:7A15 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. If the creator wants to include more reliably sourced content about Korean involvement in coercing women into prostitution under Japanese occupation the place to argue for that is Talk:Comfort women. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete as this article and comfort women are unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:99:2DFF:1:3854:9792:A537:7A15 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article is extremely important as it is based on the primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelic-feline (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. If a story must be told using primary sources, then the author should write a book and publish it. Wikipedia is not for the first appearance of a topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source provided above.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete obviously this article is only presenting a fact that there was a series of cases reported in Korean newspapers in the past, making no judgment on it, making no reference to comfort women. Besides, if the fact presented here seems to “contradict the mainstream narrative of the comfort women issue,” it’s “the mainstream narrative” that has a problem, not this article. Therefore, WP:POVFORK does not apply in this case at all.--Lettheangelscry (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)— Lettheangelscry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete This article doesn't say Korean women worked in Japanese comfort women program. Hence WP:POVFORK doesn't apply here. --CJHudson (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Comfort Women. If there is good information here, with reliable sources, it should be placed there to give another POV to that article. ABF99 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean brothels in China and Manchuria may have served the civilians there. This article doesn't mention that they served the Japanese military. Thus it is not appropriate at all to merge this with comfort women. --D.H.Lee (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We now have three users that have jumped in here with 'do not delete' who are brand-new users on Wikipedia, with no editing experience aside from these comments. Not to be rude, but I smell socks.ABF99 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABF99, going by a quick look at your account and the editing experience you displayed from the beginning, I find it peculiar that you would be calling out others as socks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, Well I have to admit I feel somewhat complimented by the fact that you think in my relatively short time here (about a year) i display editing experience. I did spend a lot of time in Afd discussions before I even attempted my first article, which was a good way to learn about Wiki policies. But I am still learning. One of the things I have learned in this discussion is that you and D.H.Lee are right---I jumped in prematurely with a snarky comment about socks when I could have assumed good faith and worded my reservations about the three new accounts differently. ABF99 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABF99, I'll be frank: It is highly unlikely for a new editor to pop in AfD discussions for their early edits, like you did, and you very much remind me of an editor I encountered a number of times. I'm leaving that matter at that for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge users based on their experience. Judge them on what they have to say. The people who only browse usually may have felt that injustice was being done to a good article. I think your comment is a bit out of line. --D.H.Lee (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users who comment at deletion discussions are almost always examined for previous history. It is quite common to see sockpuppet accounts appear at deletion discussions to vote. It's so common that some advice is given about that case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute where it says that the "use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden," and that such accounts will be permanently blocked. The issue is also highlighted at Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Casting additional votes. Basically, a well-reasoned opinion will carry more weight than the number of votes, and it only takes one well-reasoned opinion. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insinuating that I used multiple accounts? I really can't let you get away with accusations like that. Isn't there a way for us to ask Wikipedia to track down the IP addresses of those comments? Does anyone know a way to verify that those comments were not made by the same person? When we find out that those comments were not made by me, you will owe me an apology, Binksternet. Again I would appreciate any suggestion so that we can get to the bottom of this. --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has become apparent that the issue here is whether this article is related to the Japanese comfort women program. Can anyone point out the part of this article that makes reference to the Japanese comfort women program? If someone can do that, then this article should be deleted, and kidnapping of Korean women should be discussed at comfort women Wikipedia. If not, this article should remain. That is one well-reasoned opinion. --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made the connection yourself here, here, here, here, here and here. I don't know why you would ask to see proof when you made the connection explicitly. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the article said in the past doesn't matter. The issue is whether someone who sees this page in the current form relates it to comfort women. We are discussing whether the article in the current form should be saved, not the past ones. --D.H.Lee (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you are welcome to defend yourself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.Lee. I'm sorry, but this AFD has been very suspicious, and I do believe you are socking. Sro23 (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this. Do you know if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.Lee can verify the IP addresses of those comments? I just want to find a way to get to the bottom of this now that some of you think that I used multiple accounts. --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the possibilities is that someone else is making sockpuppet accounts, not D.H.Lee. It's also possible that meatpuppet accounts are appearing at D.H.Lee's request. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such request. If someone else made sockpuppet accounts, I have no control over it. --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So again I pose the question. Can anyone point out the part of this article that makes reference to the Japanese comfort women program? If someone can do that, then this article should be deleted, and kidnapping of Korean women should be discussed at comfort women Wikipedia. Thank you & good night! --D.H.Lee (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.H.Lee, All of the links you have provided to defend your article discuss the comfort women program, yet your article does not. Thus the article as a stand-alone list is incomplete; it provides no context, and is not in its present form IMHO useful to an encyclopedia. As another point of view to the Comfort Women article, it could be useful. That point of view is backed up by reliable sources, as you have noted. The Japanese Wikipedia article on kidnappings of Korean women in the 1930's that you linked to is very different: it provides a great deal of historical background, discusses the relations between Japan and Korea, and includes referenced discussions of the comfort women program. ABF99 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the article currently makes reference to the comfort women program, but whether any article about forced prostitution in Korea in the 1930s should exist without making reference to that program. I have no doubt that many Korean men abused these women, but we should cover the subject in the context of a military occupation by Japan in which such abuse of women by Japanese soldiers was commonplace, and officially encouraged. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABF99 & 86.17.222.157, I was doing two things. One was to defend my article. The other was as a historian in Japan-Korea history I was providing knowledge on comfort women since most of you misunderstand the subject. The following are what most historians agree.

(1) The majority of comfort women were Korean, my compatriots. Binksternet says 80%. I don't think it was that high but let's just use that number and 100,000 as the total number of comfort women for now. So there were 80,000 Korean comfort women. Historians agree that most Korean women were recruited by the Korean comfort station operators and Korean traffickers with deception and force. The Japanese military sent orders to the Korean operators not to recruit unwilling women but they didn't obey the orders.

(2) The Japanese comfort women constituted about 18%. So 18,000 Japanese women. Historians agree that all Japanese women volunteered.

(3) 2% for other women, local women in the battlefields such as Dutch women in Indonesia and Filipino women in the Philippines. Historians agree that lower ranked Japanese soldiers did coerce local women in the battlefields in violation of the Japanese military rules. Those soldiers were court-martialed and some executed.

If you do the simple math, over 95% of the women were not coerced by the Japanese military. That is the mainstream narrative among most historians. The primary and secondary sources support that narrative. But comfort women wikipedia's narrative paints an entirely different picture. Comfort women wikipedia is like a cult. It is determined to create an absolute evil out of the Japanese military, and its narrative is most if not all comfort women were coerced by the Japanese military. It does not allow any opinions against the cult by erasing them immediately. I've edited a few times, but they were all erased right away accusing me that I was a revisionist and it didn't fit the comfort women wikipedia narrative. It cherrypicks a small number of scholars like Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Yuki Tanaka, both of whom are members of Japan Communist Party and notorious Japan haters.

This article initially had references to the Japanese comfort women program. But since most of you were trying to merge this into comfort women wikipedia cult, I edited out those references. ABF99, if you are saying that I should put back references to the Japanese comfort women program and also provide historical background like the Japanese wikipedia article on kidnappings of Korean women in the 1930's (which has existed for 7 years) so that it adds another point of view to the cult, I can do that. Only if people here are open to another point of view... But most of you here, who has done little or no research on the comfort women issue, will scream "merge" again. I've research the comfort women issue for over 20 years going through every primary and secondary sources in Korean, Japanese and English and talking with Koreans who were alive in the 1930's. Perhaps my downfall is that I know too much ;) I am asking others besides ABF99, if I make those additions to provide more background to the kidnapping of Korean women, will you welcome it or will you delete it?　--D.H.Lee (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What this subtopic might be about[edit]

The kidnapping or abduction of Korean girls and women into prostitution is a part of the history of Korea under Japanese rule, and it leads directly into the Japanese comfort women system of World War II. Professor Toshiyuki "Yuki" Tanaka of Hiroshima City University wrote about this in 2002, in the scholarly book Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II. He wrote:

One cannot sufficiently explain the establishment and operation of the comfort women system, in particular the sexual exploitation of Korean women in that system, by viewing it from the perspective of military history alone. It becomes comprehensible only when we examine how the trafficking of young women came to be widely practiced in Korea well before the military brothel system was established. This trafficking was a by-product of Japan's various policies of colonizing the Korean peninsula.

Tanaka described how in the 1910s the Japanese erased the traditional Korean landholding system of tenant farmers, creating in the process hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants where there had been just as many semi-independent tenant farmers. This, combined with bad weather and poor harvests, created a terrible crisis in unemployment, which reached 85% in some rural areas during the mid-1930s.
Faced with no other prospects, many Korean girls and women turned to prostitution, many working in brothels which operated under license by the Korean government. Others worked in restaurants that also offered sex services. Poor families would sell their daughters into sex work for a small fee. When Japan invaded Manchuria and China, Japanese and Korean brothel and restaurant operators moved their businesses to be near military units in those areas. These brothels were brought into the military comfort women system, managed by the military so that they could contain the spread of venereal disease among the troops, and to prevent local women from being raped by soldiers. By 1938, however, the existing supply of comfort women was too small to meet the demand, and the Japanese military became more active in the procurement of women.
All of this is background to the comfort women topic, and it is also a critical element of the history of Korea colonized by Japan. If it were to become its own topic, we would have to see that secondary sources exist which treat the whole matter as its own topic. It is insufficient to show secondary sources reporting on just one of the various kidnapping crime rings. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There goes Tanaka again, lol. His description:

"how in the 1910s the Japanese erased the traditional Korean landholding system of tenant farmers, creating in the process hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants where there had been just as many semi-independent tenant farmers. This, combined with bad weather and poor harvests, created a terrible crisis in unemployment, which reached 85% in some rural areas during the mid-1930s. Faced with no other prospects, many Korean girls and women turned to prostitution, many working in brothels which operated under license by the Korean government. Others worked in restaurants that also offered sex services. Poor families would sell their daughters into sex work for a small fee."

is totally false. Again his problem is he can't read sources in Korean.

Please read what Professor Alleyne Ireland, who visited Korea in 1922, said in his book. I know it comes from the blog you hate, but the article has the link to the original book at the bottom, so if you don't believe the summary, read the whole book.

http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-new-korea-by-alleyne-ireland.html

The population and the average life-span of Koreans doubled in 35 years under the Japanese. GDP per capita of Koreans increased on the average of 5% a year, five-fold in 35 years. My great-grandfather was born a poor farmer in 1893 (over 90% of Koreans were poor farmers and slaves at the time) and was delighted when Japan annexed Korea in 1910 and liberated them because he would have never been able to attend schools if not for the Japanese. And he probably wouldn't have lived past 20, which means I wouldn't exist right now if not for Japan's annexation.

