< 24 September	26 September >

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Metzler[edit]

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

Upon first glance of a search of Metzler, it doesn't yield much outside of a few items. Sure he produced "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" for which he won an Emmy and PGA Award for, currently produces "Catfish: The TV Show," and won an Environmental Media Award for "The Lazy Environmentalist." But outside of that, he doesn't seem notable. Who ever created the article didn't bother adding any information or sources. Looking at the edit history, in nearly four years of the article page being around no progress has been made to get the article to a suitable point in which it shows notability of said person. Looking at Golfer1000x's talk page, they have recieved a couple of AfD notices, but nothing can be found in regards to that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom the NYT source is good, but I'm not sure we can swing a BLP on a single source. I'm actually surprised I couldn't turn up more in a basic BEFORE, and that quite a lot of the GNews hits I get are for other people of the same name - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 9 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 delete. Per lack of notability which was not contested. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion; merge didn't gain consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Living[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: sufficient in-depth RS coverage cannot be found. Previous AfD closes as keep; however, only one source was presented, which does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article has been extensively edited by apparent COI accounts (followed by reverts), so potential for further WP:PROMO time sink exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Personally I don't see that WP:GNG or WP:NCORP are established by the references in the article itself. However, with consideration to the previous AfD discussion (which seemed to establish notability on the basis of sources not actually mentioned or linked in the article), one imagines the 2 sentences in the stub could be merged/redirected to the Agora, Inc. article (erstwhile parent company?), or Bill Bonner (author) article (founder?), or a similar article. Personally I'd add a "publications" section to the Bill Bonner (author) article, merge the 2 sentences into that section, and make the source article a redirect. Per nominator, what little (non promo) content that might be added here wouldn't seem to warrant a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment-- a Redirect / Merge to Bill Bonner (author) would be an acceptable solution, as he's the primary driver behind the publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Strike comment per discussion below. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant coverage required for this to exist. The magazine fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I'm agnostic to a redirect but I don't think it should be merged. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in Bill Bonner (author) article, and ((R to article without mention))s should be avoided, although it seems that he has higher influence on this topic than The Agora. If this is to be redirected, neither target would be more suitable than the other, so delete. SST flyer 16:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Living participants who mentioned sources not discussed here or in the article: ukexpat (talk · contribs), JediLofty (talk · contribs), Ravenswing (talk · contribs), John Z (talk · contribs), and Mike Linksvayer (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 23:32, 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) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B/SPOKE Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not appear to meet WP:GNG. While I found one good Boston Globe source, I can't find any substantial coverage elsewhere. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge South railway station[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Concern was: sources talk only of feasibility studies; there are no firm proposals, no money has been allotted, nothing is certain. Most importantly, no contracts for construction have been signed. A Google search turns up very little that isn't about Cambridge railway station plus the word "south" out of context. Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and articles on any other proposed stations) per WP:CRYSTAL. The view has been taken in the past that it may be legitimate to have a single article on a proposed transport infrastructure scheme, but articles on individual stations are premature until the scheme is under construction, or (at worst) has been fully funded and has all requisite approvals, so that it is reasonably certain that it will actually be built. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Until it's actually under construction I would say this runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Mattximus (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Fernández[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to credibly establish WP:NBIO in its current state. Completely unsourced, other than official website and IMDB. Murph9000 (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of good sourcing, and this currently reads like a promo piece Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources is especially problematic for BLPs, which essentially require an abundance of reliable, in-depth, third-party sources. Additionally, it seems that someone claiming to be the subject of the article has been requesting that we remove her date of birth from the article, apparently because of age discrimination in her industry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a professional casting database; the best solution, if this actress's biography cannot be reliably sourced, is not to selectively cut out encyclopedic information -- it's to delete the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Morcheeba. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Godfrey (lyricist)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul Godfrey is a notable musician as he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart and has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. These are stated in criteria for musicians and ensembles on Wikipedia:Notability (music) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfov (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your vote given the note that follows the criteria for musicians and ensembles at WP:NMG. Gab4gab (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability given the sources in the article. Searching located nothing helpful. Subject is mentioned in Morcheeba so a redirect to that article would be acceptable too. Gab4gab (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morcheeba. That group had the hit recordings, not Godfrey as an individual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morcheeba. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Darlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable adult actress; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The subject does not meet PORNBIO as the awards are scene-related or fan-based.

