The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Targum (species)[edit]

Targum (species) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fictional alien species does not appear to be notable, as it is from a seemingly not notable short story published in a seemingly not notable magazine. I'm not finding any readily available sources. — TAnthony^Talk 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination: no evidence found of significant coverage by reliable sources. Seems to be spillover fan content from Aliens Wikia. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could only find wiki-type sources for verification. Does not meet Wp:Note guidelines. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even if the short story itself were to be found notable, the alien species within it would not be. Not unless it started showing up commonly elsewhere too. And it hasn't. And I don't think the short story is notable anyway. Delete. Fieari (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability independent of a magazine feature, for which the magazine feature is itself non-notable. —Mythdon 10:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I'm usually a fan of merging NN content, per what others have observed above, there is no valid and appropriate place on Wikipedia to reuse or capture any of this content. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to meet GNG. No reliable sources out there, just wikis. Omni Flames (talk) 02:18, 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.  Sandstein  09:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Keino[edit]

Phyllis Keino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing at all for actual independent notability, I have found nothing at all from my searches; this is advertorial with it containing nothing actually substantial. Any policies would be the applicable notability, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination, nothing to indicate this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I went through every single page of google results, and found nothing. No chance of passing GNG per nom and Melcous. Yvarta (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe the article disguises her notability by not mentioning her long marriage, now over. There are reliable sources about her and Kip Keino starting their work in the 1960s/1970s, confirming that Phyllis K has been caring for abandoned children for decades. As well as these articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] there are a few more in UK subscription databases. Also see NYT 1989: "In Kenya, the Keinos are known for their humanitarian work." Searching Google Books for Phyllis Keino, with and without quotes, confirms she is known for being a partner in the children's home/school/farm setup. In 1998, for example: "Volunteers from far-flung countries have come to the Keino farm to offer their time and labor, and individuals who admire the Keinos often send small cash donations of $10 or $20. Thus far, Kip and Phyllis Keino have harbored and nurtured hundreds of children within the walls of their farmhouse and dormitory. Today, seventy-three children and young adults, ages two to twenty-two, live on the farm." In 2003 a Kenyan newspaper reported on a rift in their marriage, and implications for their children's establishments.[7] [8] It looks as if PK kept on a big share of the charitable work. One of the stories said there could be a risk of losing support from Bread and Water for Africa and Christian Relief Services, but these US/international charities have clearly stuck with PK. With all this in mind, I'd think some of the recent sources cited in the article confirm notability. They suggest her awards and spokeswoman roles are based on a reputation built up over years. Lelijg (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much in terms of coverage, although there is something here but not enough to meet the GNG imo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Update: changing to Weak keep based on sourcing from Lelijg (above) and based on his comments below. Clearly Phyllis was a major part of what happened, and it's not really right that she should be overshadowed simply because her husband is much more famous. If all the numerous mentions (from reliable sources) are taken into consideration, then perhaps it pushes her into the Keep column, albeit a weak keep. So I've changed my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources I found (see above) come up with a search on her name minus quotes. That's what she gets for being half of "the Keinos" or Kip Keino's wife Phyllis! There's still plenty written about her as an individual, to meet GNG. Lelijg (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again. Most of your sources are simply mentions. There is an in-depth one here. Still, mostly the sources are about the Olympian -- and his wife -- that kind of thing, suggesting the real focus is not on her, but on him. If you find another source -- in-depth, focusing on her -- I can be persuaded to change my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to me to be more than just "mentions" and overall the coverage adds up to personal notability, especially considering these are US and UK sources and we have no access to Kenyan newspapers from the 1970s to 1990s. Sure, the journalists start with the big Olympic star, but overall PK's role is described in enough detail to show she was always key to the project, hence the ongoing support from charities and also the award (p6) from an organisation that appears to be in no way affiliated with her. Lelijg (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Was leaning delete and I'm no friend to marginal mentions, which many are. But there is enough coverage of her to pass notability. I think the better decision is not to have a page of her own and combine content with her husband, as most coverage does, but does this pass GNG? Yes. Methods: Ran a Lexis search on Phyllis Keino (sans quotes) and got 32 hits. 25 of those, I would say, are marginal mentions with little content other than her marriage and former profession. A couple of false hits, but 5-6 sources with sufficient content. I'll briefly quote from the Vancouver Sun 2005 article, per Tomwsulcer request, "They are mothers to many, the backbone of a country with so many children in need. Phyllis Keino runs the Lewa Children's Home in western Kenya; Grace Seneiya runs the Samburu Handicap Education and Rehabilitation Program (SHERP) orphanage for children with disabilities in northern Kenya. Vancouverite Susan Standfield has enlisted both to become partners in her company, the Children's Photographic Gallery of Kenya. Here is the story of the two orphanages and the two women. In the 1970s, the Keino family started caring for abandoned children. In 1987, with the help of a Benedictine father, Paul Durr, Phyllis managed to buy a farm for the orphanage. A nurse by training, she is a strong, energetic woman." And it continues. There's a few others, not many, but they are there. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Kip Keino. She is barely mentioned there, and the article about her does not mention him, so there would have to be significant research to merge the two articles. If nobody volunteers to do that, I would say Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any policy about merging BLPs for a separated couple? As you say, it would be difficult work to do it well. Lelijg (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Draft:Bread and Water for Africa TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respond to Lelijg: I couldn't find a policy about it. But it should cause a pause in any decision to merge, right? The care to be taken with living persons would certainly extend to the page on which their information is organized. I now think Merge would be a very bad idea and reiterate that this is a person with multiple individual profiles, so I don't see why it wouldn't be kept. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AbstractIllusions for improving the article and adding refs. Definitely more balanced, and truer to sources. Worth keeping. Lelijg (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Considering my nomination will be closing here soon I presume, but has anyone honestly actually gone through this article and subsequently found nothing is either substantial or significant for establishing her own career article? The article (in the first sentence) makes claims of connections to Kip himself, but I honestly am not believing we should redirect or merge there, since there's still nothing essential to merge; anything that is important to state there, can be stated with only a few sentences at best. The awards here themselves contain nothing actually convincing, her career section essentially goes through information about her jobs and what happened, and then also about her family life. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no basis for merging mentions into an articles. One has to be notable for something, and any number of very mibnior activities do not make one notable, there has to be something important, becqqause only they are what is reflected in substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SwisterTwister & DGG. Response What are you all talking about? You seem to be judging the quality of her works. That's not the point. The question is simple: from WP:GNG is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Her charity work has been covered in multiple newspapers, both alone and in coverage where she receives significant coverage in articles primarily about Kip. I've added multiple sources to the article including two lengthy profiles of her work in the Vancouver Sun and the East African Standard. Let's stick to GNG significant coverage standard, rather than a "minor activities" standard that you both seem to be embracing. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the currently listed sources, I see nothing to suggest there's actual substance for her; I notice several non-URL sources, an interview, other mentions and these including for events or part of the philanthropy. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, access to databases of newspapers is handy for figuring out notability, I admit it. Either AGF or be upset, but just because you can't see them that doesn't change that her work has been covered in multiple newspapers. So...yeah. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "The Immortals: The Keinos have always set the pace". The Standard. 2016-08-18. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     Phyllis Keino: The spokesperson for Bread and Water for Africa is a registered nurse. She founded Lewa Children’s Home inside the 500 acres acquired from the Craig family in 1987. She also runs Kipkeino School, a primary boarding founded by hubby, ‘kip’ in 1999 besides the family’s Baraka Farm. The recipient of the 2006 Visionary Award from Christian Relief Services and the 2010 World of Difference 100 Award from the International Alliance for Women, is a mother of seven including famous son, Martin Keino.

  2. Abrahamson, Alan. (2001-02-25). "Grand Kenyans" (pages 1, 2, and 3). Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     In a world too often dominated by tales of athletes who think me-first, Keino, 61, and his wife, Phyllis, make abundantly clear what the grace of selflessness and a heartfelt devotion to others can accomplish in life.

     ...

     Bob Keino, 24, the fifth of seven children born to Kip and Phyllis, says, "He always taught us--you can be the best in the world at your sport but you always have to be humble."

     ...

     When he came home to Kenya from the 1972 Olympics, Keino had four Olympic medals. By the end of that year, he and Phyllis would have eight children in their house.