Please also read what Professor Choi Ki-ho has to say. He was born in 1923, so he is a living witness.

http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2014/10/i-am-91-years-old-and-i-want-to-tell.html

This article is an English translation of his article on his website in Korean.

http://yeoksa.blog.fc2.com/

If Japan didn't annex Korea, the Russians would have. And the whole Korean Peninsula would be like North Korea right now.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Lee Young-hoon of Seoul National University is an expert on land policy during Japan's annexation. He went through all public records and concluded the average Koreans' land ownership increased dramatically under the Japanese resulting in increased income for them. But since they were so dirt poor like my great-grandfather, even with Japan's help they were still relatively poor. I wish you could read Korean because Professor Lee's book is a masterpiece, and it is online for free.　http://yeoksa.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-144.html　--D.H.Lee (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your first response is that Professor Yuki Tanaka is a very reliable source, publishing his work in the highly respected Psychology Press, while your blog is not at all reliable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, Alleyne Ireland's New Korea came out in 1926, so it's too old to be relevant today. It would have to be re-evaluated by a modern scholar.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You feel Tanaka, who can't read sources in Korean, would know more about the state of the Korean Peninsula 1910-1945 than Professor Ireland and Professor Choi who witnessed and experienced it? How could Professor Ireland's observation of Korea at that time be out of dated? If anything, it should be considered more valuable. He was there. I should expand Professor Lee Young-hoon's Wikipedia so that his work can be read by the westerners. Professor An Byeong-jik's Wikipedia touches on the annexation period a little more, let me quote from it.

An's views and remarks

"There was no overt exploitation of land during Japanese colonial period."

"There is no objective evidence that the comfort women were forcibly mobilized."

An denies the view that the Japanese military and police took women by force from the Korean Peninsula because Korea at the time was "a well-ordered society, although it was a colony."

"Comfort women were recruited by business operators in Korea, and there was no need for the Japanese military to abduct them."

"Half of the managers of comfort women were Korean. "　--D.H.Lee (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the blog is not mine. Its articles provide links to outside sources. For example the comment I made above "The population and the average life-span of Koreans doubled in 35 years under the Japanese. GDP per capita of Koreans increased on the average of 5% a year, five-fold in 35 years." Those numbers come from Princeton University Professor Atul Kohli's book "State-Directed Development"　http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-new-korea-by-alleyne-ireland.html　The blog doesn't make its own assertions. It just translates and summarizes scholars' work. Tanaka hates the capitalist Japan. He wants Japan to be like North Korea or China. He has dedicated his entire career on Japan bashing. As I stated above, he is a member of Japan Communist Party and a frequent visitor to North Korea.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIASED, Wikipedia does not require its reliable sources to be neutral. Yuki Tanaka's authoritative book on the topic continues to be perfectly acceptable on Wikiipedia despite your denigration of his life and career. If Tanaka says that poverty in Korea resulted from Japanese land policies then you'll need an equally reliable source to counter it. And in that case both views will be described to the reader.

If you are trying to push a 1920s book as a reliable source on the comfort women issue then you are violating the WP:SYNTH guideline. I always tell SYNTH violators to write their own article or book, because their synthesis is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1920 book by Professor Ireland has nothing to do with comfort women. I'm using it as a source to refute the following "Tanaka described how in the 1910s the Japanese erased the traditional Korean landholding system of tenant farmers, creating in the process hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants where there had been just as many semi-independent tenant farmers. This, combined with bad weather and poor harvests, created a terrible crisis in unemployment, which reached 85% in some rural areas during the mid-1930s." I'm also using Princeton University Professor Atul Kohli's book "State-Directed Development" to refute the same by showing how income of Koreans improved dramatically under the Japanese. Please see the graph. Seoul National University Professor Lee Young-hoon's book　http://yeoksa.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-144.html　is the most comprehensive book to refute Tanaka's claim, however, it is in Korean. Seoul National University Professor An Byeong-jik's book is very similar to Professor Lee's, but it is in Korean as well. But if you see Professor An's Wikipedia, it says "There was no overt exploitation of land during Japanese colonial period" as his view. Unfortunately here we have a case there are excellent books available in Korean that have gone through Korean land records, and there is a book which is totally bogus with no land records as sources but since it is written in English, English speakers use that as the source. Before the Japanese came in most of Korean land was owned by a small number of bureaucrats called Yanban. Instead of going forever to explain this, just imagine present day North Korea. Kim Jong-un & his surroundings own most of the wealth of the nation while over 95% of the population is dirt poor. This was exactly how Korea was before the Japanese came in. If Japan is to annex North Korea right now, kick out Kim Jong-un and liberate majority of the North Koreans, wouldn't they welcome Japan's annexation with open arms? That was exactly what happened in 1910.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are focusing here on the question of how there came to be so many poverty-stricken families in Korea. If you don't like my explanation as sourced from Tanaka, you can describe it your own way. It will sound ridiculous, though, if you say that Korea in the 1930s was a wonderful place for young women, since the evidence is clear that so many young women became prostitutes or were coerced/sold/abducted. So there must be some explanation of how these young women arrived at such dire circumstances. At any rate, this is getting off track relative to the AfD discussion. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't like your explanation as sourced from Tanaka. Your assertion that Tanaka is well respected is incorrect. He has been ridiculed by his peers. His problem is he writes papers & books without any sources. Originally he asserted over a hundred thousand Korean women were coerced by the Japanese military. Confronted by other scholars to provide sources, he retracted his assertion and claimed "OK, so the Korean women were recruited by Korean operators and traffickers but it was because the Japanese took land away from Koreans." Again other scholars have shown him sources that didn't happen. But he is worshipped by the comfort women wikipedia cult, so it's not surprising that you use him as your source. Although income of Koreans increased five-fold under the Japanese, not all Koreans' lives improved equally. As Japan introduced market economy, some Koreans did well and others didn't. My great-grandfather would have stayed a poor farmer under the old system but with market economy he became a successful businessman. If you read Professor Park Yuha or Professor C. Sarah Soh's book, they explain that many of the fathers of Korean comfort women had debt from alcohol, gambling, etc.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the requirements of WP:GNG being met here. The topic ought to have multiple in-depth discussions of it in reliable sources, discussions which talk about the larger issue of kidnapping in the 1930s, not ones that concentrate on a single case. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet has tried every which way to delete this article. He started out this AFD by calling me an angry revisionist. He even accused me of using multiple accounts. I have provided reasonable answers to all of his theories, yet he keeps coming up with new ones. I'm convinced that I'll never satisfy him.

Here is what sockpuppet administrator Vanjagenije said: "While I don't think the article is great, I am concerned that the deletion reason being put forward does not take into account that kidnapping of women for prostitution purposes was not confined to the actions of the Japanese in acquiring comfort women (it existed before and after the Japanese occupation of Korea), and it appears to follow a similarly named article in Japanese Wikipedia that has been in existence since 2009."

Here is what ABF99 said: "As another point of view to the Comfort Women article, it could be useful. That point of view is backed up by reliable sources, as you have noted. The Japanese Wikipedia article on kidnappings of Korean women in the 1930's that you linked to is very different: it provides a great deal of historical background, discusses the relations between Japan and Korea, and includes referenced discussions of the comfort women program."

As per these suggestions, I am willing to add historical background, referenced discussion of the comfort women program, etc. to the article so that it would be worthy of being a stand-alone article. Also since both Vanjagenije and ABF99 think the Japanese version that has existed since 2009 has better content, I'm even willing to translate and incorporate that content into my article. So far Binksternet said no, I said yes, so I would like to hear from others, and I'm willing to accept whatever the outcome. Thank you for your time, and nice talking with you, Binksternet. 　--D.H.Lee (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With that work, you have definitely turned it into a POV fork. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew you were going to say that. But a couple of people suggested that I should offer another viewpoint to comfort women Wikipedia in this article, so I complied. If the consensus here is I shouldn't refer to comfort women, then I would take them out.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you insert the comfort women information then you have a POV fork, with the information belonging in the comfort women background section, the portions that are relevant. On the other hand, if you remove the comfort women information then your article fails the guideline at WP:GNG. The saying in English is that you are between a rock and a hard place. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Binksternet about the POV fork. Your article now reads like an essay, with a definite and singular point of view, (yours), especially at the end. That's just not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Articles should provide balanced discussions and a neutral POV, especially of controversial topics. You may feel the current Comfort Women article is one sided—if so, you should address that on the talk page of that article. That is why I kept urging you to merge whatever is reliably sourced and relevant to that article. When I said, "as another point of view, it could be useful", I was referring to your adding your sourced information to the Comfort Women article, not to creating a separate opinion piece. The English translation of the Japanese article on Kidnapping of Korean women is not good enough for me to ascertain completely that that article covers all sides of the issue, with reliable sources, but it seems to from what I can tell.

The only way I could see this possibly working as a stand alone topic is if you strip it of any taint of POV and focus on one aspect of the comfort women program, ie the role of specific Korean kidnappers and/or the kidnapping of Korean women. There is for instance, an article called Reverse Underground Railroad, which deals with the kidnapping of free black people within the broader topic of Slavery in the United States. There are many separate Wiki articles within the topic of the Holocaust, (ie Jewish Ghetto Police) or World War II, or other important episodes or periods of history. But they are all based on reliable sources that deal with the named subject of the article, and all strive for a NPOV. ABF99 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into comfort women. The current essay-like tone does not help, but even if that is fixed I cannot see anything that distinguishes this from the overall comfort women issue. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that his work is not widely cited enough to satisfy the notability criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Greendorfer[edit]

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

non notable academic. He doesn ot meet WP:PROF, because his work is so little cited. The citations in various news publications do not amount to substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment He is not academic, he is lawyer. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You're using a very narrow definition of citation. His work is cited frequently in court briefs and other publications that don't show up on Google Scholar. Furthermore, his work has been cited by numerous advocacy groups and in books,his work is used in legislatures to determine constitutionality of laws and he's even had his work cited prominently by foreign courts. Based on SSRN statistics, his works have been downloaded over 1,600 times (this only includes SSRN downloads, which is exclusive of direct downloads from the journals the papers are published in as well as downloads from sites that host the papers directly). His ranking based on downloads from SSRN puts him in the top 6% of all authors published on SSRN. Furthermore, his work is frequently covered both in printed news and on sources such as radio. By these more inclusive standards of notability and citation, there is ample reason to consider work to be notable. George Benzion (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:GNG. As for WP:ACADEMIC, I don't see independent sources which discuss his scholarly contribution, i.e., George Benzion's findings and the article itself is original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being in the top 6% of downloads on SSRN means very little. Such sites have a very long tail of contributors with such insignificant numbers of downloads, as 1600 is. The fact that the article makes a point of the four citations in Google Scholar is also indicative of the creator being unaware of our requirements. Scholars typically need to have hundreds of citations, not less than a handful, to be considered notable on their basis. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I'm not sure why this entry is being judged as one covering an academic, as the original article clearly stated that the subject is an attorney and the founder of a legal institute. Nowhere did it claim that the subject was an academic. In the legal field, it's rare to see a non-academic published at all, and the fact that the subject of this article has been published numerous times is clearly notable. While it's true that 4 Google Scholar citations is not a significant number, the subject is not a scholar and the fact that scholars are citing his work indicates that his work is indeed notable. The Google Scholar reference was added after the original article was posted by someone who probably made a mistake in thinking this was an article about a scholar, rather than an attorney-activist. Those who advocate deletion are looking at this entry under the wrong category. The subject is a notable attorney and his work is widely cited by others in his field (see the various citations by legal groups such as Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, the Brandeis Center and Lawfare). As for SSRN, there are approximately 320,000 authors published on the site. Being in the top 6% means a lot more than the previous user gave credit for. Looking at the entry rigidly through the narrow lens of citation of his work by academics is not an accurate measure of the notability of the subject. George Benzion (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are 320,000 authors published on SSRN only underlines the point that being in the top 6% is nothing to write home about. It only means that he is in the top 19,200. And if we are not to judge this by the standards of WP:PROF we have to use WP:GNG, by which significant coverage in independent reliable sources is required, not citations by advocacy organisations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After a deletion review, this is being re-closed as delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete - only 2 comments in past 7 days suggests discussion isn't progressing. I'm not convinced by the argument that the deletion of one poor article about one particular award renders the overall awards meaningless.. fish&karate 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Vanessa Veracruz[edit]