The article was discussed at AfD in 2007 with the decision to keep, based on 200+ films and AVN award nominations. PORNBIO has been tightened since then and I believe this article can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP as an article that cites no reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite specific BLP problems. Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as I said perfectly clearly, that the article cites no reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is "perfectly clear" is that you have not cited any specific BLP problems. Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The defeat of the AFD back in 2007 is one of many decisions in 2007 that were unwise and that have given Wikipedia a very poor reputation as to how it treats women, generally as objects of male gaze valued for their ability to attack such as opposed to as human beings. It was called a "bad faith" nomination even though people supporting deletion rightly pointed out a lack of reliable sources. It is high time that pornographic actress bios be held to standard GNG rules, and this one comes no where near meeting such rules, and should be deleted with all deliberate speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No genuinely qualifying awards or substantive RS coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:53, 2 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 keep based on AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sock manufacturers[edit]

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

Non-notable list lacking any sources Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not for the nominator's reasons. Unless something more than the manufacturers' names is included, it's really just a knockoff of Category:Hosiery brands (or subcategory, if there are companies that make only socks). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less than enthusiastic about this, but what makes this argument not a WP:NOTDUP scenario? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pls see below; Original comment: per WP:PROMO, at least where Injinji is concerned. Note the prominent photo with the logo showing. The Injinji article is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Injinji. The same editor Special:Contributions/PlaneDesigner created both pages, so the purpose was most likely to prop up the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the two entries without articles and the image. For something to be deleted on promotional grounds it should really be more than a matter of removing an entry or two and an image (or almost every list would have periods of time when it would qualify for deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Socks. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. I have added some sources to the article for starters. Also, this article is not promotional, and has no promotional tone whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per northamerica Pwolit iets (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Very weak keep. Should be renamed List of hosiery brands, though, and added to, but it seems like a meh navigational page (most "list of [product category] brands"). There are plenty of sources for lists of sock/hosiery brands to justify WP:LISTN. Not redundant to the category per WP:NOTDUP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete -- the PROMO issues have been addressed, but it still seems redundant to Category:Hosiery brands. Since the main contributor was most likely a COI editor,I'm not sure who would maintain or expand the list. The category seems sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NOTDUP; categories and lists are considered to be complementary, rather than redundant. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Luiz Ayres da Cunha Santos-Reis[edit]

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

CEO of the subsidiary of a major company. Were he CEO of the conglomerate,there might be sufficient material for an article. But I don't see it here. Only contribution by its editor, Wikiedit800, and it reads like PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR puff piece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mere résumé. Only half the sources are independent, and one of these independent references barely mentions him. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 12:27, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Ćuković[edit]

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

Though it is difficult to tell from the sources available, I do not see how what is here amountst o notability DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found one source which is from google scholar, Therefore failing BIO and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Gold Weekend (radio program)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tight definition of notability if you don't consider a radio program that airs on multiple stations across the United States as notable. The only negative against the listing is that this is a new program. Other programs that are similar in nature have Wikipedia pages. --David100b (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me some reliable independant sources that cover the subject explicitly? Adam9007 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syndication to multiple stations is technically a valid notability claim per WP:NMEDIA, if it's properly sourced to reliable source coverage about the program. It is not, however, a freebie that allows a program to keep an unsourced article just because syndication is asserted — as with all Wikipedia notability claims, it's not the mere assertion of passing a notability criterionthat passes the notability criterion, but the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim. So until real reliable source coverage in real media can actually be shown, notability is not satisfied. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when proper reliable source coverage can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESV Study Bible[edit]