     Three had been born to them. Phyllis said she found the others queuing for food in front of a police station. A nurse, she told her husband that the children needed them. He agreed. "I feel the humanity of being a human being," he says now.

     Thus was launched what is now the Kip Keino Children's Home. Since 1984, the home has been officially registered with the Kenyan government.

     ...

     Baraka was bought in 1989 for the Children's Home through a Swiss priest stationed in Eldoret. The idea was Phyllis'. She wanted more land in order to grow more food for the children and to generate income for the Home.

     ...

     At Kazi Mingi, meantime, Phyllis' day begins at 5:30 a.m. It ends late at night.

  3. Finney, Peter (1993-06-05). "Martin is a Kip off the Old Keino Block". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     Naturally, 53-year-old Kip was elated over the triple of his 20-year-old son. Martin Keino, the third-oldest of eight children, has no problem living in the shadow of a small man who continues to cast a long shadow. Kip and Phyllis Keino operate an orphanage in their hometown of Eldoret, Kenya. They've been taking in orphans for the 30 years of their married life, providing a home for more than 100 children representing a half-dozen tribes. They've taken in the malnourished, malformed and maltreated. They've given each child a name in English and Nandi, which is Kip's native tongue.

  4. "Keino's wife has different view of snow". USA Today. 1988-01-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     Kip Keino, two-time Olympic gold medalist, believes education is the key to life.

     His wife, Phyllis Keino, got an education in snow when 4 inches were on the ground by Monday.

     "I didn't know snow fell from the sky," said Phyllis Keino, who saw her first snow Sunday. "I just thought it was on the ground."

     The Keinos, who live in Kenya, were in the capital for a presentation for Sports Illustrated's Male and Female Athletes of the Year. Keino was one of eight recognized for contributions to society. He and the others - Dale Murphy, Reggie Williams, Chip Rives, Patty Sheehan, Judi Brown King, Rory Sparrow and Bob Bourne - were at the White House Monday.

     The Keinos have provided a home for 100 orphans since they married in 1964.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Phyllis Keino to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep -- I believe that enough sources have been presented for individual notability, outside of marriage. The article also have been sufficiently improved by AbstractIllusions to avoid WP:PROMO. I thus believe that the article can stay. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no policy violation, and I'm willing to WP:AGF with Cunard's new sources as I have found the editor to be reliable in the past. With that, I see a pass on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the sources here are all passing mentions. Some of the notes above are baffling to me; if you can actually quote the entire discussion in a source here at AfD, that is exactly what a "passing mention" is. There needs to be significant discussion in multiple independent sources to pass GNG. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a pretty clear delete. Every single source...yes, every single source contains a passing mention at best. That doesn't ever add up to "significant coverage". Considering a one or two line mention as a significant coverage is a mockery of WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:HEY, WP:BARE. A marginal case, this can be improved further by adding the sources found. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 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 speedy delete by Courcelles (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Ahmed maher saddam) in violation of ban or block) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qassim Abdulkarem[edit]

Qassim Abdulkarem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed. Original author blocked for sockpuppetry which may be ongoing. Article is about a minimally notable blogger. Seems to be promotional in intent but not so flagrantly as to be speedily deletable. Previously deleted under name Qassim Abdulkareem Qassim with similar content. DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable 18-year-old media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CSD G5 plain and simple. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:04, 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.

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Laborio[edit]

Edward Laborio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 22:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable minor league player. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk)13:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Our criteria for the notability of sportsmen set a very low bar indeed, but this person apparently does not clear it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelbradford20 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)* "Totally disagree with pending AFD action. High level of public Notability achieved and accomplished. All registered for public reference thru various media and web site sources. Michaelbradford20 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbradford20 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC) — Michaelbradford20 (talk • [reply]

contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Not notable minor league player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's hard to fail NSPORTS, but this one appears to. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Maintain Article Posting, DO NOT delete"" Extreme high levels of achievement ascertained in State of Rhode Island. Numerous records of performance achieved and unique status levels accomplished.

This editor is an elder resident of Cranston, Rhode Island. Although I do not know the subject personally nor, have I ever met the subject. I assure you that this subject is considered a legend within the sports community of Cranston and also in Rhode Island. His athletic accomplishments nearly 50 years later, are still spoken of and used for comparisons for other promising athletes to aspire. Subject has been the recipient of much Notability. In accordance with the guidelines established by Wikipedia under the reference titled - Wikipedia : Notability ( sports ). Please consider the following material posted by Wikipedia : GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES : * " Reliable "- Means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editor's evaluating Notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability - indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus before proposing or nominating an article for deletion or offering an opinion based on Notability in a deletion discussion, editor's are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. In conclusion, as previously stated, the aforementioned information of Notability was referenced from the Wikipedia manual. I firmly believe that the Providence Journal, Cranston Herald, www. internet media sources, Wikipedia, Snipview, City of Cranston, Rhode Island, City of Providence Rhode Island, should all be considered as reliable, suitable, independent sources of Notability.Lilrhodybb (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)— Lilrhodybb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Do NOT Remove -Do NOT Delete - Keep Posting *. Awayoflifebball80 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Subject has a high level of credibility, accomplishments and Notability. In reviewing entire Subject's Wikipedia article a highly sufficient level of Notability is recognized. The one Notable achievement by this Subject that just totally brings my admiration to another level is the Rhode Island Baseball record established for Strike out's by a pitcher in a game. Subject pitched a Perfect Game in which, 20 out of the 21 outs in the game where recorded via STRIKEOUT'S. That is an amazing 95%. As an avid admire of Baseball, I have never come across such an achievement. In all forms of organized Baseball history,weather it be from Little League to Major League, I feel very confident in claiming that this level of accomplishment has very seldom occurred. An example of Notability without question. Do NOT Delete.Awayoflifebball80 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - OK, so obviously we have some sock/meat puppetry here, but there's also something strange about the history of this article. It was created by an SPA about an Edward Laborio that looks an awful lot like a hoax. A few bits of similar text about a magnificent philanthropist and seemingly nothing verifiable. Then in 2013 a now-blocked sock puppet of a paid editor just hijacked the page and turned it into an article on this Edward Laborio. Weird. That's not to say this Laborio is a hoax -- there look to be enough sources to verify some of the information, but not enough to show notability, but the number of puppets coming out to try to keep it, suggests that perhaps this paid editor is still active. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eragon.raju/Archive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, there are three with the edit summary "Created page...." The deletion log shows that the first two versions were about the philanthropist and deleted under A7. The third version was the current subject and was deleted by prod but then restored by JohnCD when it was contested. What appears to have happened is that he accidentally restored all three deleted versions. As the previous versions about the philanthropist were speedy deleted and no one has contested that, that part of the edit history can be ignored. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. Striking part of my comment above so as not to distract from the unresolved issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article appears to be about a fairly unaccomplished baseball player who flamed out at the lower levels of the minor leagues and never sniffed the majors. Some minor accomplishments in his hometown do not satisfy wikipedia's guidelines.. and despite the editor above (the creator of the article) claiming that the subject has lots of notability he has not been able to place any of these so called sources into the article to establish notability.The sources actually in the article are not formatted properly and thus dont lead to the urls that might establish anything. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 27 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. The references given do not appear to be sufficient to establish notability, based on the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L. B. Henry[edit]

L. B. Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the references look ok to me. The article was a "Did You Know" in 2008. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has 12 references. 8 of which (ref# 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12) are obituaries or find-a-grave both fail WP:RS when it comes to establishing notability. In fact 6 of those 8 aren't about Henry but other people. Of the other 4, 2 are strictly election results. Another is on a mobile home park named after him. That leaves 1 reference for his life accomplishments, or 3 if you count the election results refs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added comment Reference number two looks like a private email. Billy Hathorn articles have used statements from people that weren't published somewhere as references....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best election result are primary sources. This leaves 1 reference, and we MUST have at least two. County Comissioners are not defualt notable. Thus we need substantial sources, and we totally lack such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 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 The Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Flash Back 2012.  Sandstein  08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-2 Megaroad-01[edit]