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

An unremarkable porn actress with an article which almost solely consists of a nomination table. No significant RS coverage can be found. The subject fails PORNBIO as XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award is not significant and well known. This is essentially a WP:DIRECTORY listing of a BLP with no meaningful biographical information or RS present. Note: subject's award "AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year" was deleted at AfD on Sept 12, confirming that the award is not significant and well known; pls see . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. These AfDs for winners are getting ridiculous. The XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award is not significant according to whom? (In addition, an article being short is not grounds for deletion.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets PORNBIO as well as GNG, Ofcourse this !vote has absolutely nothing to do with HOTTIE & all that... –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find WP:HOTTIE. Is this a relevant guideline? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be one day, If there's something I'll accomplish before leaving this place it will be that

, "Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG?" - Them all, Every single source in that article meets GNG trust me I'm an expert when it comes to GNG lol –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a sarcastic !vote? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey, you seem less like an expert in GNG and more like someone who is evaluating the subject of the article based on physical appearance. Last I checked, on Wikipedia, that's not a relevant guideline. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that, like your reference to your evaluation of the subject's aesthetic merits, your suggestion that each of the sources given in the article satisfies GNG is a joke, not a serious vote, as they comprise, in total, an entry in IAFD, a page from the subject's own website, routine announcements by AVN and XBIZ, and an interview (thus not independent) published on a website described by Reuters as existing to cater to porn sites.^[1] I also think it's highly inappropriate to suggest, even in jest, that we should consider subjects' "hotness" in making notability determinations: it's precisely these sorts of comments that fuel the perception that Wikipedia culture is sexist. Rebb ing 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it's precisely why with comments like yours that this place has no humour anymore ... I'm entitled to my opinions and with the greatest of respect if you don't like the comment then ignore it or better still (Redacted). –Davey2010^Talk 04:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's very accurate analysis; this BLP has no independent, reliable sourcing and virtually no biographical content. What's ridiculous is the insistence by porn-obsessed editors that receiving any award given by a PR business whose clients control the award selection process overrides utter failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Independent" means independent of her, not independent of pornography. I'm not sure why that's still so hard to understand. And even if there weren't any independent sources, that isn't automatic grounds for deletion. BTW, can you actually provide proof that pornography is a business "whose clients control the award selection process overrides utter failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements"? Better yet, how about someone linking to a consensus that the award she won isn't significant? (And following up with the usual "you're being dishonest and disruptive" statement will accomplish nothing.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Erpert, you're deliberately misrepresenting my comment. I said that XBIZ is a PR business (it's part of AdNet Media, which stands for Advertising Network), and its own award announcements have stated that nominations are selected/submitted by its "clients". That fact has been in the XBIZ Awards article, uncontroversially, for years. You know this, because this point gas been discussed here before. And challenging well-proven statements like this, knowing yourself that they're accurate, i sdishonest behavior, and doesn't become any less dishonest because you sort-of-but-not-really deny that in advance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you didn't actually address the "independent of her, not independent of pornography" part. But I'm still not battling with you (and you're discrediting yourself whenever you do that, you know). If you can actually make objective comments without the usual quasi-insults (and all bold text) go ahead; otherwise, we're done here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a misreading of independent as in independent reliable sources - that is sources that are not affiliated, which in this case, is not the case. As a Biography of a Living person, inadequate sourcing, as demonstrated by this article, is indeed grounds for deletion. In fact, as a BLP it should probably be speedy deleted, as being in contradiction to BLP. How about if Erpert provide sources that demonstrate the only award is a significant award? Challenging someone to prove a negative doesn't work very well, and rather than consensus, how about some sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is more than one award win a requirement? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erpert --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets both GNG and PORNBIO. MarnetteD|Talk 00:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? None are available in the article (bio section is virtually empty), and none have been presented at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the "XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award" was a significant award, then reliable sources independent of XBIZ and the nominees and awardees would have discussed the award. But they haven't. All but one of the sources lacks any pretense of independence. That is an interview published by the aptly named Fleshbot, a project of clickbait gossip site Gawker, which recently filed bankruptcy after court decisions that ruled it violated personal privacy. This source is utterly worthless for a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. specialized awards of this sort are not major awards. The sources, as mentioned, are not reliable in any case. Independent sourcing does not require sources ioutside the field of pornography, but it requires better than gawker et al. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, start a new AfD only if PORNBIO is changed. This clearly passes the current WP:PORNBIO#1 criteria, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." I bet almost everyone claiming that Lesbian Performer of the Year awards aren't notable wouldn't say the same thing about Gay Performer of the Year awards. It would be an obvious double standard to consider Gay Performer of the Year notable on Wikipedia under PORNBIO, but not Lesbian Performer of the Year. I actually think it's a shame these porn ceremonies took so long to add this category, which should have been created many years, possibly even decades, ago. I'm willing to have a discussion on PORNBIO and may even agree to tightening it, but only if the proposed exclusion is reasonable. Here is what is definitely not a reasonable exclusion: genre-specific awards. First of all, PORNBIO itself supports the inclusion of genre-specific awards ("has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). What better evidence of meeting that criteria is there than genre-specific awards? The exclusion of genre-specific awards would also result in the loss of entire categories on WP, like Category:Actors in gay pornographic films and Category:Transsexual pornographic film actors. Now, here is what actually is a reasonable exclusion I may agree to: temporarily-awarded categories. Perhaps PORNBIO#1 could be renamed to "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in categories that are scene-related, ensemble, or less than # years old are excluded from consideration." I think five is good enough, but I know many won't agree to that. 10 years, I think, would be the highest possible number that can be considered reasonable so that entire ceremonies, like Hot d'Or, aren't entirely left out of PORNBIO. The Hot d'Or awards appear to have only three 10-year+ categories anyways (Best European Starlet, Best European Actress, Best European Actor), so a 10-year minimum is enough to reduce the number of articles that meet PORNBIO. But, this isn't the place to discuss this. At the moment, Veracruz passes PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All of our articles must comply with our core content policy Verifiability which requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The claim that she won this award is referenced only to XBIZ, a PR outlet which is neither a third party source nor does it have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Therefore, the article does not comply with a core content policy which overrides any interpretation based on PORNBIO. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply if this results in delete, a change to the new PORNBIO proposal will not change the criteria under which this is deleted. Pertaining to genre specific awards, PORNBIO states, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent". None of these appear to apply to the subject of this article, and none of these are under discussion, and none of these have been reported in "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, I am not sure this is the proper venue for discussing changes and nuances to PORNBIO - there is an RFC pertaining to this currently underway here - if you're not aware. I think Rebecca should close their eyes and take some deep breaths so that they can focus on the topic under discussion here. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if the award was accepted as "significant and well known" (of which I'm not convinced), the SNG does not trump GNG: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No such sources are present in the article. A BLP with only one award entry and no other content does not add value to the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rebecca1990 is being deliberately deceptive here. They know full well that the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" award is in no way equivalent to a "Lesbian Performer of the Year" award. Of the thirteen winners/nominees for this award, seven have performed regularly/frequently with men; a similar proportion holds for the nominees without articles. A more accurate name for the award might be "Best Performer in Girl/Girl Scenes", since the award is not limited to performers who only have recorded sex with other women. The fact that the awarding organization may be homophobic in its refusal to recognize male-male performers hardly justifies the insinuation of bias against editors who do not find this particular category significant. Rebecca1990 has made similar accusations of bias/racism in the past, which were condemned as appalling bad faith by a number of admins.[22] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt that a company that also gives awards to transsexual performers is homophobic; and that other AfD has nothing to do with this one, as each actress won different awards. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to homophobia: There have actually been GayVN Awards in the past evolving from homosexual male categories of earlier AVN Awards. They ceased in 2010 after more than 20 years maybe because only a few people might have cared about those Awards. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per rebecca1990. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erpert. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The XBIZ "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" Award is a relatively new & likely minor niche award category at the XBIZ Awards, which are one of the most "well-known industry award" ceremonies in the adult film industry and whose "award nominations are submitted by clients, and the winners are voted for by XBIZ staff, industry colleagues and participating organizations" (emphasis mine - from the XBIZ Award Wikipedia article). Over these many years at AfD, I've yet to see any evidence that the XBIZ Awards are, in fact, controlled by its "clients" only. I've also yet to see any evidence that XBIZ has no "reputation for accuracy and fact checking." Guy1890 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DEL8 as lacking notability. Even accepting that the subject's awards satisfy PORNBIO, the coverage is much too thin to find notability. The SNGs and sub-guidelines, including PORNBIO, are for determining notability in debatable cases where there is some meaningful coverage, but it's unclear whether or not that coverage meets GNG; they should not be used to find notability where it is plainly lacking. See WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); NRVE; cf. WHYN. The closest thing to a qualifying source is the Fleshbot piece,^[2] but a single brief interview is not nearly enough, and I have grave doubts about Fleshbot's independence.^[1] Rebb ing 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Fleshbot's "customers—porn sites—are very, very different from the brand advertisers who supply the money to all the other Gawker Media properties." Felix Salmon, Gawker Media Jettisons Its Porn Blog, Reuters (Feb. 17, 2012), archived at Archive.is.
^ Holly Kingstown, Twenty Questions with Porn Star Vanessa Veracruz, Fleshbot (June 29, 2015), archived at Archive.is

Comment -- I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says virtually nothing about the subject, and the sources in the article are not even close to enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. No new sources have been presented at the AfD either. This is essentially a WP:DIRECTORY listing, and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per Cullen's argument above. There is certainly no coverage in significant, reliable sources. As I understand the linked guideline, PORNBIO only establishes a presumption of notability: if we cannot satisfy WP:V, then we set aside the guideline.Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erpert --JTCEPB (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 15:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the subject's award "AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year" was deleted at AfD on Sept 12, confirming that the award is not significant and well known; pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year. Given that the article contains no meaningful bio information, the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion of the award does mean nothing, except that lazy authors were not able to write a better article. (If someone asks: I can't as I am not a native speaker and at the most am able to write in a discussion but not encyclopedic articles in English.) Many awards never had an article, which cannot produce a direct conclusion on their meaning. The deletion of a failed article and keep users who didn't even try to search for award sources prove nothing, especially when the admin actually did nothing else then counting very few random votes (4:2). On the other hand we have an actress, distinguished as the best female homosexual (Girl-Girl) performer of all others. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of the award article came from a lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The article didn't have them and none were presented in the debate. No amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Moore Academy[edit]