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

This is a product which has no reason to be on the Wiki. Not every book or product requires an article on the Wiki. Please delete with haste. Even if this article is sourced correctly or even rewritten I see no reason to keep it. DeusImperator (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been given. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and/or WP:SNOW Keep - Obvious notability, no valid reason given for deletion. Fieari (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nominator does not clarify why the article should be deleted. - Taketa (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has enough references to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, plenty of references covering reception, etc. already in the article. Nom appears to need to understand deletion/inclusion criteria better. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This work has enough sources to qualify as notable, barely. But in the end it does. Basileias (talk) 22:44, 2 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listeq[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve or Delete: The company may be notable but the article needs to show additional references from reputable and ideally international or national media. Current reference list is lacking of those from what I can see. If those can be added ASAP to demonstrate notability, I suggest we keep the article. If not, delete it. Coverage of notable software companies undoubtedly adds value to various wikipedia readers. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; a product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INSIGNIFICANCE and a Wikipedia search on the topic refutes your claim that the topic is insignificant.
Desktop Virtualization states, "Forrester Research identified in its report the Forrester Wave on Server-Hosted Virtual Desktops (VDI), Q3 2015 [3] the seven most significant software providers, being Citrix, Dell, LISTEQ, Microsoft, Nimboxx, Oracle, and VMware." Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst firms, including Forrester, do not have a reputation for fact checking. These reports are based on briefings by the companies in questions; the firms do not independently do their analysis. I would not consider "named as one of 7 providers in a niche market by an industry analyst firm" to be sufficient for establishing encyclopedia notability. Forrester in this case is not RS, and it may be a primary source; I believe that's how reports and monographs are treated, being self-published by Forrester in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proof by assertion was that there were "no indications of...significance" for LISTEQ. I've shown you two different definitions which were more than "indications" that the topic was significant. For the second you've switched to talking about notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 3 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wakoopa[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I wrote the article nearly a decade ago because I was using the app. It seems to have shifted significantly from its original purpose and so the article is pretty irrelavant now. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia deletion policy, but I have no objection to removing it as it does indeed seem pretty non-notable these days. Eplack (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Startups pivoting to a new business model is actually pretty common, and does not make an article irrelevant, just out-dated and in need of updating. Notability is a whole different matter, of course. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The firm now appears to be part of GfK following its acquisition of NetQuest in early 2016 ("It also includes the company’s subsidiary Wakoopa"). That gives a possible merge target, unless the earlier social network phase of Wakoopa merits keeping a distinct article. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertizing-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to GfK; nothing here to support independent notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as typical "corporate spam". I don't see a point of merging as the article under discussion does not list any sources. If desired, sources identified at the AfD could be added to parent company GfK, but at present it does not mention the subject, so a redirect would be confusing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability and lack of sourcing makes it problematic. Don't see much material that if merged would lead to an improvement of the parent company article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 3 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KE Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I appreciate that as I wrote the article my view may not be valid here, but I should point out that it is a significant company because of its role in developing what has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia ISBN 978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7. hence meets WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.Garyvines (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TNT - " It has been described as "...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services."" in the intro, and the cite is to a reprinted press release. Given a start like that I flatly don't trust the offline sourcing to be any good. It would need a rewrite with each and every claimed good-looking source directly verified as actually backing the claim - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about we take out the promo quote and rely in the Hart and Hallett article and the numerous albeit brief references from organisations that use the software, to show notability? It may be a specialist proprietary software, but given its extensive role in museums and galleries, and in comparison to some of the more obscure relational databases listed here, I would have thought it was an appropriate candidate to keep with a bit more editing of the article.Garyvines (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for further comparison see Vernon Systems.Garyvines (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself had commented Delete at the first AfD, this in fact is still in and of itself an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company wants to say about itself, and the sources equally show this in that they are not convincing either. No other actions have been made to attempt actually fixing this article, and it seems it's because it cannnot be improved, especially if only existing as an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but the Hart and Hallett article, and the others cited above by me, are not advertising, while the large number of museums and galleries using the software is demonstrated by the numerous references from those organisations - i.e. they don't come from the company.Garyvines (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Agree with Garyvines that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:Company because the company's software "has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia ISBN 978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7.Mbridge3000 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said earlier, on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GN, and arguments that it does not amount to quibbling. If you really try hard enough, its possible to attack almost any source whatever, Ref 40 in particular isa very helpful 3rd party published source. In any case, leader in its field is indeed a better standard of suitability for a WP article than the arbitrary standard of GNG--it sayssomething about thr RW. I've rarely !voted to delete and article that shows that if the status is worldwide, and rarely if even if it is a major country. It has a little content that is a bit the promotional side, which I'm in the process of adjusting. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nerlaska Studio[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a corporate blurb. No indications of notability or significance, and no RS available to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertorial article that exists, clearly, for nothing else but to advertise what there is to know about the company, and then there's not actually any acceptable sourcing, let alone convincing, as they are simply the company websites, that itself is PR and that alone. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Software[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Imo the reason for declining a speedy onn this one was pretty shonky.TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; a product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a barely 2-year-old company and it only lists company activities which suggest alone there's not the needed substance, let alone convincing, and the sources themselves simply state the expected unconvincing information about what there is to know about the company, none of it amounts to substance either. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Printr[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I highly doubt this company is "like over thousands in the world". They seem pretty unique in the niche they are targeting within the 3d marketplace. But they also do not yet have enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is cobbled-together promotional coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to promote the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this clearly only exists an advertorial business listing, from going to specifics about the company's business and information to then actually having PR and unconvincing sources, none of this amounts to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Rangers vs. Hartford Whalers[edit]