SDF-2 Megaroad-01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No established notability. Fictional vehicle from the Macross Franchise. I'm not sure the best way of handling this. Essentially it appears in The Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Flash Back 2012 so a merge there was a possibility, but it's also the sister ship to SDF-1 Macross which as an article already requires a massive reworking. Some of the information may be useful on either of those articles but on it's own it's a lot of information for something that only appears in a 30minute music video. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Flash Black 2012. There isn't sourced justification to create an article when it is so strongly tied to one particular OVA and not the entire franchise of multiple TV series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I'll note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Robotech vehicles has made a mess of things, because there are TWO fictional SDF-2's, one for Robotech and one for Macross, and the former appears to have been merged to a list, then deleted, and now an avoidable redlink... while this one, relevant to the latter universe, has an inappropriately specific name, given it's the only SDF-2 Wikipedia currently recognizes. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (Kamen Rider)[edit]

Phantom (Kamen Rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks notability. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 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 keep. If I am permitted to give such a suggestion, the sources given should probably be used in the article, right now it's a stub. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Sanada[edit]

Takashi Sanada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-remarkable person. No medals in the paralympics, fails WikiProject Tennis guidelines, fails WP:NSPORT guidelines. Per sources given not notable Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why is winning the Japan open not notable? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  By consensus it does not automatically make one notable. Winning one of the Grand Slam tournaments makes you notable. Or medaling in the paralympics. It's also possible to bypass Olympic or Tennis Project guidelines if the person passes General Notability Guidelines (GNG). It would need to be shown that the press has written articles specifically about this player. Not mentions, not scores, not sentences... but actual articles on Takashi Sanada. If you can find a couple newspapers that have write-ups about him it can be sourced in the article and the new info can be added. It's not there now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the explanation, its surprising he hasn't had indepth coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can find some, by all means bring it here to our attention. You can also put a copy of this in your sandbox and if he does start getting a bunch of press, you can easily recreate it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving to Keep in view of the sources supplied by Michitaro, I could not translate all of them but at least three or four that were google translated showed sig coverage directly about him- much better than my own search. If the article is kept will add the best of the refs to it. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found quite a number of significant articles on him in Japanese: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. A number are from major news sources such as Asahi, Shueisha, Yahoo, and Livedoor and definitely count as RS. Others seem to be feature articles or interviews from more specialty sites. All seem to be independent and none are blogs. I would say the weight of the evidence is that he passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't read Japanese so I can't tell. If you feel they are good enough as sources you need to take the most important ones and incorporate them into the article. As the article stands he is not notable for anything tennis related so he'd need those sources to show he passes GNG. Otherwise he'll keep getting nominated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly at some time they should be added. They need not be added now, however, since per WP:NEXIST is it only necessary at this stage to show that the sources exist. Notability is not to be judged based on the current state of the article. Since this AfD has been del-sorted in Japan discussions, others there can verify if they think these Japanese sources are sufficient to keep the article. Michitaro (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I can't read Japanese, I'll take Michitaro's word in good faith that those sources are reliable, and they certainly sum up to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:48, 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. Consensus is that the sources do not appear to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Bakshi[edit]

Ajay Bakshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references cited are a dead link, two papers co-authored by him (not about him) and a page on the web site of a company he works for. Searches for better sources have produced LinkedIn, announcements of his appointment to a post at Manipal Health, YouTube, this Wikipedia article, brief notes about his career on the web site of a conference in which he took part, and so on, but nothing that amounts to substantial independent coverage of him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. References do not support notability of this individual. The article was created and edited by multiple now-indefinitely-blocked socks of an editor who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itsmukeshhere. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) Deli nk (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable health care administrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources in-depth and in-depth and mention and mention and quote and mention and in-depth. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

first "in depth" source is a lightly dressed press release and short, about his appointment; second "in depth" source is a lightly dressed press release about the hospital geting a new piece of equipment where he says some things about that (this is passing mention); third "in depth" source is again a lightly dressed press release about the hospital adding beds; again he says some things about that. None of these are in depth about him. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. A more likely explanation is you voted 'Delete' without doing one iota of checking; now with clear-cut sources, you're reluctant to admit to being a drive-by deletionist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith assumptions will get no where that you want to be, in WP. The sources in the article, the ones you cite, and the ones I found and didn't mention because they suck, do suck. As I noted, fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are unlikely to convince in a deletion debate, particularly in direct response to someone checking your claimed references - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure seems like bad faith to trash reliable in-depth independent references like this one and this one and then invoke personal attack when another contributor points out that 'Delete' votes have been made without any effort to check sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a famous saying about holes and digging that I think has its own Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's simpler: this article meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing bad faith about my evaluation that a source is a "lightly dressed press release" that you evaluate as being a "reliable in-depth independent reference". People evaluate things differently, in good faith, all the time. The only "bad faith" going on here, is your characterization of my statement. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hospital administrators are all too common. The sources recently found do not knock off my socks. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and, I meant to comment sooner, there is absolutely nothing here for any applicable notability or actually convincing substance, all it lists is his career and what it is about, that's a business listing, not an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 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 merge to Yugoloth. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mydianchlarus[edit]

Mydianchlarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Yugoloth. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Singh[edit]

Rick Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a property appraiser at the local level in one single county. This is not a role that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself, but there's simply not much else here to hang a standalone article on. Content about the SeaWorld lawsuit would be perfectly appropriate in SeaWorld Orlando's article but is not enough to justify a standalone BLP of Rick Singh himself as a separate topic from that, nothing else here is particularly noteworthy at all, and the article is referenced only to the kind of local media coverage that a county appraiser would be expected to generate in their local media -- neither the volume nor the range of coverage shown are enough to make him more notable than the thousands of other people at his level of significance who don't have and won't be getting Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Almost all articles are examples of in-depth coverage. Passes WP:GNG, regardless of WP:NPOL. Usterday (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. For a political figure of purely "local to a single area" interest, such as a smalltown mayor or a non-metropolitan city councillor or a county clerk, WP:GNG is not passed just because local media coverage exists, if its scope and volume falls entirely within the WP:ROUTINE scope and volume of local media coverage that would be expected to exist for a person at that level. If they do not objectively pass NPOL by virtue of the office held, then the media coverage has to show them as significantly more notable than the norm for their field of activity, such as by nationalizing beyond the local media. Every single county appraiser in existence would always qualify for a Wikipedia article if local coverage were all it took to get them there — but it's not a level of office at which we can or do extend automatic notability to all of them, so a county appraiser has to be individually demonstrated as significantly more notable than most other county appraisers before he can be deemed notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, one would have to research the potential for GNG of hundreds of appraisers before you would be satisfied. GNG says nothing about showing someone is "more notable than similar people", it merely discusses in-depth articles. What is your evidence that there are "thousands like him?" other than an assumption that in-depth coverage is common for local politicians? I would argue it is not at all common, and that this level of press does show him as more notable, especially with the high profile of the cases he has dealt with (and in-depth articles about these focussing on his role). Usterday (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an "assumption" on my part that local media coverage of local political figures exists; it's a simple, easily verifiable fact, because covering local news stories is what local media are for. It's not the case, for example, that some smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get covered by their local media while other smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get ignored by theirs; all mayors and municipal councillors and county officials always get coverage in their local media, and could always be claimed to pass GNG if local media coverage were all it took. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all" property appraisers are from one of the largest counties in the US, and deal with hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and citizens like SeaWorld. It is a false equivalency to compare this person to, say, someone from central Arkansas or Iowa. The page has evidence of GNG, and you are indeed merely stating "everyone else will obviously have the exact same coverage", without providing evidence of why you believe this other than assumption. Anyhow, we are allowed to disagree here. I just don't see any actual evidence of your position here, and believe that GNG should not be read as you are reading it. Usterday (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not my own personal "reading" of GNG. It's not enough to be familiar with the simple letter of Wikipedia policy — you need to also have a familiarity with the reality of how GNG is actually understood and applied at AFD in those cases when its passage or non-passage is debatable. And one of those realities is that for a political figure at the municipal level of governance, GNG is not deemed to have been passed on the basis of exclusively local coverage — people at the county level of office, sometimes even right up to the actual county executive, are often deleted if there's no non-local coverage to show, even with as much or more local sourcing as you've shown here. That's not my own tendentious interpretation of GNG; it's just the facts of how GNG works for topics at this level of interest.

And according to List of United States counties and county equivalents, Orange County FL only ranks 33rd in the US by population — which is not a high enough ranking to make "one of the largest counties in the United States" a compelling exemption from having to satisfy the same standards of more-than-just-local prominence that any other county-level official would have to meet. Even the largest county in the entire United States, Los Angeles County, California, still doesn't hand an automatic inclusion freebie to its county assessor on purely local media coverage alone, if nothing extralocal can be shown to demonstrate that anybody outside that county needs to care.