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

dePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Unopened school with no sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore the article gives no proper information, not even the location or even the country. This should be deleted and recreated when the project exists as a school (buildings and construction sites are not schools) according to the guidelines at WP:WPSCH and when the school has been incorporated or accredited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: School has not even opened yet, so we should keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL. If/when school opens (looks slated for a year from now), school may well become notable, and at that time we can have an article about it here. But there's WP:NORUSH, so no need to keep the article in its current form. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. This can be discussed on an article talk page, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Risk inclination formula[edit]

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

merge into Risk inclination model, the formula is not notable by itself, it's just part of the model. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edward Snowden. Consensus is that the sources presented in the article are not significant enough that the subject should have an article; most if not all coverage is in regard to her relationship with Snowden. Sam Walton (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Mills[edit]

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

"Dating Edward Snowden" is not sufficient notability to justify a standalone Wikipedia article, per WP:INVALIDBIO. Ms. Mills' brief appearance at the Academy Awards to help accept an award for a documentary about Mr. Snowden, is not enough either, in my opinion, though it may merit a mention on Edward Snowden. agr (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there was a discussion in 2013 about mentioning Ms. Mills, saved at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_2 (search for her name).--agr (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivia, not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Pls see below; Original comment: utter trivia, including "Newsworthy comments reported from that interview included, "I never got to know her", "I wasn't even aware she was in a relationship"" :-) The rest of the article is not much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep I was searching for the name because I was reading about the movie and I was happy to find the information in the WP. I suggest follow-up in 3 yrs. J-m.s (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That suggests redirect to Edward Snowden - look at the sourcing, I don't think it's enough to swing a potentially-controversial WP:BLP on - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward Snowden Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice, relationships do not confer notability. If Lindsay Mills is going to be mentioned at all in Edward Snowden, which seems quite dubious to me (how is the name of Snowden's girlfriend of interest to Wikipedia's readers, if the name is all there is, mentioned in passing?), then redirect, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are experienced users here !voting for delete without mentioning GNG. I started this article, and it seems clear to me that this person passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Can someone say how this article fails to meet those inclusion criteria? Deletion arguments in Wikipedia are typically based on a determination of whether reputable media organizations have already featured the person as a subject in their own publications. If other publications have articles featuring a person, then the initial presumption is that the person merits an article in Wikipedia. The subject of this Wikipedia article has indeed been featured as the subject of media works including news stories, journalists' commentaries, and a starring character role in a Hollywood movie.

WP:GNG and WP:BIO say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" At first look, Mills should be presumed to merit a stand alone article. She meets this criteria because of the 27 sources cited here in Wikipedia, at least 15 of them are substantial articles which feature Mills as the subject. Wikipedia only requires 2. Consider these for example -

Lewis, Paul (11 June 2013), "Edward Snowden's girlfriend Lindsay Mills: At the moment I feel alone", The Guardian, retrieved 16 September 2016
Weiss, Sasha (13 June 2013), "We Are All Pole Dancing on the Internet", The New Yorker, retrieved 16 September 2016
Greenwald, Glenn (10 October 2014), "Edward Snowden's Girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, Moved to Moscow to Live with Him", The Intercept, retrieved 16 September 2016
Dowd, Kathy Ehrich (6 September 2016), "5 Things to Know About Edward Snowden's Girlfriend Lindsay Mills and Their Life Together Now", People, retrieved 16 September 2016
Snowden (film), in which the character of Mills has a starring role

Is there anyone here who will argue any of the following claims?

These works feature Mills as their subject
These are substantial works of original journalism
These works are published by reputable media outlets
This coverage is not temporary and happened regularly over 2013-16
Each of these works has a different journalistic angle

I accept all of the above claims, so I say that Mills passes BIO and GNG. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise then could they please point to the part of those criteria which she is failing or make another deletion argument. I confirm WP:NOTINHERITED and that Wikipedia:Trivial mentions do not establish notability. However, a person who is the subject of articles has established their own notability. Beyond Wikipedia's WP:GNG, Mills meets other notability criteria, including WP:CREATIVE for her blog reviews and WP:PORNBIO for the many commentaries on her shirtless underwear pics and videos. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Mills passes the notability threshold, but I think there may be an overriding BLP concern most closely represented by WP:BLP1E. This is a unique situation in which the subject is only (borderline) notable by way of her relationship to Snowden, and she has tried to keep a low profile. I think she's distinguishable from otherwise non-notable spouses of other famous people, such as Melania Trump. Trump chose to marry a very famous person; Mills hasn't married Snowden, and Snowden was totally unknown when they started dating. She has been thrust into the (dim) limelight unwillingly. Note the quote in this source you cited: "She didn't sign up for the life she had, which is people asking questions, people finding a photo of her and creating a story around it." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrFleischman I can understand why someone might argue WP:BLP1E, because it is taboo to discuss the media coverage of this person. The sources cited discuss these things:

This person's relationship with Snowden (everyone sees this)
Mills participating in subversive activities (making treason jokes at the Academy Awards, dressing as a criminal for Halloween)
Mills re-uniting with Snowden to enjoy life, when almost all media suggests that Snowden should be imprisoned or executed
Mills blogging and being emotionally open in her social media accounts
Mills posting and videos pictures of herself in her underwear

Wikipedia is not supposed to pass judgement on why reliable sources report things, but multiple reliable sources are reporting all of these things. There are degrees of separation about the media coverage, and it does extend from a crime that happened in 2013, but the media coverage has been regular and continual.

In some ways Mills meets WP:LOWPROFILE but she also passes all of the highprofile criteria listed there. She did agree to have herself portrayed in a Hollywood movie. She is obviously attention seeking for appearing at the Academy Awards. The Halloween costume stunt is as attention-seeking as a person in her circumstances can be. Also girls who present their public image with underwear photography are hardly avoiding media attention. I confirm that she is avoiding some media attention, but there are lots of other kinds that she is seeking and getting. It would be an unusual argument to make that media coverage on all these points by all these publications over 3+ years is BLP1E of a shy person who fails GNG. ~~I expect that animosity toward Snowden and prejudice to dismiss the value of the reviews of her art is leading people strangely say that all these media sources somehow combine to fail notability.~~ (I wished for more explanation but saying this did not advance the discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)) This person seems to have not had media attention before the leaks, but after the leaks, she has gotten both the media attention pushed on her and forced the media to give her attention that only she could have demanded. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not suggesting that editors who disagree with you are driven by anti-Snowden animus, are you? --01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone disagreeing with me yet, but I do think the discussion here has been odd. I see multiple citations that feature the subject of this article as their own subject, and typically when that kind of source material is present people say that the Wikipedia article passes GNG and vote to keep it. Somehow, for whatever reason, the delete votes have come without addressing GNG, and I am sure that is strange. One possible cause of this discussion not following the usual practice could be animus, and I listed several of biases that are known to float around Mills - animus against people accused of treason, fugitive actions, weird art, and erotic art. I hope that no one disagrees with me that it would be odd to delete this article for failing GNG, and I think the lowprofile and BLP1E arguments are not obvious fits to this case either. Still, intuition is a powerful thing, and I expect that many commenters here voting to delete are having a shared experience of having an insight about deletion that is obvious to them but not obvious to me. I have my own biases that might prevent me from having that insight.

I would agree with anyone who said that journalism about Mills originated in her relationships with Snowden, and that her art and views and public image would not have attracted media attention otherwise, but there comes a point when someone gets enough media coverage that Wikipedia considers them their own person. If Mills has not passed that point, then can anyone articulate what is lacking? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have some valid points, but please try to avoid the ad hominem attacks, which do not advance the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have chosen to communicate in a less confrontational way. I am sure that everyone here has something productive to contribute to the conversation and there are better ways to attract good comments than casting doubt on anyone's motives. A better way to communicate would have been to just ask for a little more explanation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not convinced by the above sources:

The Guardian -- largely being snippets of Ms Mills' blog as it relates to her relationship with Snowden
The New Yorker -- same, but within a topic of "our lives on the internet" topic rather than Mills as a person
The Intercept -- a passing mention.
People -- tabloidy coverage

They are not married so I don't think that a redirect is appropriate; so I'm keeping my delete !vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman This is great criticism. There are other sources, but I would agree that this is a representative sample. I am not ready to agree that the sources do not meet WP:RS but I would agree that they present Mills as their subject as a way of raising other topics which they discuss with more substance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bluerasberry Benjamin (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this should be a standalone entry or even a redirect, but I just took an admittedly WP:BOLD cut at removing trivia, redundancy and tone problems. So that might help. Or it might not be enough. I note we do not have a standalone entry Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda despite Miranda having taken a much more public role, between the highly publicized airport detention, his testifying before Brazilian legislature, and so forth. Mills appearing at one awards show is not that; she's basically a low-profile person except for who she's dating, and I'm somewhat inclined to say that for BLPs we should err on the side of, Wikipedia should not make someone into a public figure if they are not clearly one. In which case, a bit about their relationship on Snowden's page is clearly appropriate, but only insofar as it actually bears on an encyclopedic account of him and isn't pure tabloid fodder. I'm not sure what we have on her alone is encyclopedic rather than WP:NOT or WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY (especially to the latter, the fact that it was filled out with so much trivia and even arguable BLP violations is to me a tell-tale sign we don't really have enough). Innisfree987 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to editor Innisfree987 for their effort; I took out some more trivia: diff. Content removed was:

For Halloween 2015, Mills posted pictures of herself with her boyfriend in Halloween costume as Carmen Sandiego and Wally of Where's Waldo?,^[1]^[2] both popular fictional characters are known for hiding.^[1]^[2] In the photo Mills and Snowden are posing in front of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, presumably a photo manipulation.^[1]^[2]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ABC NEWS (30 October 2015), "See Edward Snowden's Halloween Costume", abcnews.go.com, retrieved 16 September 2016
^ ^a ^b ^c Nguyen, Tina (November 4, 2015), "Edward Snowden's Halloween Costume Is Too Real", Vanity Fair, Condé Nast, retrieved 16 September 2016

The article is still very unconvincing, and is a WP:PSEUDO biography as noted above. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks K.e.coffman for the further cuts, and I've followed up with some more of my own plus a bit of reorganizing.

As to where it stands now. On the one hand, at least now this is a more encyclopedic account. On the other hand, removing the trivia and other problems reveals how little there is left after that. It's plainly not "a full and balanced biography" (emphasis in the original at WP:PSEUDO) accounting for her as a whole person, and it'd be really easy to merge into, like, four sentences under a new "Personal life" section on Edward Snowden's page. Still as a matter of policy, the combo of reliable source coverage (even if a bit tabloidy) plus Oliver Stone making a movie out of your life maybe gets a person over the wikinotability hurdle even if the resulting entry is pretty thin. I maybe mildly prefer the former outcome; but I don't think the latter's so terrible in this instance, I don't think the entry as it now stands harms the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 Thanks for the article cuts. This version is a solid edit of the narrative. It is not my wish to escalate the stakes of the decision, but I think this information is WP:UNDUE for the Snowden article. Either the topic passes notability and the content can stay here, or almost all of this would be deleted for not having a place to exist. There are 14 cited sources here after your cut, and if this were in the Snowden article, I doubt that more than 2 could be presented as relevant enough to merit space. Still, I would prefer a merge and redirect over deletion.