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

Also nominating for deletion-

New York Rangers vs. Anaheim Ducks‎
New York Rangers vs. Buffalo Sabres
New York Rangers vs. Los Angeles Kings
New York Rangers vs. Quebec Nordiques
New York Rangers vs. Tampa Bay Lightning
New York Rangers vs. Boston Bruins
New York Rangers vs. Montreal Canadiens
New York Rangers vs. Pittsburgh Penguins

The two teams played one another yearly but so do other teams. No proof this was a rivalry or a notable one. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not a single one of these is an actual rivalry, either past or present. Merely two teams that play in the same league. Resolute 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @WilliamJE: - can you add New York Rangers vs. Buffalo Sabres as well? It merits deletion for the same reason. Resolute 18:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Resolute:Done....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WilliamJE: Can you also add New York Rangers vs. Boston Bruins, New York Rangers vs. Montreal Canadiens, New York Rangers vs. Pittsburgh Penguins, Toronto Blue Jays opponents, Talk:Toronto Blue Jays vs. Arizona Diamondbacks? All of these articles are just very poor lists that don't have any info apart from headings' names... – Sabbatino (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sabbatino: I nominated the other Ranger articles and added them to this AFD. The Toronto talk page I nominated for speedy deletion because it had no article. The Toronto Blue Jays opponents article I nominated for deletion but separately. It can be found here[1]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely trivial and incomplete articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some, keep some - Most of these "rivalries" are trivial, per the nom. But others are not. To say that the Rangers and Bruins never had a genuine rivalry shows ignorance of the teams' histories at least throughout the 70s and perhaps early 80s, when they met in the Stanley Cup finals once and in the late rounds of the playoffs other times, there were controversial trades between the teams, and the rivalry got so intense it spilled into a fight between players and fans in the stands. Beyond that, the statement that "the two teams played one another yearly but so do other teams" is nonsensical, since the Bruins and Rangers are both original 6 teams that for 40 years played each other more than a dozen times a year, plus potential playoff meetings, including another Stanley Cup final. I don't think the rivalry between the Canadiens and Rangers has been as intense over the years, but these are also teams that have played each other for 90 years, including 40 during the 6 team era, and have many playoff series and at least one Stanley Cup final. I am more on the fence with the Penguins; the Rangers and Penguins have been division rivals on and off and during the early 90s in particular the rivalry became quite intense. So I would say keep Bruins and Canadiens, possibly keep Penguins, and delete the rest. Of course my keep votes are contingent on these articles being improved - they are sketches now but they are brand new so they deserve an opportunty to be expanded. Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless significant work is done that establishes the notability of any of these as "rivalries". The WP:ONUS is on the author (or anyone wanting to keep these as articles) to find those sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remember the rivalry existing isn't enough. It has to be written about in depth in multiple sources like any other subject. This is the case for very few rivalries. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but Rangers-Bruins rivalry has been. Here a whole book about the 1970s portion of the rivalry. Here is article about the rivalry from the New York Times. Here is a short article describing a portion of the history of this rivalry. Here is another article that discusses the history of Rangers-Bruins with some depth, with quotes such as "There have been times, however, when this rivalry was red-hot" and "During the late ’60s and into the ’70s, the rivalry was renewed in full." And notability is not temporary. Here is an article discussing Rangers-Bruins as one of the Rangers' best rivalries (Canadiens and Penguins are also here, not very surprisingly). Here is another article with some information about the Rangers-Bruins rivalry in the context of the overall Boston/New York sports rivalry. There is a lot more in depth coverage of this rivalry than that between the vast majority of pairs of teams. Even if this isn't enough (and I think it is more than enough), there is no way this should be discussed in the same context of non-entities such as Rangere-Mighty Ducks or Rangers-Whalers. Obviously the article needs improvement but since it only was created a few days ago there should be time for that before deleting. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. About the only one that 'might' pass as a noteworthy rivalry, is the Rangers/Penguins. But even that doesn't compare to the write ups on Rangers/Islanders. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it's a blog, but this site regards the Bruins as the Rangers' 4th biggest rivalry, behind the obvious Islanders, Flyers and Devils and actually 1 ahead of the Penguins. Rlendog (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacherreport is not a WP:RS. I never use it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But the multiple sources I listed in my reply to DJSasso are all RSes, and just the ones that were easily found on the first few Google pages. Since the most intense portions of the rivalry were prior to the internet, there are likely far more than that out there. Rlendog (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching a little further on the internet, this book goes on for several pages on the Rangers-Bruins rivalry in the early 1970s. The end of this article has several paragraphs on their rivalry in the late 1930s/early 1940s. This article does add a tremendous amount but does breifly describe the teams "Old Rivalry" prior to that. Rlendog (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this book couches the Brad Park-Bobby Orr rivalry within the context of the 1970s Rangers-Bruins rivalry. I can't see into this book but the Google search snippet says "To increase interest in the Park-Orr comparison, the Rangers and the Bruins established a bitter rivalry in the early 1970's. Their games were high-strung and frantic, often laced with fights and tough checking by both teams. When they met in ..." so there is clearly some information about that rivalry here, albeit hard to determine how much. this book states that this rivalry "had reached a fever pitch and got even steamier after Park decideed to write his autobiography" and continues for a few paragraphs discussing the rivalry, including the trade of Park to Boston (and also indicates that Park's autobiography contains relevant information to this rivalry. Sure a blog is not a reliable source, but I only used that as a piece that explicitly compared the Rangers-Bruins rivalry to the Rangers-Penguins. Dismissing the blog does not address the actual evidence from reliable sources that the Bruins-Rangers rivalry is notable. 12:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm fine with removing the Bruins-Rangers article from the nomination, but some work needs to be done with it, clearly, or it should be deleted as empty. Rlendog, the creator is clearly a newer user. Perhaps you could use this article to show them a good way to edit and make a rivalry article viable? Reso lute 22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense. This would be a good oportunity to help teach a new user. And if the article continues to remain essentially empty, then I agree it would be appropriate to delete, albeit as an empty article, not because the topic is non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah those are my thoughts as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- non notable trivia and fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the links to coverage I provided, what is your basis for the claim that the Rangers-Bruins rivalry is "non-notable trivia"? Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 4 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 no consensus. However, this can, and should, be renominated at any time should there be a consensus that the additional sources produced during this AfD are lacking. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Dinah Elizabeth Pearce[edit]