I said the stuff about the SeaWorld lawsuit could be addressed in SeaWorld's article, for example. But it's not strong evidence that we need to maintain a standalone BLP of him separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not among the largest in US population; they are though in terms of revenue, and property values, which is what property appraisers deal with. That said, diminishing a State such as Florida as "merely part of the US" is strange to me. If the largest US county's assessor had this much press, in my mind, they'd qualify too. But the 1000s you referred to earlier, you are right, probably do not. More than that though, there is no wording in GNG that supports your reading of it. Point one is about "significant coverage", which this page has. Point two is that the sources must be reliable, which they are. Point three points to the use of non-primary sources, check again. Point four is that they are independent of the subject (sources that is), check again. Point five states that GNG is not a guarantee that something is notable. Are you arguing point five? That you don't believe GNG is good enough here? Otherwise, there is not "letter" in GNG that you can point to. Only the "Ignore all rules" aspect of the policy. There is, despite the protestations of many people on Wikipedia, nothing that dismisses local coverage from GNG. Even still, are you calling Forbes, the Orlando Sentinel, and NBC "extralocal" (a word not found in GNG to begin with). You keep stating "it's obvious" or "it's the way it is" to support your arguments, but that's not evidence for your point. Again, I agree to disagree, but am also happy to have an in-depth discussion of GNG if that's what you want. An AFD may not be the most appropriate place for that though. Usterday (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this again: the letter of GNG is one thing, but there are many ways in which it's still up for debate how GNG actually applies in actual practice. For that, you need to familiarize yourself with the actual corpus of AFD discussions on similar topics, to see where consensus lands on points of debate. I am not making up my own personal interpretations here; the actual established precedent at AFD is that purely local media coverage is not enough to satisfy GNG for a political figure at the county level of office.

Every single mayor of every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single municipal councillor in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single police chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single fire chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single school board trustee that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Unelected candidates for office would pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. But our rules are intentionally designed to keep articles about smalltown mayors and smalltown councillors and smalltown police chiefs and school board trustees and unelected candidates out of Wikipedia.

The thing is, as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to keep in mind that our articles are highly vulnerable to getting misused: people routinely try to overwrite our articles about them with their own self-penned public relations puff bios, and other people routinely try to dirtwash our articles about people they don't like with WP:BLP violations and WP:POV commentary. The only defense we actually have against either of those things is the oversight of other editors — but that only works on topics that are of broad reader interest, and fails to be effective when it comes to more limited-interest topics. In an article about a municipal or county-level official who's known only locally, and does not have nationalized prominence, an inappropriate edit can linger in the article for months because not enough people are actually seeing the article to notice that an inappropriate edit has taken place. I am not making this up: earlier this year, I actually came across an article about a county-level political official which was making the unsourced claim that its subject had been arrested for smuggling small children into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone to rape and cannibalize them. Yes, it's a blatant BLP violation, and yes, I revdelled it right away — the problem, however, will be more evident when I reveal to you how long that claim was sitting unchallenged in our article, because no responsible editor had actually seen it before I did: three full years. Yes, we really did spent three years calling a local politician a cannibal pedophile, because his article wasn't generating enough traffic to get that inappropriate content noticed and dealt with.

We can't properly maintain an article about a topic that isn't generating a broad and relatively consistent volume of readership — which is one of the reasons why our rules around local political figures are designed to be much more restrictive about their includability than we are for statewide or nationwide officeholders. We have to protect ourselves from the possibility of getting misused as a PR platform, and we have to protect both ourselves and our article subjects from the possibility of the article getting misused as an attack-edit magnet — and when it comes to local politicians at the municipal or county levels, the only way we can do that is to not have articles about them except where they can be shown to have wider prominence beyond just one local area. I did not make this up myself as my own personal tendentious rule; AFD established a consensus around this.

Oh, and by the way: NBC's local affiliate in Orlando is not the same thing as the national news division of NBC News — the WESH reference is local coverage from WESH, not nationalized coverage from the NBC network. And the Forbes piece is not about Rick Singh, but just namechecks his existence and provides a brief soundbite from him in an article about something else. So no, that's not "coverage about him" either. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat's rationale (local coverage of a civil servant). Noting also that Usterday has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD G5. Creator of page is a sock of Jeremy112233. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracted. Wasn't blocked until after page was created. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bringing a lawsuit against a company doesn't grant notability. We would have articles on anyone who had ever sued anyone for spilling their hot coffee on them when they wern't warned it was hot if we did. Amortias (T)(C) 19:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that a local assessor doing their job and challenging property valuations is entirely routine. Local coverage about such cases happens all over the country. The article seems to be to be highly promotional, perhaps written to influence a reelection. MB 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A county property appraiser needs to be notable for more than a single action to justify an article. His suit against Disney interests might be worth some sort of article, but that does not justify a biographical one on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

89.7 FM Ponoka, Alberta[edit]

89.7 FM Ponoka, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another newly-licensed radio station which has not yet launched. As per numerous other recent AFDs, this is no longer a valid notability claim under WP:NMEDIA in and of itself; a new radio station is no longer eligible to have an article until it has actually gone on the air for real, and does not qualify for an article the moment the regulatory agency grants the initial construction permit anymore. Delete, without prejudice against recreation once the station is actually on the air. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's far too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch, especially considering that the station only just got approved last week (so they have until September 2, 2018 to launch, and even that is barring an extension). Until there is verifiable evidence to indicate this station is broadcasting, we can't have an article on it yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlaunched station, and we don't know if/when it will become notable. If/when it does, we can recreate the article. But it's not notable now. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per WP:Crystal. Should be made an article after it has been launched.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:36, 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. Consensus is that this is WP:OR.  Sandstein  08:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Agency Theory[edit]

Cultural Agency Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article appears to be an attempt to post an academic journal article on Wikipedia. While no copyright violation can be found, the article appears to comprise original research and synthesis, drawing new conclusions based on the cited source material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even the firstmost source cited doesn't seem to contain the term? Seems like mostly heavy WP:SYNTH as mentioned by nominator. This is all I were able to find to use the term in our article's context: [22]. There is the general concept of agency theory, and the word "cultural" is sometimes latched on to that term. But these other uses that I were able to find were different from our article's. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WikiDan's explanation. It's pretty clearly ripped right from an academic paper with all the broken reference formatting left intact. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Nom and editors above. (some academic journals now advise article authors to do self-promote their published articles on Wikipedia.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:)Just solved disambiguation problem. Now I'am working to simplify the topic to make it more understandable for the readers. Also references are made (to solve the problem "orphan page") on its all'agency theory page and adapt complex system (CAS). The problem of disambiguations is resolved. We look forward to your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadif89 (talk • contribs)

@Dadif89: Disambiguation is not the problem here. Nor is the complexity of the article. The article is too complex for most Wikipedia readers to understand, but that can be fixed. The problem with this article, and the reason it is being considered for deletion, is that it appears to comprise a great deal of original research, which is not what Wikipedia is about. You need to find a more conventional venue to publish your article, such as a journal on social systems or some such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:CAT is not a my personal idea. It is (at least) 10 years old. It is a successful paradigm not yet represented through Wiki: my proposal is to talk about it, refferring to the main systemic authors which contributed to the theory development (Beer, Schwarz, Yolles etc)

@WikiDan61: Cross referencing improved:

• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems
• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_systems_theory
• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis 12:57, 21 September 2016

• Comment I'm coming around on this one. It's going to take a lot of work to make this article accessible, but I understand that the author has written a review of the topic rather than an original treatise on the topic. Since other editors have agreed to delete, I won't withdraw the nomination, but rather change my own position to weak keep. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:: @Jergling:: @E.M.Gregory: @Mr. Magoo and McBarker:

Dear editors, we are working a lot to fix the page on the light of your kind suggestions. Thank you for your comprehension. I had also the pleasure to share the page with your Yolles Professor in the person who has asked me to post this comment on his behalf:

This wiki entry is not an attempt to introduce new material to wiki. It is not original research and synthesis, since much of it comes from two books by Yolles in 1999 and 2006, plus additional publications over the last 9 years. This website is also a reflection of the book by Guo et al (2016) that defines cultural agency theory in most of its aspects, and is a summary of previous wok. The intention is to ensure that the new paradigm, which is now mature, is illustrated in terms of its antecedents. In particular, the work of Eric Schwarz, seen to be very important and almost lost to the academic world except through the work of Yolles and his colleagues, does need to be recognised historically. A tribute to the work of Schwarz has now also been entered into the wiki site, who died in 2015 with almost no recognition of the significance or potential of his work...a very sad state of affairs for such an important but overlooked academic.--Dadif89 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept. In fact, it never actually defines "Cultural Agency Theory"; instead, it lists what it CAT could potentially do (which is essentially nothing). It's mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors (Schwarz, Beer, Yolles), which does not indicate notability. The content of several sections is basically word salad which does not serve to describe the concept at hand, instead opting to say "the sky is blue" in as many ways as possible. Unsurprisingly, the freely available references are written in a similar manner.