If there could be a compromise to merge this to a new Public image of Edward Snowden article, including this content, Edward_Snowden#Public_opinion_polls, Edward_Snowden#In_popular_culture. Making such an article would remove tabloid-y content from the Snowden article, which might be an improvement, and help develop the model for doing "public image" articles as started at Category:Public image of politicians. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see if I could help.

The Lindsey Mills AfD really can't address how the Snowden page should be forked, that has to take place on the Snowden talk page. But nevertheless, it's not clear to me what encyclopedic info we have for her would really be lost:

The Citizenfour acceptance could definitely go on the movie's page if it's not there already
Shailene Woodley portrayal, ditto
The search of Mills's home--as a highly publicized aspect of how that all unfolded, I'm surprised it's not already in the chronology at Snowden's page. One cite on that will not be deleted there.

And then, for BLPs, it's not remotely unusual to have a brief personal life section that says something like, "Snowden now lives in Moscow, where documentary Citizenfour indicated he has been joined by girlfriend Lindsay Mills, a dancer and acrobat. The two have been together since at least 2009, and have previously lived in x,y,z other places. Mills came to media attention after the surveillance disclosures, including examination of her personal blog (NYer quote here). Snowden has criticized media's use of titillating personal photos of her." I think there is vanishingly little chance that would be viewed as giving undue weight to his personal life, especially in light of the length of the article. And then as I say, if that article's getting too long, that's something for the Snowden talk page. Our question here is really just, is it more helpful to readers, constructive for the encyclopedia and fair to Mills to present the information via related entries that are unambiguously wikinotable, or collected together as a "biography", when we have so little on her actual life? Innisfree987 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 Thanks for the thoughtful insights.

I said above that I thought there was more information here on her life than many people are acknowledging. If someone imagines that a biography is defined to be the narrative of birth, family, school, and career recognition, then I agree, the sources do not establish those things. If a biography is whatever parts of a person's life are covered by third party media, then this person's biography includes the points listed above: romance, subversive activities, creating an art blog, and publishing burlesque. Some people see the existing journalism and will say, "no content here", and I am not sure why. I imagine if more circus performers were commenting here, they might have a bias to appreciate coverage of this kind of art and perhaps bias against journalism coverage of the lives people who choose traditional career paths. To me, the protests, blogging, and burlesque are distinct aspects of her biography and the media coverage, and seemingly what she wants covered because that is what she publishes and promotes herself.

You mention, "is it more helpful to readers, constructive for the encyclopedia and fair to Mills to present the information...". AfD is not a process for that. Usually it is a process to discuss only notability. Another odd thing about this article is that it has gotten 42k pageviews in about 2 weeks. The current trend at WP:5000 is that an article that gets 25k in a month was within the top 5000 or 0.1% of Wikipedia articles by popularity. I think that it is fair to say that it is uncommon for topics to become both popular and have notability questioned, but in this case, I think that is happening. This article is not yet reported at WP:5000 but even with only 2 weeks reporting it will rank around #2000. If we considered reader demand, then there is some evidence that right now relatively high Wikipedia reader demand exists for this as compared to most other content. If the article levels at 1000/day, which is not unlikely because that seems to be the interest level outside the news cycle, then it still would be in WP:5000 for a while. This content in this place is something people are finding and using, but I am not aware of that ever having been an AfD consideration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel equivocal about what the outcome should be for this particular entry, but to be clear, when I say we should consider what best serves readers, I categorically do not mean we should make entries on every thing readers want to know about. There are many things readers (myself included) want to know about but for which unfortunately, we don't have enough for an encyclopedic entry. In those cases, we serve readers and the encyclopedia better by not creating an entry that would give a false impression we've adequately represented a topic we don't actually have enough on. And that absolutely is a subject for AfD discussion: it's at the heart of WP:WHYN. And to be clear, WP:HARM additionally makes clear deletion discussions should consider effect on the person in question, if they might be interpreted as low-profile. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one event and that alone, nothing at all actually and we have past consensus of AfD deletions to show for it, there's nothing at all substantial here and claims of being connected to one person for the sheer event, is not at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward Snowden; the article has been much improved and is not solely a collection of trivia and random gossip that it used to be. I'm still not convinced of the subject's notability 100%, but the section "Portrayal in the media" is somewhat worthwhile; it could be used elsewhere and would be available from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edward Snowden as that is the only reason her name is here to begin with. The BLP1E issue is too strong to ignore here, but this solves the problem in that if someone looks for her name, they will be redirected. What if any should be allowed in the main article will be a matter for the talk page there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, there is a lot of coverage but it's all based on the fact that she's Snowden's partner. WP:BLP1E and WP:INHERIT apply. A redirect is appropriate as it is a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by David Gerard per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdGE Networks[edit]

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

Promotion for start up company. Low quality sources do not assert notability per WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DynStats[edit]

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

Blatant Advertising Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its an obvious WP:PROMO article. The product is not even released, its a "demo" at version 0.32. It fails WP:NSOFTWARE/WP:PRODUCT/WP:WEB in all criteria. There is 0 coverage of this webtool - not even by non-reliable sources anywhere and it therefore fails WP:GNG very hard too. The article has been created by User:Niuman Comas. "N Comas" can be found as "author" in the dynstats homepage, so its probably self promotion. Dead Mary (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're basically using the wikipedia as a company website, they don't seem to have a landing page of their own and the website solicits "donations" for non-free software (which they mislabeled as Free Software). I'm going to correct that in the name of Our Glorious Prophet and Savior Richard Stallman. Jergling (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I flagged it for notability and lack of references hoping that it might spur somebody to produce evidence of notability. Patently not. It's an advert pure and simple. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all been said above, no secondary source so fails GNG. Widefox; talk 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note creator had an undisclosed WP:COI. An WP:SPA account EXT spamming WP:NOTHERE. Widefox; talk 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to concerns about promotion and lack of notability, as well as concerns about the Times of India source being insufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitech Mobiles[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, sources are reheated "we are very excited" press releases and a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and Keep Could someone convince me that the Times of India is a PR mirror? The articles seem to be factual and not particularly focused on the words of Hitech's PR team. A large electronics firm based in India is exceptional, and I could believe it's notable enough to warrant this kind of coverage without any collusion. I agree that the wording of the WP article is promotional and editorial, but the company itself does appear to be notable (assuming they're not lying about their size). Jergling (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I can answer the Keep vote's question; there has been AfD consensus Indian media is notorious for accepting payment with exchange of articles, especially if it focuses heavily with puffed information about the company including only what the company would want to list about itself, including specifics about services and how to contact them. Examining all of this here finds exactly that, PR, considering the articles themselves simply talk about what essentially a business listing would list; things only of interest to clients and investors. Basically this could've even been deleted with PROD since there's no actual substance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India/gadgetsnow article also has no byline (just "TNN", Times News Network), and outside of quoting the managing director and saying that "the company expects" something, it doesn't actually say much of note about Hitech Mobiles. --McGeddon (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO; with sections, such as Products and Endorsements, this is strictly a vanity page. Sources are insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some coverage, but they all seem to be either ROUTINE]] or PR. Not seeing anything substantial that would help the company meets the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Plus article reads like an ADVERTISEMENT. Anup [Talk] 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTAA[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable online tie retailer, considerably smaller than Tie Rack. The only obvious news source is the Daily Mail piece, which isn't enough to cement an article with. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google News for 'OTAA tie' returns only 2 stories, both of which seem to basically be ads for this business - and the Daily Mail and Huffington Post are generally not considered reliable sources. As these are also the only news sources given in the article, it seems unlikely that anything useful exists (disclaimer: I speedy deleted this article, but it was contested). Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I essentially consider this speedy material, certainly none of it is substantial and there's also no actual significant coverage since the claims and information are either simply puffed or trivial; examining everything finds nothing that wouldn't simply be found at a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with a section on "celebrity customers" to boot. Notability is not inherited. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is essentially a promo page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Bibliography of Donald Trump. This is a couple of days early, but I'm also closing the RfD, and the outcome looks clear here. The close does not preclude any of the other recommendations here, besides deletion. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by or about Donald Trump[edit]

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

Nomination via Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_14, where a bunch of redirects from Trump's book titles is being discussed. I think that list needs at least a split, but after that it is not clear the two halves should be kept, so we can as well AfD the whole. My opinion is that the "books by Trump" part should be kept and moved to List of books by Donald Trump, as a WP:SIZESPLIT of Donald Trump, while "books about Trump" should be scrapped since most of those have no real coverage. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @CoffeeWithMarkets and Champion:, who commented on the RfD page on the splitting issue. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: just to make it clear, my recommendation is to move to List of books by Donald Trump and trim. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. The books by him can be on his main article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books about him could be there too. I don't see any reason why not.Borock (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump. This information is usually at the bottom of a person's main article.Borock (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main article about Donald Trump was getting too long (and was tagged as such for quite a while) so this is a valid spinoff article per WP:Summary style. It's no different from List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't merge back to Donald Trump, which is already oversized; this is an excellent example of why we do spinoffs. I would go along with the suggestion to rename it to "Books by Donald Trump" and eliminate the books about him. There are no references to establish which books about him are noteworthy and which ones aren't (which must apply to many on the list, he is an easy target for wannabe authors). Better yet, keep it as "by and about" but require an outside/independent reference to list a book "about" him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By "noteworthy" (as opposed to "notable" in Wikipedia's sense) I mean that it has garnered coverage from at least one independent reliable source. I don't mean to restrict the list to books notable enough to have their own article. If this is the result, somebody ping me and I will undertake to prune/source the list of books "about" him down to those which have at least one source. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Bibliography of Donald Trump: Reasonable content fork. p b p 15:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Bibliography of Donald Trump. I don't have any comment about whether the list of works by Trump is a valid spinout. Seems fine to me, but I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to come to in order to keep this. Regardless of whether his main article includes a list of his works, there are enough works about him that he seems like a valid topic for a bibliography (which could also include works by him). Bibliographies are established types of lists on Wikipedia, so a simple WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument doesn't make any sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd be fine with a page move, but the content itself should be kept and expanded as appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Better keep it here than merge to an already very long article. Also, not every book needs to have independent notability; that's why it's just a list. Oppose trimming. Approve title change to Bibliography of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – As per WP:NOTDIR. If other articles are too long, deal with it. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bibliography of Donald Trump but make sure the books about Trump have at least one independent reliable source per User:MelanieN - or meet GNG or WP:BKCRIT. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to phrase this, now that I'm thinking about it, but I also support a move and trimming of contents to Writings by Donald Trump or List of published works by Donald Trump or such. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bibliography of Donald Trump. Per Anythingyouwant and MelanieN, content should be kept. Per Rhododendrites, page should be renamed. "Bibliography of..." is a more encyclopedic title.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the topic is not notable under the Wikipedia definition of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subpopulation Algorithm based on Novelty[edit]