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

A tribute, not a WP article. no actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to the article talkpage so that participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Dinah Elizabeth Pearce. The present name implies that her father was an earl or above. Strictly she was Dinah Elizabeth, Lady Pearce. We do not normally include Sir in article titles, except baronets where the baronetcy is also part of her title. This should be applied to the wives of knight and baronets in the same way: they did not hold the title in their own right, only by marriage. However, inclusion in a one-volume biographical dictionary published by a university press ought to be sufficient evidence of her notability. I accept that we normally apply that rule to DNB and ODNB in UK, but we should not be too strict in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources in the article (Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women being a very good one), and online that allow her to pass GNG. If the article is too "tribute-y" we can rewrite. Govan Remembers, Bio by Pearce Institute, Timber and Plywood, Womanhood magazine, British Architect, George MacLeod. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Megalibrarygirl. Possible rename later once the AfD finishes. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very quick Google search shows she appears to be notable independently of her husband in several ways: as founder of the Pearce Institute -- now recognised as an important community centre for Glasgow eg [2]; as a pioneer in women's representation on Scottish School Boards (preprint at blacklisted site) and in association with the "Fresh Air Fortnight" scheme [3]. I note this article was created as part of an initiative to address gender imbalance in coverage of Scottish women, which has received press coverage in the Scottish press: [4] -- this article states "Among other work was creating pages for others including Lady Dinah Elizabeth Pearce from Govan who founded the Pierce Institute and other organisations such as the Women's Peace Crusade and Glasgow Women's Housing Association." There are far too many Google hits under "Lady Pearce", "Dinah Pearce", "Dinah Elizabeth Pearce" &c to sort through them all properly, and doubtless offline sources also exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We will increase the coverage of Scottish women by writing articles about he ones who are actually notable, not the one who engage in minor local events--as the article truthfully says-- merely because of their husbands social position. It's not exactly a case of inherited notability, because I doubt he would be notable either. Minor country gentlemen & women are not usually, though they customarily do engage in local charities and receive the routine press coverage. As for the initiative, you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. No, I am not; I am merely mentioning this embarrassing situation, in case anyone cares to contact the people involved, as well as quoting an article that suggests Pearce might have founded two other organisations, for which my back-of-the-envelope search found no better evidence. As to her husband, if you had actually read any of the sources, he unimpeachably meets the notability requirements as an MP, if for no other reason. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claim to notability is being the wife of a MP and founder of a un-notable institute. Most of her "bio" page on the Pearce website, which says "Although overshadowed historically by her husband, Lady Pearce was nevertheless held in extremely high regard by the people of Govan.", is taken up by a poem by a "local resident". If a similar article were made of a modern person with this kind of sources it would be quickly deleted. BigGuy88 (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is either trivial coverage more about the building than the woman or not independent. I'm also not entirely sure if the Wordpress site meets WP:RS. I don't see enough in-depth treatment to merit an article under WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 3 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 redirect to Lake View Park International Scout Centre. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Rajans Scouts Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the first AfD decision was that this and related articles were to be merged, 3 1/2 years ago, ~~this was never done~~(the mergers were only completed for 3 small articles out of a total of 6 articles on this same topic) and there continues to be pushback on completing the mergers. Standalone, it is not notable and Scouting WPMOS does not support articles of this nature. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge this and 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group to Lake View Park International Scout Centre-It is highly unlikely that any "Old Scouts Association" will be notable. I do not think there are any. It is also unlikely that articles about Scout Groups or Scout Troops will be notable, although there are a few. 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group is the article about the Scout Group that these old Scouts come from. It also is not notable. What has been considered notable is the running of several international camps that have been mentioned in the press. However, these events are help at Lake View Park International Scout Centre which is owned by this Scout Group. So we actually have three articles all related to one Scout Group. The sources are essentially talking about this camp and the events held there. There should be only one. I suggest that we keep Lake View Park International Scout Centre and merge the other two there. This was proposed in the earlier AfD. There have been several attempts to clarify this issue, but they have all been supported by editors with no relationship to this Group and opposed by the local editors. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge concur with Bduke this and the other articles would be better merged into a single article. Dan arndt (talk) 05:06, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