In my opinion and outside of the scope of this AfD, it smells like postmodern bunk. It really gets my goat that there are academics out there throwing math- and science-isms around like this and and believing it's comparable to someone using actual math and science to advance control theory. It's like the academic version of a mimic - none of the cost and all of the reward. -Jergling (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jergling: Systems and network theory are increasingly being applied to social systems, with an eye toward understanding the behaviors of populations on a macro scale. These applications have already been applied in the field of counter-terrorism and organized crime, and could lead to all sorts of sociological advances. This is not pseudo-science, or a case of academics throwing around "science-isms", but actual science with actual, concrete outcomes. I agree that the article is vaguely worded and full of jargon that conveys little meaning to the average reader, but the same could be said for most of Wikipedia's articles on topics related to relativity theory or quantum mechanics. Complex subjects are often difficult to boil down to language accessible to laymen. I hope this article can be improved to meet that goal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not trying to discredit cybernetics/social systems theory as a whole (although I'd appreciate it if you could give references to its applications in criminology). It's specifically the way this article (and the sources) are written. This content seeks to describe, rather than analyze or extend, a laundry list of systems concepts to no apparent end. It would be one thing if it were a list of assumptions building used to draw a logical conclusion, but instead it's just a list of assumptions and long names for simple concepts. I'm reminded of the slough of "nature inspired algorithms" that showed up here a month ago all describing roughly the same trivial and naive methodology and claiming to "potentially solve" the Travelling Salesman Problem. -Jergling (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the opening to respond to comments about not defining what CAT is. In other words, I tried to explain in simple terms (even the average person to understand) a systemic theory --Dadif89 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article looks like a review of primary sources discussing cultural agency theory (CAT) and earlier theories it is based on. As such, it is a synthesis of primary sources that does not belong on Wikipedia, per WP:SYNTH--we don't write articles drawing our own conclusions about primary sources, we summarize secondary sources, such as published reviews or books on CAT. I've been unable to find independent secondary sources on cultural agency theory, so in addition to synth problems, this topic also seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Lastly, even as an academic work, this "review" has major neutrality problems. Everything I have found suggests that CAT was created by Yolles and colleagues. Yolles credits Schwarz and Beer with earlier work upon which CAT is based, but despite this article being about 80% centered on Schwarz, there is no evidence that Schwarz created CAT or ever called it that. This is a tribute piece to Schwarz pretending to be an encyclopedia article on CAT. Without independent reliable sources discussing cultural agency theory in depth, we cannot write a neutral WP:N, verifiable WP:V article on the topic. Hence deletion seems warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments on this page, Maurice Yolles asked me to bring his point of view. I quote:

"In response to the reviewers, a lot of changes have been made. For instance the insightful comment from the reviewer "nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept" has been addressed reflecting the uniqueness in the summary, and creating a definition in terms of its use. Another useful comment is that it is "mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors." While this is correct, one must question the significance of this comment. It is a paradigm supported by a group of people, with its own website (now indicated in the website): http://www.octresearch.net. However, its growing popularity is represented through an increasing download of its papers. For instance the paper cited by Dauber et al has had in excess of 5000 downloads and 27 citations in under 3 years. A new book defining the topic is also coming out this month published by Cambridge University Press. Two authors in the group also have "advanced standing" ReseearchGate ranking, principally due to interest in this work. An attempt to reduce the "word salad" has been made, including a tightening of references. Additional adjustments to the website include moving text from the dissipative systems section into the Schrwarzian modelling section where it belongs. More wiki and other links have been created for technical terms, and the text has been smoothed in an attempt to improve understanding. The text overall now properly conforms the the wiki model. Elaboration has also been made to the background of Schwarz, who should not be another lost hero."^[1] Dadif89 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI think is an important voice that was actually missing in wikipedia. The citations are correct. and it is well written. It should be kept on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf1974 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please keep it. The subject is important and the content is well written. Can be arobust reference for scholars and students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.147.25 (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: The page has been structurally modified trusting that, in this way, it can be maintained on wiki. the images with copyright issues were removed. And about secondary sources: it is coming out a book using CAT by Guo et al^[2] If the problem is with history and foundation, we can keep only the first sections: 1 What is CAT? 2 The Nature of Agency, considering this page as an important point of view in systemic theory, actually missing in wikipedia.Dadif89 Dadif89 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment @Dadif89: Actually, if the article is retained, I would recommend deleting the section on the "Nature of agency" as Wikipedia already has an entire article on the topic (Agency (philosophy)), and the content here represents a content fork which is undesirable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dadif89: From the Google Books page for the Guo, et. al., book[23], I see that it has not been published yet, so obviously cannot be a source at this time. If/when the book does come out, one of the authors is Yolles, the originator of CAT. Hence the book cannot be considered an independent reliable source by Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT criteria. Without independent reliable sources, no one can reliably write a neutral, verifiable article on the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Pacific Union College[edit]

List of presidents of Pacific Union College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Found no significant coverage of the topic as a group or set in independent reliable sources. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously, this is the sort of list we have quite often here - see Category:Lists of university and college leaders. This one has the additional benefit of providing information about a lot of people who, while presumably notable as college presidents, do not yet have a wikipedia article. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The position is defining, and the list can say a lot concisely. It makes sense to have this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can you explain precisely how you think this fails LISTN? 'Cause I just don't see it. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In view of the thumbnail biographies provided, this is a useful substantive article. Merging it to the article on the college would unbalance that article and is thus inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Karina Chmiel[edit]

Catherine Karina Chmiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nearly 10 years ago this was one of my first prods. It was clsoed as keep, but with arguments that seem very obsolete now - mainly, she exists on Google. Well, that's not sufficient today, and it does not seem that in those 10 years she got any more notable - I don't see any reviews of her works, any awards, nothing. Pretty much a Tolkien fan artist, whose work was used in some books/etc., but that fails WP:ARTIST. On a side note, she still does not have article on pl wiki, which has a much more lax criteria for notability of biographies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a relic of a time when non-notable fan cruft survived on assertions like "the one topic that defines Wikipedia is Tolkien". Even then no one claimed that Chmiel passed the notability guidelines for artists, and she still does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 14 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. The later arguments for Keep appear to be stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Abse[edit]

Wilfred Abse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails both WP:NACADEMICS and the WP:GNG – can't find any independent sources that mention Abse independently of his more famous relatives. "Contributed to a journal" is not a claim to notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A GS h-index of 18 may pass WP:Prof#C1 in the field of psychology, and sources exist for WP:GNG Xxanthippe (talk).