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

Article de-prodded by creator on claims of Novelty and usefulness. Article does not appear to be about a topic with significant external coverage, suggesting it does not meet minimum notability requirements. Sadads (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Based on a single recent publication that Google scholar lists as having only three citations; actually what it has is two self-citations and something that was published earlier and listed erroneously, so there are no independent references, even ones as minimal as a brief citation. Fails WP:NOR, WP:GNG, and probably WP:REFSPAM. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE. I've backed out my close per a request on my talk page, and relisting this for another week's debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lacks sufficient context and at least needs a parent topic article before we get this deep. If it turns out to be important, we can revive it later, but right now it's kind of WP:NOCONTEXT Jergling (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per definition, notability is something famous or important. It is a new paradigm created in 2015 by a small group of researches, so it does not match the famous portion of the definition. However, it was published by a high impact journal (3.6) and the results reported does surpass all algorithms currently known in one of the hardest benchmarks of multi-objective, specially when the problem gets harder. Moreover, the basic paradigm of the approach is simple although completely different from anything done before. Thus, it seems important. So I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.14.212.118 (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — 118.14.212.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi 118.14.212.118 Wikipedia has its own Notabality standard which is largely based on the depth of coverage in secondary sources, not by whether or not the original idea is sufficiently important, Sadads (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article is simply not comprehensible. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple prioritization[edit]

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

Article does not even explain what "Simple prioritization" is, and lacks sources that explicit mention "Simple prioritization", so it's impossible to assess notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself borders on WP:NONSENSE. Most of the sentences are fragments and two of the links that would presumably give context are red. Jergling (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:GNG is clearly not met and there are thus concerns that other policies like BLP and V cannot be satisfied either. PORNBIO does not appear to be satisfied, too - the award in question does not appear to be important enough according to the discussion, and "unique contributions" were hardly discussed. A redirect to the award list (SSTflyer's suggestion) may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Bliss[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. The niche award listed is not well-known and significant. Negligible biographical content mostly sourced to the subject's own website. This is a BLP that falls too far below GNG requirements, becoming a WP:DIRECTORY and WP:PROMO for the subject's website. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would you please stop lying? You suppose a niche, probably coming from your gut instinct (I hope this is a nice word in English as it is in German ;), and give no substantial prove. I can only count 8 individual categories from the only quality critic award show in the industry. There is absolutely no niche existing but some major parts of the porn industry represented in those categories. Oral and Anal sex are the most common things in porn industry. Either you just want to push your self-invented unconfirmed POV or you're discussing about a topic you have absolutely no clue from. I will agree that a category like BBW from XBIZ Award is indeed a niche, but Oral sex? The standard ability of every porn actress in the world and start of every film? When performers are known and subsequently awarded for their oral abilities, they definitely won't serve any "niche" by that. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How could Hillary Scott hold the one-time record to have won five individual, personal XRCO Awards in 2007 if they were all "niches"? The XRCO just has no niches (other than promotional AVN and XBIZ in the last years). The Superslut Award e. g. isn't nearly exotic, either, but rather fitting the general (too) rough tenor of the porn industry. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The award in question is "XRCO Award for Orgasmic Oralist". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated above, Oral sex (as wall as other of the very few personal XRCO categories) is not even nearly a "niche" but a basic ability for every porn actress. So, from thousands of actresses there have been less than 20 considered the best "Oralists" ever. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if the award makes the subject notable, where is the independent 3rd party coverage that discusses the subject in depth, to be able to build a bio? Please see WP:WHYN, as no RS sources have been presented at this AfD, apart from assertions that the subject is important. Even if the award were deemed to be "significant and well known" (of which I'm not convinced), the notability is not inherited from it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis; thisBLP has exactly zero independent reliable sources, and is mostly sourced from the subject's own promotional website. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite one editor's spirited defense of the importance of oral sex in pornography (which hardly seems necessary), every single article without exception must comply with our core content policies, and this one doesn't. Verifiability tells us that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are no reliable, third-party sources in this article, and unless someone adds such sources promptly, this BLP must be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as far as I know the request for comment on articles such as this has not been settled yet. As such this nomination seems premature. Either way, I did not see anything unencyclopedic so far, hence keep. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't judge on whether it's "encyclopedic", We judge on the notability which this clearly lacks of. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The open RFC doesn't cast any doubt on PORNBIO: the existing version has consensus and is what is being applied in this discussion. Furthermore, if the RFC passes, it will only tighten PORNBIO, so anything that would be deleted under the current version would also be deleted under the new version. Rebb ing 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The XRCO Award for "Orgasmic Oralist" is likely a minor award category in what is otherwise one of the most "well-known industry award" ceremonies. Also, it's kind of hard for a Wikipedia article to be "promotional for the subject's website", when the subject here apparently doesn't have a working website in the first place. A lot of things on Wikipedia, even links to well-known or not so well-known media websites in actual citations, could be considered "promotional". That's really a road to nowhere that's better left less-traveled. Guy1890 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another non-notable porn performer. Fails GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to XRCO Award#Orgasmic Oralist as ((R to list entry)). Mentioned there. SST flyer 16:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like being in the Paralympics is not a default assumption of notability, and other criteria are not met either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barty[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Simione001 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep representing Australia at national level for paralympic basketball and football Atlantic306 (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - paralympian. Nfitz (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 22#Paralympics and elsewhere, there is no concensus to give paralympic athletes a presumption of notability. RonSigPi (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that discussion was quite balanced and consensus can change, IMO standards for olympians and paralympians should be the same instead of some antiquated consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A balanced discussion still means no consensus and therefore no modification or particular interpretation to a guideline. While consensus can change, no evidence is shown that the consensus has changed to include paralympians. RonSigPi (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No they shouldn't. The Olympics are far more notable than the Paralympics. That's the fact of the matter. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Keep votes above are entirely against current consensus. WP:NOLYMPICS is quite clear that Paralympic participants must have medalled to be assumed inherently notable. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RepublicanBahujanSena[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable political party. Failed to win a single seat in past 12 years and is not covered by reliable & independent sources (apart from just one report quoted in the article). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very small coverage in news, clearly fails WP:GNG. Clearly delete for now, the article may be recreated if the party gains popularity in the future. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Not really a twelve years old political party; it was founded on 26 March 2014 to contest 20 out of 543 Lok Sabha seats (lost all). Only coverage of party is for their being new entrance in the Lok Sabha election, 2014 ([23], total coverage). It simply fails GNG. Anup [Talk] 07:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anup, the article claims the party to be 12 year old. I then checked 2004, 2009 and 2014 election results and this party had zero presence. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 16:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guañape Islands[edit]

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

Unsourced, false content. Is it a joke? Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the Google Books search results linked above shows that this is not a hoax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the content is completely wrong, the Islands exist and are described es:Islas Guañape.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well its just a sentence and can be easily changed, an AFD is not necessary for that. ;) Dead Mary (talk)

Keep These islands exist really and are off the coast of Peru. There are even quite some reports about these island. For example on the BBC, another one, or the independent. There is as a documentation (?) about them here. The islands are clearly notable per WP:GEOLAND and even per WP:GNG (cause of all those ducmentaries) too. There are problably even more soures in Spanish, when looking at the wiki article at Spanish Wikipedia. Dead Mary (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can be changed, but haven't been yet.Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will update the article it in a few mins. Dead Mary (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article. Its still a small stub but the content should be correct now and notability is indicated by the sources. I guess it needs a Spanish speaker to expand the article further. Dead Mary (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5. Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No longer unsourced, not false content and not a joke. The version at time of AfD seems to be a poor translation. --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NA1000. Seems there's real potential for expansion based on the Spanish article's sources. A little WP:BEFORE would have gone a long way, here. Antepenultimate (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Citizens Advice offices in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR Cabayi (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY cited to a primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; also, we are not a free webhosting service, nor are we a soapbox in Hyde Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norlin Zainal Abidin[edit]

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

I don't see significant coverage about the subject. She seems to be the CEO of a Malaysian resort and nothing more. The best I found are passing mentions in reliable sources (even after trying variant name spellings). There is one claim that she "graced the cover of a magazine", but the magazine is not a notable or widely popular magazine. Essentially, this is a WP:BLP1E which doesn't satisfy GNG. The article creator seems to have a conflict of interest as well and it seems the article is being used for promotion. Accordingly, delete. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references now in the article provide only passing mentions of her without significant biographical content. These sources are highly promotional and almost certainly based on press releases issued by her tiny resort. The article is filled with unverifiable biographical details, which is contrary to policy. I made a good faith search for reliable sources about her, and found nothing significant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NgYShung ^huh? 06:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete property developer who does not work on a scale to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Dyulgerov[edit]

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

I have searched with the English, Russian and Ukranian name, and there is not enough news for this entrepreneur. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is entirely a PR attempt in that it states anything about himself that only he himself would say: his business, his activities and his philosophy. SwisterTwister talk 01:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a vanity page to me. Willing to reconsider if others find better source material. Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bamyan Media[edit]

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

not yet notable. As the article itself says, "early-stage social entrepreneur" DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article basically self claims non-notability, per nom. All references are either blogs, routine, or trivial. NN. Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish the PROD had been kept because I believe it was kept as a safety measure in case it was removed, then the AfD was still open. All in all, the nomination here is exact in that none of this is both establishing a convincing substantial and then a non-PR article. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once an article goes to AfD, the Proposed Deletion process becomes invalid and the PROD template must be removed. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page only with no indications of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The contributor of the article asked me to reconsider, reminding me that there are sources. I consider the NYT source perhaps sufficient to contribute to the notability of the promoter, but not of this project. I consider overall the inclusion of details about the individual projects so inappropriate to an encyclopedia as to constitute promotionalism" both promotional intent and promotional writing. (in fact, I consider their inclusion in the NYT story also as promotionalism--there is no source whatsoever, even the most eminent newspapers, that is free from the temptation to write promotional material or advertorials. We have to judge the reliability of a source in context by actually considering what it says and how it is written.). Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThank you for your close reading of this article. We have deleted some of the details about some of the individual projects mentioned above as "promotional" and removed several adjectives (such as "notable") to change the tone of the writing. However, since I'm new to Wikipedia I would appreciate some further guidance on specifically what points or what sentences are viewed as promotional. For example, should we not mention audience numbers, the amount of cash in prizes? Should we not mention who won these competitions and what they won for? These are facts that might interest someone curious about the mechanism of this development strategy, but maybe they make the article too promotional. Is the article too long on the whole? If we simply shortened it, would it be viewed as less promotional? I added the section on the White House conference on Global Development, which occurred after the original article was written. I though this might bolster the "notability" of Bamyan Media, but it seems to me that demonstrating "notability" does risk appearing overly promotional. Is this a contradiction in Wikipedia editorial policies that most current organizations face? You will also see that I've added an academic research reference pertaining to this project. I believe one of the reviewers mentioned academic research as a far more qualified "source" than the media. In short, we have done our best to make this article an objective description of the work that Bamyan Media does. It does seem logical that an organization that is receiving significant financial support from the US State Department in the interest of promoting its “soft diplomacy” objectives, is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. That way taxpayers can see how their money is being spent, potential collaborators and government employees can read about an organization they may be working with. The fact that Bamyan Media is trying to solve a real world problem, is not and should not be viewed as “promotional” of and in itself. That is simply a fact of the organization's mission. One last point: I see that there is no category page in Wikipedia for "international development" which seems a bit odd. This whole area of activity is somewhat underdeveloped in Wikipedia, which may partially explain reviewers' lack of familiarity with these types of organizations. In fact there are hundreds of them, they perform an important role in US diplomacy, and their descriptions do by definition invoke a type of do gooder language. Lilifrancklyn (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilifrancklyn (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopedia , not a guide to charities. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. The reader knows that if it wants individual stories about individual recipients, it will find them in the web pages and booklets meant to actuate prospective donors. That's what the organization;s web pages and promotional material are for. A useful rule of thumb is if tit reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia takes a neutral point of view. We provide objective information. We don't advocate in the encyclopedia for causes, however worthy.