America W. Robinson[edit]

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

Notability not established, per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are RS. Now I can't access all of them, but the ones I could, I added links to them. I also found a bio about Robinson online on Blackpast.org. She is written about in a number of books, and assuming good faith on the references we can't access, she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what she's notable for? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's a notable member of the Fisk singing group, first female graduate of her university and she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability and I don't AGF on sources offhand when it comes to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The first female black graduate from a southern university is surely notable for just that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that equals notability. Do we have an article about the first blonde person to fly across the Atlantic while wearing non-aviator sunglasses? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, being the first out of a nationality, gender or ethnic group to accomplish something is often an indicator of notability. Being the first blonde person to fly across the Atlantic is not. However, the first Swedish person (who may or may not be blonde) to fly across the Atlantic would be. Hope that clears that up. Also... can you point to any guidelines that prohibit WP:AGF for offline sources? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: As I've said: "I don't AGF on sources offhand when it comes to AfD. That's no one's policy but mine as I think SIGCOV is fine until we have to decide between keeping and deleting. I might on occasion let a single source I can't read slip by on a GA nom or even at AfC but I can't allow a pile of unverified-by-me content to change my !vote. You claim "being the first out of a nationality, gender or ethnic group to accomplish something is often an indicator of notability" but I see no evidence for this. Granted, the media will often make a big deal out this sort of thing since they're trying to publish and get eyeballs but WP:N does not say that we use quotas to include people for whatever reason. You can, of course, have your own opinion about notability. I just don't think it appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Chris troutman, I thought you were going off your own interpretation of AGF and AfD conduct. Thanks for clearing that up. She passes GNG whether or not she's a "first." Furthermore, I'm not going off my opinion of notability, it's pretty well laid out here on Wiki. She is, however, a first, if others want to look to that. Please read the article which I edited and added some RS which can be accessed online: she's the first female graduate of Fisk. It's in the first paragraph. I'm asking around with my library contacts to see if we can't fill in the rest of the offline sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple, independent reliable sources exist: the two by Ward and the one by Richardson give Robinson significant coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Magnolia677 and Chris troutman both seem to be under the impression that the subjects of Wikipedia biographies are required to accomplish something notable. They're not. (Which is not to say that America W. Robinson, the subject of this biography, had no accomplishments.) A person merely needs to be the subject of significant independent reliable coverage. Nothing more. If you don't like the rule, try to build consensus to change it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say I didn't like the rule? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz: It's unfortunate you didn't bother to read what I've already written above. Perhaps you should base your comments on what I said rather than constructing a strawman. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reiterate that multiple independent reliable sources exits. Notability well-established. One of 2 first females to graduate from Fisk. A key member of the Fisk Jubilee Singers.InfoDataMonger (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports teams[edit]