• WP:PROF says "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied" (although I don't have much experience with that guideline so it may be that that part is ignored). Don't think h-index on its own is a good indicator of notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not notable enough. CLCStudent (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:JNN for an explanation of why that opinion will (or at least should) not be taken into account by the closer of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least as WP:AUTHOR, with over a 1,000 library holdings; he's not notable for WP:PROF of course, but the holdings are enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sources are about his more famous relatives and give him passing mention. Fails GNG - we don't have to beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Source here describes Abse as a distinguished psychiatrist, a paragraph here in NPR, a brief mention here. His paper was cited by 21, this one by 11, wrote a book here printed 8 years after his death, a brief mention here, and cited here and this paper was cited by 55. A reference says equally high-achieving but very different brothers, the important psychoanalyst Wilfred Abse (1914-2005).... Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boot[edit]

Geoffrey Boot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

constant inaccurate changes being made Hanbev (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Geoffrey Boot[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per John. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Estate agent with an expensive hobby, but he was on UK TV recently in a programme about air racing. The deleted, uncited claims appear to be true and could be reinstated if anyone was interested enough to do it properly. I came here to work out why he was being called "Baron" in the programme—an unusual title in England—and I know now. Helpful.--103.250.141.213 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Keep - Neither source confirms his notability, since one is local and the other has nothing to do with him. On the other hand, I don't mean to commit WP:ITSUSEFUL, but the IP editor above seems to suggest that this person might be notable for a sport or a historical example of someone who purchased the title of "Baron". I'll look into this. Jergling (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: He is a member of the Isle of Man House of Keys, which is a national parliamentary body. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this inherently passes GNG. See this news article: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/colourful-past-of-new-mhk-baron-boot-1-7462204 Jergling (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Gazette (a formal publication of UK central Government, BTW) entry indicates that his arms were awarded "with chapeau". Wikipedia again to the rescue: Barons in Scotland#Chapeau: It all depends whether his was a red hat (gules) or a blue hat (azure) to show whether his is an inherited title, with land, or one acquired by transfer. His 2011 success in the British Air Racing Champions Jubilee Trophy from the Royal Aero Club is documented here. The event is supposed to be modelled on the Schneider Trophy races, but they were historically important in aeroplane development. Nowadays only for hobby flyers.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:35, 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 keep. Seems like notability has been established on account of his role and the sources, which should probably be put to use in the article though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag[edit]

Pankaj Rag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NonNotable Civil Servant. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of this routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him Uncletomwood (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete pending much more RS coverage; that one source is good, but we need more than a single interview for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I !voted keep in the first afd, and I stand by that decision.

• Firstly subject is not only a civil servant but also author of around half a dozen books, a notable aspect that nominator missed.
• Sources such as this one published by The Economic Times and another by Indian Express definitely adds credibility to the claim of notability of subject.
• Additionally, full-page review of his book 1857: The Oral Tradition was published by almost all national mainstream media houses. It makes subject a strong candidate for inclusion per AUTHOR#3 too.
• Sources: Outlook India, Times of India, Tribune India, Telegraph India, Indian Express, The Hindu, The Hindu2, DNA.
• There are few hindi sources, I was able to find. This one says, Pankaj Rag has written a book titled Dhuno Ki Yatra on Indian film music, which is an excellent work in this field. Another one introduces subject as the famous hindi poet and historian. I believe all these sources give a fairer idea on the question of notability of subject.
• And why there is not a trillion sources for his books published in Hindi languages, Wikipedia Project India has an essay at WP:INDAFD to answer that. Anup [Talk] 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another significant coverage of subject as an author by Economic Times. Anup [Talk] 09:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable as Director-General of the National Archives of India, at least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reference in multiple reliable sources present and as mentioned by Anup, subject is also author of multiple books.Pratyush (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Author of multiple books reviewed in reliable sources such as the Times of India and the Economic Times. Director of the National Archives of the second-largest nation on Earth. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 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) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Safe[edit]

One Safe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a 5 minute film that was produced by User:Gbnproductions who has sought to promote it and himself. Nothing notable about the film. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reviews, no notable awards. Jergling (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless [24] can be considered a reliable source. The Geneva Film Festival ref is also blank. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could find no significant coverage of the film, or evidence of historical significance. However, per WP:NFO, a film doesn't necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if it has won a major award. This film has won a few it seems. If it was successfully argued that one of those awards was notable, then I would consider changing my vote to keep. Yvarta (talk) 01:36, 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) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Walker[edit]

Kevin L. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. A PROD nomination was removed by the author (who appears to have a COI based on contribution history, promotional tone, and off-wiki activity) with the reason "has appeared in multiple notable films". He has starred in one, but mere appearances in others don't mean much. The numerous sources in the article aren't coverage of the person, they are coverage of a recent film, giving trivial mentions to the person. Or they are primary sources (interviews and such). This fellow may be up-and-coming, but up-and-coming doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lots of references here but none of them appear to be reliable -- even if they were, there's nothing in them to establish notability, per @Amatulic:. A Train^talk 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. This is strictly a vanity page with an overabundance of links to notable entities, in an apparent attempt to inherit notability from them. The tone is over the top, and this article should be promptly deleted. Possibly Salt as the article was previously deleted (in 2011). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant over the top promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt as this article has shown enough to suggest, regardless of improvements, none would actually be substantial and convincing, the works listed are trivial and anything else added is simply attempting to mirror and sugarcoat it. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 27 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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arakkal Dhanwantari Temple[edit]

Arakkal Dhanwantari Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability FlorenceJoyner (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While the temple may exists, it seems quite improbable to reliably source the contents of article. Anup [Talk] 16:46, 11 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. The article topic does not appear to meet WP:NPOL Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Montt[edit]

Rodrigo Montt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. This article is a collection of minor achievements, includingh being candidate to deputy two times and being councillor of a commune. It is also promotional. Warko ^talk 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a place the size of Lo Barnechea is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and neither is being a non-winning candidate for higher office — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability: 1. It is councilor of a municipality, 2. He has been director of a major Chilean public institution as is General Directorate of Credit Pledgee (DICREP).AndyaAndya ^Andya 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Councillor of a municipality" does not pass WP:NPOL; municipal councillors qualify for Wikipedia articles because municipal councillor only in major internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto, London, Tokyo or Berlin. Lo Barnechea is not in that class of cities, so it's not a place where the municipal councillors get articles. (2) Being a director of a public institution is also not an automatic inclusion freebie — it can get a person into Wikipedia if there's enough reliable sourcing about them in that role to pass WP:GNG, but it is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be much better sourced than this is. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete failed candidates for national legislatures are not notable for such, only successful ones. In general local municipal councilors are not notable for their position and nothing suggests that Monttt would be otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 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 no consensus. While if you do a pure headcount there's a clear majority in favour of deleting, none of those "Delete" opinions even tried to address the reliability of the sources found by User:Cyphoidbomb. Odd changes from IP editors are not grounds for deletion. I suggest we come back in a few months and see if anything more has materialised, a second discussion might give a clearer picture. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil[edit]

Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recently created, unreferenced article consisting only of a cast list and an infobox that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since opening this nomination a very brief lead has been added. However, neither it nor any of the other changes in the 46 subsequent edits have included any sources, whatsoever. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect until ____ happens - Hi Aussie, using the Indian news search tool, I find some detailed mentions like this and this. This source is generally considered reliable, although they seem to be reporting rumors about the series being based on a film, and that the series will be shot in Austria. Not a great choice for content, but in terms of multiple reliable sources presenting significant coverage, I'd say that the GNG threshold is probably met. As far as I know, the TV WikiProject doesn't have specific notability criteria akin to WP:NFF, which requires that some aspect of production (ex: principal photography) commence before an article can be created, so I don't know how this series would be any different than, say, any upcoming Nickelodeon TV series article for which there were few reliably published details. So I lean toward keep, but also think a redirect might be an alternative until ____ criterion is satisfied, whatever that would be. (Seems like something the WikiProject TV community would have to discuss.) For instance, if we said that an article should not be created until a reliable published source releases a proposed launch date, then this article might be a candidate for redirect until a reliable source announced a premiere date. This source indicates a speculated October 2016 premiere, but BollywoodLife fails WP:UGC in my experienced opinion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've added some sources, which started to sway me but now we have anonymous editors removing the sourced content and adding unsourced claims in its place, so I'm not sure where to go. Maybe redirection with the redirect being indef semi-protected? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's up with that? Redirect could be an option. The claim that it has been moved to 2017 makes me a little more wary about maintaining the article, but homeboy didn't source that, so I dunno either. I'm starting to feel like erring on the side of "too soon" might be the way to go. It's hard to justify an article when there's very little being said about it. The series is supposed to air next month but nobody's written anything about it? Seems weak. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am aware of what this is. The channel unofficially declared that the show might not be broadcasted at all. So it can be just a hoax. It can be created later when things are more perfect. VarunFEB2003 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I see speculation, gossip and trivial coverage of this thing, nothing substantial. Anup [Talk] 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Anup on this one. FalconK (talk) 05:19, 5 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 move. Consensus is that Ibiza Rocks would be notable. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiza Rocks Hotel[edit]