As for what you should do, there's a simple answer: you should not write the article about your own organization. If you are doing important work, someone with no connection with the organization will do it. Experience has shown that connected editors are almost always unable to write objective nonpromotional articles about their own organizations. If you want to write about yourself, do it elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus; the NHL list is in a different sport, and tho I think the same argument would hold, it should be nominated separately. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional football players who spent their entire career with one franchise[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:LISTN, and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The article openly admits original research in the references section. The issues were discussed on the talk page nearly a year ago and have yet to be addressed, with the original page creator continuing to expand it. List of NHL players who spent their entire career with one franchise raises identical concerns. Lizard (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both lists - These lists consist entirely of original research, and I express sincere doubts that there will EVER be a reliable source that will enable us to make this a worthy list for inclusion. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Fieari (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe the "original research" argument holds water. I find it highly doubtful that the Wikipedia editors went to every NFL/NHL game played by every player on the list to verify that they only played for that one team. Looking up information published someplace else and then entering it on the list as a qualified entry on the list is not original research, it is editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Second comment the NHL list has not been properly nominated and no notice is on that page. I suggest a separate nomination for that list rather than attempting to combine it with this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (NFL list) in spite of my disagreement with the original research argument above, I still believe this list should be deleted. WP:LISTDD provides a good source of do's and don'ts that apply to lists, but also the list article itself claims that 556 players have already accomplished the requirement to be on the list and that will naturally only grow and not shrink. That's as pretty big list--I believe so big as to be unwieldy to manage by Wikipedia editors. And without any discussion in the media about players that should be on the list, it does not seem to serve any real purpose as a directory or navigation aid (we call that "fail WP:LISTN" as noted above, to which I add failing WP:GNG). It's possible (although I believe unlikely) that a category would be better. I probably would not support a category either for this idea, but it would at least solve the size issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this article is kept it should be re-titled, because I clicked on the link thinking it would be about real football ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Naidoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Dineshn. The given reference contains just enough to provide basic verification that the subject is an executive at a travel business and produced a film, and I have added another, a brief interview relating to his business career. These aside, there is a short 2013 newspaper piece – via HighBeam (subscription required) with a passing quote from the subject in role as "group operations director for Serendipity Tours", but in sum these are insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, whether relative to a film or a business career. AllyD (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- no indications of significance or notability. Sources not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Tales of the Park (series)[edit]

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

I don't see why these set of episodes in this TV series should have its own stand alone article. It's not notable enough for its own article in my opinion. I think it would be better to delete or merge contents to the episode's season pages. There is also evidence of fancruft here. Class455 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Behll[edit]

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

non-notable actor, largely unsourced, no coverage in reliable sources, autobiography, most of the edits are from a COI editor, basically fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. - Managerarc™^talk 14:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While we discourage the autobio and coi editing, that should not be a reason to drag articles to afd. There are other platforms to resolve those issues. As far as notability of subject is concerned, he may meet NACTOR#1 criteria for he seems to have had act of mixed length in multiple notable films and tv shows (refs are cited in article. there are not tons of them, may be because he predominately works in regional film and tv shows and sources in regional languages are not fully digitalised yet and whatsoever are, is not very well indexed by Google.). Anup [Talk] 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has had minor roles in several films, but none of them are named roles. He does not meet WP:NACTOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I want the Article to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.81.114 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 16:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westmount Public school[edit]

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

I'm no expert on school articles on Wikipedia but it's my understanding that articles on elementary schools are typically deleted (unless they satisfy WP:GNG or some other notability guideline). I don't see anything exceptional about Westmount Public school that would merit a separate article. Note that an alternative to deletion is to redirect to Thames Valley District School Board although that article only lists secondary schools in the district so it would have to be expanded significantly to include primary schools. Pichpich (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, indeed to the school district article. I'll put mention of it there, now. It is okay to open an AFD to get views of other editors, but this could have been handled without an AFD, by just editing it to make the change. --do ncr am 23:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with doncram. Fieari (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hammers eSports[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources found after conducting a search to exclude the MoEsport blog, which writes about the subject extensively, but is a blog, and thus ineligible for notability establishment. Fieari (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Manticora. If the band article gets deleted, this redirect will also be automatically deleted per WP:G8. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 16:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roots of Eternity[edit]

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

Unreferenced track list Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I won't say "delete" yet as I want the creator to come up with something ... but the band article is frankly deletable too at this moment - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the band is notable, and I'm not saying it is, this album isn't, as there are no sources I can find on google even mentioning it. Fieari (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist article per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES as a common categorized ((R from album)). Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Is there a reason why nom and Fieari want this title deleted rather than just redirecting it boldly per WP:ATD-R? — Sam Sailor 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections to redirecting so long as the band article exists. Fieari (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The band is of dubious notability too, but so far the article exists - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to artist, at least as long as that article survives - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Danforth[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY BlackAmerican (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since he does not meet the NHOCKEY guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Finnegan, Alberta. Consensus is to merge, which still allows recreating if secondary sources show up later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegan Ferry[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The single source proves existence, but not notability. ubiquity (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Finnegan, Alberta, which presently has no mention of the ferry. Not finding adequate source coverage to qualify a standalone article, but a merge will improve the article about the community. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would totally support such a merge. ubiquity (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above seems a good option. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge may be the most satisfactory solution here, but for the record it should be noted that GBooks turns up content about the ferry and its history in 2 books, one of which also states that this ferry was used in a Tom Cochrane video. [24] [25]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [was Keep, or, second-choice, merge to become a row in a new table within List of cable ferries.]] Offhand, I tend to think any cable ferry is going to be notable on its own or at least list-item-notable for mention in a List of cable ferries (currently part of the cable ferry article). It also should be mentioned in its town/city article, but a town/city article is not going to include span and size measurements and other facts that are worth arraying and making comparable. If it is to be merged/redirected, the natural target is the list-article of cable ferries. That list-section so far has no table and no details for the ferries listed. The (draft) guidance at wp:ATD#Proposal: new "Merging to a list" section states: "If the new list-item would be longer than others merely enumerated, consider creating a table in the target list-article with the topic as the first expanded table row." A "Merge" decision here can specify that type of merge be done. I may browse for sources to support outright Keep decision, but merge to the list is better than merge to the town IMHO. --do ncr am 03:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes about keep. It is mentioned in multiple guidebooks and is effectively a tourist attraction. As can be seen here, it is a historic site as designated by a Province of Alberta "Alberta's history" historic plaque. Founded and operated by homesteader John Finnegan (1842-1924), it is of historic era (for North America). The opening of the ferry no doubt opened up a new area beyond the Red Deer River to homesteading, or it allowed agricultural products to get to market, or it contributed to the economy of the area, or whatever. It is certainly going to be covered in off-line books of history about Alberta or its southern parts. --do ncr am 04:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to keep as a separate article is that it is clearly "list-item-notable" in two lists, the one of cable ferries and the List of crossings of the Red Deer River, as well as worthy of being covered in the community article. Per the (draft) ATD advice, "When a topic is naturally covered in more than one list-article, however, keeping a separate article to hold expanded content (avoiding duplication) becomes more reasonable." --do ncr am 04:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be available online. I think the historic marker mentioned above should be cited as a source in the article, as it proves the government of Alberta (a reliable source, at least when it comes to Alberta history) regards the ferry as notable. ubiquity (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, I guess it is okay and probably best to merge to Finnegan, Alberta, after all. Its main coverage can be there, and that can be linked from the two list-articles. --do ncr am 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per NA1k as well as per Docram above. –Davey2010^Talk 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then mention whatever and however amount needed at the other article, because the current one is essentially simply a tour guide, not actually even giving how "historic" it is by stating what its age or actual history is. Anything can easily be mentioned anew at the other article, but nothing from the current article suggests there's both significant and substantial information for an acceptable merge; the only listed information are pieces about it such as a few sentences of 'interesting facts' of the founder, and then the fact it was used for a music video. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the article is deleted, then mentions at Finnegan, Alberta, List of cable ferries and/or List of crossings of the Red Deer River will be difficult to perform, because the article will not be available for anyone to edit except for administrators. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, there is a lot more information on the page than, as the guideline says , simply "name and location". There is possibly more that could be written, Elves book talks about the ferry being used for smuggling during prohibition. And for goodness sake, this is just the sort of thing that ought to be in a universal encyclopaedia. Don't let the minutiae of the rules stand in the way building a worthwile page; if for no other reason, keep it under WP:IAR. SpinningSpark 23:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Bennett[edit]

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

Bennett was a hockey player who once was thought to had promise, but it never panned out. Hockey is a bit hard to navigate for those of us used to Gridiron football, where when they draft you it means you are going on their team. In the NFL drafting means they are using you as back stock, so it is common to draft someone and then have them go to college. That is what happened here. The coverage of his career at Boston was routine. The coveage of his leaving Boston was routine. The coverage of his career at the University of Wisconsin was not even that. I checked, but the article seems to be right in identifying when he last played a public hockey game. He was a college sportsman who does not meet any of the inclusion requirements for college sportsmen. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment – For whatever reason, this discussion was listed on the 8 September 2016 AfD log page (diff), despite the nomination being created on 10 September 2016 (link). At this point, it seems best retain the relisting on the present September 16 ‎AfD log page (diff). As such, note that this discussion has actually only been listed for deletion for a total of six days at this point (after 14:07 UTC time today). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY BlackAmerican (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator makes a very good case, and I would like to thank him for letting us know the difference between hockey and football in this respect, as otherwise I might have !voted keep based on the draft. Fieari (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 23:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