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

See WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. This article was tagged as not meeting the notability guideline 3 years ago and it doesn't look as if the situation has changed. For example, the association football section relies entirely on one source. There is no clear inclusion criteria; why some sports and not others? Why should this exist when we already have List of sports attendance figures which is more concise? Spiderone 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information as needed. Which to which? Don't care. Information appears to be repeated in another article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopaedia not a sports almanac. inclusion of this information on individual pages (for a football club or stadium for example) would be notable but this doesn't meet the criteria any more now than it did when I first nominated it. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment: I looked at the page view stats out of curiosity, and found something interesting. From 7/1/2015 -to 5/22/2016 there were an average of four readers viewing the page per day.[5] From 5/24/2016 to 9/24/2016 there were an average of thirty six readers viewing the page per day.[6] Page views simply jumped by a factor of nine on 5/23/2016! So I investigated. On that day an IP updated all of the figures, added Australian football, and created five appropriate Also links from this article to other Sports_List articles, and added matching See Also links from those articles back to this article.[7] On that day there was also a spike of 166 software-spider page views.[8] The software-spider page views was probably one or more search engines investigating this page, based on the newly created inbound See Also links pointing to it. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, I just thought it was interesting. Alsee (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 07:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#INFO Prevan (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 or a hundred pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? This list, in particular, is very interesting and helpful. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should lists be exempt from notability criteria? Spiderone 08:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just silly lawyering from people who take the Wiki rules way too seriously. Are there media outlets constantly writing about the list of U.S. presidents or the list of countries ranked by GDP or the list of Madonna's records? No. Nobody ever writes stories about lists. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those that care, I think it's safe to say that the editor may be choosing to ignore all rules that prevent Wikipedia from being better. I tend to agree, lists can have a good place. There is WP:LISTN which we can use as a guideline, but even that measure states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" and I think that we should pay attention there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this selection of sports stats is notable for a list. Eldumpo (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note - WP:LISTCRUFT, point 11, rules against this type of list as it is almost always going to be out of date. Since the article is only referring to the 'latest season', it is actually already out of date as it is referring to 2015-16 when we have already started 2016-17 in a lot of sports. Also, it gives no reason for its discrimination. For example, why doesn't the list also give the top 10 attendances for handball, rugby union, rugby league, water polo, volleyball etc.? There is no clear reason why the current sports are chosen and why others aren't. Spiderone 09:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note This is silly to the point of being idiotic. The list is not "out of date" at all — the list is simply AS OF the last full season for the teams in question. No one in their right mind would expect a list like this to be updated daily, as games are played around the world. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on this point a little. if the list was of record attendences it would have more of a claim because it wouldn't be immediately out of date, it would only be incomplete. this list as it stands is both constantly out of date and incomplete. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. If it were a list of record attendances of the equivalent, then I would not be putting the list up for AfD. Simple as that. Spiderone 10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a list of record attendances be notable but not this list of actual attendance? Is there any evidence that such a list is "notable" under the Wiki rules you seem to believe are so sacred? It seems like you're just making things up as you go along. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the previous point, firstly, it is going to be out of date next season in any case. Does this mean all the current data gets scrapped and replaced with new data next season? The article doesn't make it clear which season it's really even talking about. If this topic really is notable then it probably should be done on a season per season basis rather than just binned and then reincarnated every time the season changes. Lastly, this article does nothing more than mirror what StadiumDB and ESPN puts up. Is there enough evidence from other sources too? Spiderone 19:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; the topic has not received significant attention from secondary sources to qualify for a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 3 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of Nordic countries football clubs[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. There is no reason why Nordic countries need their own separate list. Otherwise, it would never stop with Baltic countries, Balkans, Caucasian countries etc. all needing their own list. See a similar debate. Spiderone 14:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 07:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. No indication that the attendances in nordic countries specifically have garnered any coverage that would require an specific list. Fenix down (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the nominator, no evidence this intersection is covered outside of Wikipedia. C 679 13:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 06:58, 2 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 keep. Seems like Alsee's sources have gone uncontested, although Unscintillating's issues will need resolution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Publishing System[edit]