Ibiza Rocks Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only one proper source - BBC - which on the face of it appears to partially convey notability, however it doesn't really. It's an archive of a radio show from 5 years ago and just mentions the venue name and nothing else. Other results on a search are run of the mill mentions of a hotel on the party isle. If anything, I would've thought Ibiza Rocks itself (the entire brand, not the hotel) would have its own article and this would've been a subsection on there. I'm surprised it didn't have its own article, but at the same time, I can't see anything that helps the hotel pass GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I didn't realise this article already had been nominated and had passed 4K/4D. The most obvious advocate was Dr Blofeld who posted 15 sources, which at first view would unequivocally support passing GNG. However I looked into this. The sum of all to me lends itself to incidental mentions rather than significant coverage. Here's my detailed findings

1. Source 1 Perhaps considered strong coverage. Cannot locate original but seems bordering on an advertorial?
2. Source 2 Seems to be about the festival rather than the hotel - although the hotel is mentioned in the headline
3. Source 3 Again mainly about the event rather than the hotel, but does mention the hotel as the venue. Editorial content by a non-notable travel company
4. Source 4 A competition giving away tickets to a gig at Ibiza Rocks. No mention of the hotel.
5. Source 5 False positive? Has words 'Ibiza' and 'Rocks' but separately, no mention of anything Ibiza Rocks related (within the free preview)
6. Source 6 Decent coverage of the project prior to its opening
7. Source 7 Industry publication. About the concept of Ibiza Rocks which I must again stress is a separate but linked entity to the hotel from a wiki perspective
8. Source 8 A rape took place at the hotel. It was mentioned as the location of the crime. Absolutely an incidental mention and not significant coverage
9. Source 9 Another false positive. Has Ibiza and Rocking in headline but no mention of Ibiza Rocks Hotel. Does mention another hotel, Pikes Hotel, part of the Ibiza Rocks brand but again separate. Has its own article.
10. Source 10 Mentioned as part of a journo's summary of their trip to Ibiza
11. Source 11 = not found
12. Source 12 False positive, again about the other venue.
13. Source 13 Mentioned in Billboard in small article about launch of Mallorca Rocks
14. Source 14 The event more than the venue is mentioned in the listing in this 677 page book of European party destinations. The book is not notable. If we said books like this convey notability, just about every licensed premises in the world will be fighting to put their own article on here.
15. Source 15 a repeat of 13

Whilst anecdotally I always expected the entire brand to be notable enough to warrant an article, I don't believe what I see for the hotel is sufficient having looked into it. I think coverage warrants an Ibiza Rocks umbrella article encompassing the event and venue, info on offshoots like Mallorca Rocks and info on Pikes Hotel. I just don't think there's enough to warrant a stand-alone article, especially in the absence of one for the brand and feel it would probably be better presented in the manner just described. (If I had the foresight and knowledge, I would've created the article, populated it, moved some info over and redirected.)Rayman60 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to the brand and allow revision there. Both nominator and Rayman60 comment that in their opinion a page on the brand is warranted, and the hotel could be covered there. This is silly. Just move the stupid page and allow refocusing there. --doncram 21:40, 7 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libido Blume[edit]

Libido Blume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Band without any indication of notability per WP:MUSIC. There are sources, but they don't show how the band clearly meets any of the criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:

Please check links and references in order to assess notability

CocoMusic (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)CocoMusic[reply]

Okay. Reviewing what's there at the time I nominated:

1. Dimatitis: Unable to assess, will assume there's at least a page on the band (and see #7).
2. Blogspot: Not reliable.
3. BJCEM: Does not give any in-depth coverage.
4. Mic: Album review.
5. Avopolis: Article is on Sigmatropic, not Libido Blume.
6. Postwave: Again, article is on Sigmatropic.
7. Rocking: Quotes wholesale from Dimatitis.
8. Second Avopolis cite: duplicate of Rocking.

So, I think we have exactly one source, and it's not clear from the article or from the soures that the band meets WP:MUSIC. I guess WP:GNG can be looked at as a reason for deletion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 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 Sly Cooper#Characters. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sly Cooper characters[edit]

List of Sly Cooper characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another long, long list of non-notable characters from a video game series, written from an in-universe style. Unsourced. A quick search on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine shows very little results. No in-depth coverage, development or reception of the characters. Redirect to Sly Cooper. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There are really only four principle characters that are in the series, the rest nearly all one-shots that can be briefly mentioned in the specific games. These characters can be easily summarized on the series page. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. 831⁄2k of unsourced prose... incredible. Like all other articles, there are no sourced claims to independent notability of the character set here. Cover it in the character section of its parent article and expand summary style. Can always merge from the page history as needed. czar 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. There's really no need to keep any of the content in a case like this, so either outcome is fine. Without sources to establish overall notability for the topic, there is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sly_Cooper#Characters. The characters do not appear particularly notable outside of the series, and sourcing is virtually nonexistent. There doesn't appear to be much to merge here, as the major/secondary characters are already covered in that article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a list of characters from notable fictional franchise. As such, the topic is notable because the parent article is notable. This is not "inherited" notability, as the list could be appropriately merged into the article... but there's simply no need to do so. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Im confused. Your stance is literally the definition of "inherited", and then you end it with "but I'm not talking about it being inherited". Please explain how it's notable, without any third party coverage, without its notability being inherited from the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inherited would be The Force Awakens not being automagically notable since Star Wars was. A list of Star Wars: A New Hope characters (ignoring the fact that that's a clearly notable list for purposes of an example) is a subset of the topic 'Star Wars', and per WP:SS could be merged into that article and exist there using its coverage to demonstrate notability. There's a fundamental difference between "Is an element of..." and "Is a successor to..." and fictional characters lists have the same notability as the works in which they appear, but are simply put into their own lists for readability's sake. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even ignoring the fact that that still sounds an awful lot like splitting hars to avoid an "inherited" issue, there's still issues with your argument. Splitting per WP:SS is recommended upon a particularly large article size. The Sly Cooper parent article is barely at 50K including formatting text, and the character list info, if properly written, would be far far shorter. There's no size reason for this to be split off either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect- per nom. It is simply not true that a character list article is automatically notable if the parent work of fiction is. Even if that were so, this article is completely unsourced, chock-a-block full of badly written excessive trivia, and written in an in-universe style. There is no content here that could be conceivably kept in any form. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The characters don't receive coverage themselves. It's almost entirely wikia-style plot rehashing, so I don't even see anything worth merging that isn't already present in the game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & then redirect to Sly_Cooper#Characters. Unreferenced essay and original research, with no secondary sources covering this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 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) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Net Timoney[edit]

Net Timoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass WP:NARTIST. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 17:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA biography by User:Spacecadetnet on a recent graduate. Given references on a student work auction etc. do not meet the WP:NARTIST or broader WP:BASIC criteria, nor am I finding anything better. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. The subject graduated from art school two years ago. Please! Bearian (talk) 18:46, 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) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E Sharp (programming language)[edit]

E Sharp (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability, no outside sourcing, and a quick Google search didn't bring up anything that didn't appear to be scraped from here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just another non-notable abandoned software project. I can't find any secondary sourcing, code.google.com is shutdown and the project never migrated elsewhere. Looking at the commit history it was never updated after it was uploaded. — Strongjam (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No refs except to the project's Google Code page, which seems not to have been updated for years. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:35, 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 move and rename to List of murdered hip hop musicians.. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased hip hop artists[edit]

List of deceased hip hop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Rename to List of murdered hip hop musicians and purge. Because all human beings eventually die and hip hop musicians are human beings, as currently constituted this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Hip hop musicians do have a greater tendency than musicians in other genres to die of violent causes (e.g. gunshots) rather than natural ones, so that's a noteworthy constraint that can be placed on the list -- but a list of all hip hop musicians who ever died of any cause at all will eventually include all hip hop musicians who ever lived at all, so it's not a useful or maintainable list in its current form. The list should accordingly be renamed and purged to include only those who died in a noteworthy way, rather than indiscriminately including all deaths. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - List should included only those who did not die a natural death. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There were very similar suggestions to rename at the last AfD, but it was never done. I decided to just do it myself. The large number of non-manslaughter deaths caused a bit of a problem. I separated the two categories into separate lists and renamed the article as Lists. The idea can of course be improved. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Bearcat. Dying in and of itself is not a useful criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as I suggested a while back on the talk page. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Eventually, they'll all be dead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This list will eventually be obscenely long considering that everyone dies and the list will be never ending. This list is more about hip hop musicians who died somewhat young (62-ish or younger). Velociraptor888 18:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