43rd Chess Olympiad[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. The event in question is not scheduled until 2018. I fully concede that this subject is likely to pass GNG and WP:EVENT when it comes to pass. But as of right now it hasn't and it doesn't. PROD tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OP without prejudice to recreation when we have enough RS coverage to create an actual article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per WP:TOOSOON. Closer to the time, when there's actual coverage, it can be recreated with actual content. Fieari (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is actual coverage. Please see the sources :) Greenman (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this chess tournament will be held two years from now, there is reliable information about it provided in a secondary source. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The available coverage does little more than note the next anticipated tournament. It is nowhere near satisfying GNG. Just because something exists, or is likely to at some future date, does not mean it is entitled to an article. If we were a couple of months instead of a couple of years away from an event that was likely to ring the WP:N bell, I'd probably be inclined to let it go. But what we have here is a non-notable micro-stub with no realistic hope of expansion before mid 2018. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say where the tournament will be held, as well as the budget and the fact that it will be held in conjunction with the World Cup which will be held at the same site in 2017. I've posted a deletion notice at talk:WikiProject Chess. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this article has no hope of expanding beyond a micro-stub is a little like saying the same of 2018 FIFA World Cup (or the 2026 FIFA World Cup for that matter). There's a bidding process, a selection process, a venue, defending champions, a budget, link to the World Cup... This is not the 2028 event, it's the very next one :) Greenman (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A misapplication of WP:TOOSOON, which states that "the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." There is no crystal balling required, this is one of the major events in the chess world, the venue is fixed, sources exist, and it certainly warrants an article. Greenman (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the source coverage can be shown to meet GNG I would agree. But it doesn't. Yes there are references to the fact this event is likely to take place. But not much more. That's nowhere near enough to ring the WP:N bell right now. An event is not presumptively notable before it happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you agreeing TOOSOON does not apply and are arguing based on GNG? Of course it meets GNG, there are scores of articles about the event, the Georgian chess federation announced a huge program in 2014 in preparation for this event. Greenman (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage of it halted completely right now, the event were cancelled, and nobody ever talked about it again, would it still be a notable subject? I say no. To rely on it happening and the promise of future coverage is where WP:CRYSTAL comes in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, a cancelled Olympiad would be hugely notable. Greenman (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage stopped today, there would be no coverage of the cancellation and thus because notability is based on coverage the cancellation wouldn't change anything. Also, if it's cancelled and it does get coverage, the notable topic would be Cancellation of the 43rd Chess Olympiad, not the Olympiad itself, which would've never happened. Either way, I realize a hypothetical has limited utility here, but it seems to me that notability is dependent on future coverage of either the event or its cancellation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Either way, notability is dependent on the event happening or being cancelled." Is there a third possibility? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The third possibility is that there's a subject that's notable with only the present coverage (i.e. a notable subject without relying on a crystal ball or what will probably happen). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I read at WP:CRYSTAL. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By this standard I believe 43rd Chess Olympiad should be kept, because it's notable, would merit an article if the event had already occurred, and is almost certain to take place. It's comparable to 2024 Summer Olympics, which by definition is allowable. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's comparable to 2024 Summer Olympics - It's not even close. It's not even like the Olympics to people in the chess world, nevermind a general audience. A search for "2024 Olympics" returns 400,000 hits. A search for "43rd Chess Olympiad" returns about 100 (not 100,000, but 100), and none of them are good sources that cover it in significant depth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it's comparable in the sense that both events would merit an article if the event had already occurred and are almost certain to take place. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against is degenerating into crystal-balling. There is clear coverage of the event. Of course it's theoretically possible it could be cancelled. Of course another Olympiad could be inserted before this, and the name would change to 44th Chess Olympiad. Of course the 2026 FIFA World Cup could be rebranded and that article need to be renamed. None of those speculations affects its current notability. Greenman (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references for the 43rd Chess Olympiad and the 2017 World Cup on the FIDE Calendar at fide.com, and corrected the city for the World Cup. To me, the fact that Batumi is listed on fide.com as being the site of the 2018 Olympiad shows that the Wikipedia article, small as it is, contains real information and isn't just speculation. If the site were uncertain then I'd agree that it's WP:TOOSOON. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL serve only to exclude articles with unverifiable information (not the case here) and IMO the article has enough to meet WP:GNG as it stands. Cobblet (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I just looked at the cited sources again (some have been added) and what I am seeing is trivial and purely run of the mill coverage, most of it from affiliated sources. Nothing even remotely approaching the standard of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the six citations are to independent reliable sources. I don't see how one could construe any piece of information in the current article as trivial or run-of-the-WP:MILL as described in that essay with respect to sports topics. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Since we are looking (presumably) at the same article and references, and seeing very different things I suggest we agree to disagree and let the community decide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling these WP:MILL is just bizarre. A major chess event is being compared to an insignificant street name? The entire content of the independent articles are about this event! Greenman (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My reasoning while creating the article was that we should have it at the time when the preceding Chess Olympiad was underway even though it's two years in advance with substantially lower coverage. I also don't see how there is insufficient amount of reliable sources or how the article is too short, when it decently summarises the basic information for a future event verified with independent sources from mainstream websites. WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALL and WP:MILL would have hold hadn't we known yet the name of the host-city and the dates of the event or had its content been verified with tin-foil-hat websites. It's perhaps worth considering creating an article about the 44th Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk but the best time for it would be immediately before the start of the one in Batumi.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is TOOSOON territory - the event is almost certainly going to happen and there is already a fair bit of coverage in reliable sources of the bidding process and the announcement of the result. Hut 8.5 14:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since "the event is notable and almost certain to take place", WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. This is the next Chess Olympiad and although the article is short at the moment, basic information such as the host city are relevant and available. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cobblet. There is plenty of verifiable information about this event already, so CRYSTAL, TOOSOON, etc. don't apply. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- People keep talking about "verifiable" information and whatnot. Saying something is verifiable and not CRYSTAL/TOOSOON is not a keep argument, it's a response to two of the three deletion arguments. The third is notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not about "is there information" or "is there enough information", it's about the claim to significance for a yet-to-happen event. Any argument about notability that is based on future sources is WP:CRYSTAL. There need to be sources now that show notability of the subject as it exists today. Where are people seeing this? Official announcements do not help notability. Announcements by involved organizations do not help notability. Blurbs on self-published sources like blogs do not help notability... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a citation of chessbase.com, which is a reliable source for chess information. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again, where is the significant coverage as outlined at WP:N? As far as I can tell, the entirety of the coverage in that source is "The next Olympiads have also been announced, with the 2018 World Chess Olympiad to be held in Batumi, Georgia from September 23 – October 7, 2018". This is what you're saying helps notability? That's about as much of a "brief mention" as it gets. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read or write Georgian but with the aid of Google Translate I was still able to find articles like this and this. Significant local coverage undoubtedly exists for an event of such obvious importance to Georgia, even if contributors to the article may not feel comfortable citing it, since presumably few of us are familiar with the language. Questioning the availability of significant coverage without a good-faith search for non-English sources does nothing to help Wikipedia's notoriously weak coverage of topics not directly relevant to the English-speaking world. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TOOSOON, as a few others above have done. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chess Olympiad, or Merge to 41st Chess Olympiad. Also, salt until 8 October 2018. Incubate on request. As stated in the article, this information is from the 41st Chess Olympiad, so merge might be considered. Better than articles that say, "such and such may happen but we don't yet know...", are articles that say, "such and such happened"; for example, "At the 41st Chess Olympiad, the 43rd Chess Olympiad was scheduled on...at..." Unscintillating (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL #1 (Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. - is there any doubt that both of these conditions are met?) Apart from that, WP:TOOSOON is an essay (while WP:CRYSTAL is a policy), and I don't think articles can be deleted based on essays. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- is there any doubt that both of these conditions are met? - ? This page exists because of that doubt. CRYSTAL is not a keep rationale, it's a delete rationale, and one of several presented here (notability being the one people seem inclined to bypass). There's no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are primary sources, basic event announcements, brief mentions, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there is doubt after all? Which is it:

The 43rd Chess Olympiad won't be notable, even though the first 42 were?
There is reason to believe that the 43rd Chess Olympiad won't be held?

My understanding of WP:CRYSTAL #1 is that, in order to delete, at least one of the answers to the above two questions should be "yes". GregorB (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to delete solely because of WP:CRYSTAL, yes. Then there's notability. You highlight the problem with won't be notable. To have an article on Wikipedia now, it has to be notable now. Which means significant coverage in reliable sources now, not later. So notability is the big problem, but WP:CRYSTAL is relevant because, as it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (emphasis added to highlight present, not future tense). The 2016 US Presidential Election is notable despite not taking place yet because it receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Ditto the next Olympics. This has received no such coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (academic journals) is an essay. It is used to delete articles, so the belief that essays don't lead to deletion is erroneous. Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUSTAINED. Future events must satisfy both WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTPROMOTION to satisfy WP:N using WP:GNG. Where is the news bubble equivalent to Balloon boy for the 43rd Chess Olympiad announcement? Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources currently in the article, with GNG relevance analyzed:

"FIDE Calendar 2018". fide.com. FIDE. Retrieved 16 September 2016. *Primary

Albert Silver (31 August 2016). "FIDE Congress – New chess laws, championships and more". en.chessbase.com. ChessBase. Retrieved 21 September 2016. *25 words

"FIDE Calendar 2017". fide.com. FIDE. Retrieved 16 September 2016. *Primary

Chess Olympiad 2018 to take place in Batumi, Georgia. Chessdom.com. 13 August 2014. *96 words

"85th FIDE Congress: General Assembly Minutes and Annexes". FIDE. 27 October 2014. Retrieved 16 September 2016. *Primary

"FIDE Congress Tromso, Norway General Assembly 11- 14 August 2014" (PDF). Retrieved 17 September 2016. *Minutes are primary

"Kasparov Replies: "Whom Will You Support?"". 8 June 2014. Retrieved 16 September 2016. *Self-published opinion piece by a chess expert. It's long, and contains points that could be converted to encyclopedic material, but the main thrust of the message is politics regarding the next presidency of FIDE.

"Batumi to Host Olympiad-2018". Chess-News.ru. 14 August 2014. Retrieved 16 September 2016. 161 words

Here are two sources listed by Cobblet:

2018 World Chess Olympiad in additional capital is a prerequisite for entry into the - 12:54 08.21.2014 *interesting in-depth material about the number of tourists expected and the needed venue
Nona Gaprindashvili - the Olympics have gained in battle, why oppressed others ?! *confusing story, possibly an editorial

Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second Georgian article I linked to is not an editorial; it's an interview of several parties competing for a slice of the Georgian government sports budget and their reaction to the chess federation being given over half of it. The characterization of the Kasparov piece is also misleading; it is self-published, yes, but not by the subject itself. This is a statement by a candidate for the FIDE presidency (not just some random "chess expert") trying to explain his support of a rival bid for the Olympiad.

Not every citation in the article as it stands is to an independent, reliable source; nevertheless, significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources clearly exists for this topic. Here are a few more examples.

Also, seeing that the previous analysis provides word counts, I'll point out that length is not the primary consideration in the "significant coverage" component of WP:GNG; rather, the primary considerations are whether the coverage is "directly" related, "in detail" (i.e. not vague, covering all details) and "more than trivial" (i.e. the information provided is important to the topic). Cobblet (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting WP:GNG does not imply "delete". E.g. settlement articles are not deleted because they don't satisfy WP:GNG (and many of them fall way short!). That's because settlements are presumed notable. Here, it's a notable event, almost certain to happen, and that's all there is to it. GregorB (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chess Olympiads are notable events, the information in the article is non-trivial and has reliable sources, and if the event were canceled this in itself would also be notable. Quale (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Batumi 2018 is indeed two years in the future, it's an event at which thousands of competitors from more than 180 countries will be playing. Useful for the encyclopedia to have a stub article. Billbrock (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Note further that the 42nd Chess Olympiad is currently featured on the English Wikipedia homepage! (Speaks to notability.) Agree that this is a well-intentioned misapplication of WP:TOOSOON. Billbrock (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it really does seem like it belongs on wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Matthews[edit]

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

I would like to nominate Hank Matthews's page be deleted since there isn't even a single citation on the page nor are there any photos that proves this person really exists. This leads me to speculate that all the information in Hank's biography are nothing but purely made up stories. One more thing, his page obviously doesn't meet the notability criteria, so even if Hank was real, his page should just go poof. A voice actor having done one or two voice roles isn't enough to warrant an article of its own; even more so if their only roles are not even lead roles to begin with. There is also no news converage of this Hank guy, nor has he attended any conventions to display his notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unsourced BLP and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is IMDB, not going to cut it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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