93 Feet East[edit]

93 Feet East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

shocking article. completely unreferenced. just a few lines of promotional text. Rayman60 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This is a WP:G11 candidate if I've ever seen one. No assertion of notability is made, and it is basically a sales brochure. Safehaven86 (talk)
• Speedy Delete completely promotional and non-notable. MB 16:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would speedy it myself it if hadn't somehow existed since 2004, and looking at the history it's never been any better than this. The things you find in the far reaches of Wikipedia ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 93 Feet East is actually a pretty well-known live music venue in east London: I've seen several gigs there. But yeah, that doesn't count as evidence of notability, and apart from this article in London's Evening Standard when the club was forced to close down for a few months in 2013, there's nothing else I can find, so delete. Richard3120 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indeed, I am familiar with the venue too, expected notability as it is of *some* importance in the London night scene....however appears not to quite have anything beyond listings etc. Also am shocked at how that article stood in that form for over 2 years!!!!!Rayman60 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the venue is part of the redevelopment of the old Truman's Brewery on Brick Lane I agree with a point in the previous AfD that you could well get an interesting article out of the brewery's redevelopment, and therefore there might be more coverage of the venue in an architecture or construction magazine rather than a music magazine. A redirect to Black Eagle Brewery#Old Truman Brewery is also a possibility here. Richard3120 (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am finding some sourcing, like Evening Standard, The Guardian and NME. A redirect is fine with me, or else just trying to start this article over from scratch. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would quite like to see a good rewrite, even a short one. It's the sort of thing that is plausibly notable, but the sourcing is proving the difficult part - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just made myself WP:INVOLVED by declining the speedy deletion. I just suggest that options other than outright speedy deletion should be considered. AfD is not for cleanup, but it's also^{[citation needed]} for looking into other solutions. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising with content such as:

• "Available for hire for corporate conferences and business meetings, birthday parties as well as showcases, screenings, photo shoots, filming and more."

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 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) 05:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RPGamer[edit]

RPGamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find any sources that would back up its notability here. The sources used in the article is from GameFAQs, Alexa and its own website. GamerPro64 16:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it stands, unless we get RSes actually about the site - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried a few simple searches, but they mostly just turned up trivial mentions, such as "according to rpgamer, the game will be released next week" or whatever. That's good for establishing reliability, but it can't establish notability. I tried a few more restrictive searches to find hits about the site's history, but the best I could find was this one-sentence mention. I don't think there's significant coverage of the site itself. Too bad; I'd prefer we had articles on reliable sources cited on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:16, 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) 05:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Mee[edit]

Chelsea Mee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. All but two of the sources are IMDB links, the other two sources aren't secondary. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON as most of her credits are for unreleased projects. Strongjam (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neither Youtube nor IMDb are reliable sources, we can not build an article on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are informed of the afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Article is unsourced, self-published or agency writeup published. No significant roles in films. The films aren't even notable, and the one that has a link she isn't star billing so doesn't meet WP:ENT. No news articles on google search. So she's in a show called Empire for an episode as one of the celebrities that walk on the red carpet? How is that notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This one looks like a total PR piece. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gyant[edit]

Gyant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable blogger with minimal significant/independent/reliable coverage Rayman60 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow. How has this stood for so long? It's ref'd entirely to primary sources by the subject of the article. (On a funnier note, I was pronouncing it "G-yant" instead of "Giant" the whole time I was reading the article) Jergling (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not have adequate indicia of notability. Is this even a real person? Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per WP:NOT.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:33, 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nona Creative[edit]

Nona Creative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Rely on non-credible media references. Merely connecting articles. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No News feed is found on search. No significant coverage by independent media. Total 20 Employee, not publicly listed. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it stands - the refs are terrible (what slightly RSes there are are corporation deals or passing mentions) and fail to demonstrate WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. Deepest source is a podcast interview on a blog. That's quite apart from the obviously promotional nature of the text - David Gerard (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to be a notable South African company. I improved the article's sourcing and removed the swaths of promotional texts. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked your changes. Mostly your listed cites literally don't support the claims they're against. (I moved one to the claim it actually supports.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks for the improvements. I still think the available sourcing pushes this company over WP:GNG, but the article itself can obviously still be very much improved. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as both the information and sources are PR-based, the company of course is going to have a PR environment so sources cannot immediately be said as convincing; with this said, there's no substance of an article. The Keep vote claims there's somehow enough for GNG, but how can this be if the article noticeably has no substantial claims of independent notability, let alone substantial sourcing? (The article essentially Sony states what there is to advertise about the company) SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no claim of notability or significance; sources are not there to meet GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ive said before, just because a company is in South Africa and not the west, doesnt mean its not significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That hasn't been the delete reason for any of the people above. The article's sourcing actually needs fixing and notability demonstrated - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 27 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabir Parry[edit]

Shabir Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. References provided are primary, social media or blog links. I cannot find any reliable sources to confirm notable role in upcoming soap opera.  GILO   A&E⇑ 14:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-reliable sources. Could not locate reliable sources for notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability, and the sources used are first party or non-reliable. JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "An upcoming actor in an uncoming Tv soap opera"? created by a single-purpose account who is definitely either him or someone closely related. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Anup [Talk] 04:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Laks[edit]

Jona Laks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reviewing articles for notability and bringing them here is a task that sometimes bring bad karma, and it is with some sadness that I bring this one here. Still, personal feelings aside, I do think that this Holocaust survivor is not meeting WP:BIO. Her name does appear in several news stories and books, but in passing: like most Holocaust survivors, she was interviewed, including both scholars and media like BBC, and her story is briefly - in one of two paragraphs at most - mentioned in several sources, but I count only several. She is an activist, and that got her several more mentions, up to an including a speech in front of UN. However, that's all I see. No in-depth coverage, and we do not have any rule saying that Holocaust survivors are notable. This one-sentence biography cannot be expanded beyond a short paragraph at most (through I do know that shortness is not a reason for deletion). Please note she is already mentioned at List_of_victims_and_survivors_of_Auschwitz with the exact same sentence that accompanies her bio: "One of the "Mengele twins" who was selected and used for involuntary medical experiments.". With all due respect, we do not need a one-sentence bio that repeats that, inclusion in the list is perfectly sufficient. I suggest redirecting it there, and perhaps adding a sentence to the list about her activism, this will fully complete any coverage of her we may have. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Page could be easily expanded. I've been working on some Olympian articles, but I believe this article could definitely make it to DYK with some effort, and perhaps even GA. From WP:NBIO, The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. - A documentary film, making of an organisation (such as Eva Kor) and more don't qualify? There are no primary sources. All sources are reliable. Many other news sources covered it thoroughly. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded as much as I could, but all that I was able to do is to add 2 more short sentences. If you can do more, with sources that show she received in-depth coverage, I'd be happy to withdraw my nom. I do think that merging to the list is the best outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have expanded the article, but so far I do not see that we are saying anything except she survived the holocaust, became an acitivst, spoke in front of UN and had several interviews. Still no in-depth coverage, and with utmost respect for her ordeal and sincere appreciation for her activism, neither seems to make her notable by itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 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) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I expanded the article with reliable sources. Anyone who has spoken before the United Nations General Assembly and appeared in several documentary films speaking about the Mengele twins experiments, not to mention chairs an organization, is certainly notable IMO. Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do commend you on squeezing everything possible from the sources; if this survives the DYK I'd be happy to positively review this for a DYK. However, until this is kept, I still stand by that speaking in front of a UN and appearing in one documentary (not about her, she was just one of the subjects of it) is not sufficient for notability, since I can't match those events with any GNG requirements. And certainly chairing a minor activist organization that has practically no media footprint, is not notable, and we most certainly DO NOT have any criteria that states chairs of organizations are notable. PS. I do find it annoying that she seems less notable then a plethora of minor sports and entertainment celebrities, but that's a problem with the policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She was many of the subjects of Mengel's brutality. There is no justification for having a stand along article. Her actions and the coverage do not merit one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for Closer - I hope consensus is established and it is not relisted, as to conform with the DYK "Expanded at least fivefold" guideline. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]