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

The issues listed (orphan, update) suggest a lack of notability; also Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; also secondary sources; also does this still even exist? CapnZapp (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Highly Notable project in the development history of internet technology. Historic developments regarding distributed systems, cryptography, anonymity, tamper-proof content, free-speech, and related legal implications.
- New York Times Divided Data Can Elude the Censor[9]
- Scientific American Speech without accountability[10]
- Scientific American How Publius Thwarts Censors[11]
- Association for Computing Machinery Technical Report Fault-Tolerant Distributed Information Retrieval for Publius Servers and Mobile Peers[12]
- citeseerx.ist.psu.edu search returns 1001 hits for papers mentioning "Publius", most of which are valid hits, and many of those papers themselves are cited by hundreds of papers.[13]
- Annual Internet Law Institute, Volume 1[14]
- Many books, such as 'Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies [15]
- Google Book search for Publius+distributed+internet+peer returns 1810 hits.[16]
- The Publius home page[17] has (mostly dead) links to articles in The Industry Standard(9/13/2000), The Industry Standard (8/21/2000), eWeek, Yahoo News, Washington Post, CNET News 8/7/2000,CNET News 6/30/2000, Associated Press. Those count for Notability, and can be retrieved either in paper form or probably on Internet Archive sites. Alsee (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per citations provided by Alsee above. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unsourced, and the first sentence contains BLP violations. The search on Google books returns the first link as a book with Wikipedia articles. The next link, and only link with bold, references "AT&T's Publius publishing system", where "AT&T" does not appear in this article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been moved since the time of the nomination, and is now at Publius (publishing system). Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 3 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 redirect to Lucy Does a TV Commercial. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitameatavegamin[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. Nothing shows any reason for the topic to be covered outside of Lucy Does a TV Commercial. TTN (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since TTN has recently complained when I've listed bare links in AfDs, I'm not going to bother this time: The above 'find sources' news, newspapers, books, and scholar links each show dozens of presumably independent RS links, which even in their snippets call the subject skit (which I've never seen) 'Iconic'. I'll note the article already appears to have two independent RS'es, apparently already meeting the GNG when nominated. Merging a notable element into its parent media, but that's a subject for regular editing and talk-page consensus building, not AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The grand majority of anything you're going to find is completely within the context of the single episode in which it appeared, including the two sources in the article. There is nothing showing that the single plot element is indpendtly notable outside of the episode. The episode itself is certainly notable and this is just one part of it. As this current article is simply a plot regurgitation, there is nothing that needs to be merged, so deletion and then a new redirect is the best option. Only if the main article becomes overly bloated on information on this topic should it be split out.TTN (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, of COURSE it is. But it's apparently a memorable episode in a memorable show, as others have observed. You realize you argue contradictory things in different AfDs, TTN? It's only one episode, here, but when another fictional element is so well known from multiple places that no one feels compelled to explain it when they write about it, you criticize that as trivial coverage. Again, I'm not a Lucille Ball fan, never seen the episode in question, so I'm a terrible person to make an argument about how important it is or isn't; all I can do is judge by the number and scope of the coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one aspect about why the episode itself is notable. It is a one-time thing featured in that episode and is always mentioned within the context of the episode. It is not something like Monty Python where the skits were mainly self-contained and could be performed separately at different works. Anything that can reasonably be mentioned about the topic is within the context of the episode, so it currently belongs in the episode. Should the impossible happen and the article becomes too bloated, then and only then should the topic be split out. TTN (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucy Does a TV Commercial, with no objection to merging anything merge-worthy. It has negligible notability outside the context of the TV episode, and should be covered in that context. (WP:MERGEREASON #4) Alsee (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All fictional elements are only notable within the framework in which they are mentioned. We spin them out when the coverage would unbalance the article on that particular framework. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Lucy episode. I don't have no 'splaining to do, as it has already been done. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close In this diff, the nominator attempts to redirect the article, which shows that this is a nomination intended to circumvent the proper forum for discussion on the talk page, and use AfD people instead of the content experts who should be making this decision. In the lieu of proper closing of the AfD, I recommend a "keep", as WP:BEFORE D1 shows that this topic has plenty of sources, and is clearly differentiated from the episode. IMO, some material from the episode article moved here would benefit both articles. I've seen the episode twice, so I may not be neutral as I've enjoyed the memories here. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 4 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at football clubs and leagues[edit]

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

This list is highly confusing. It mixes up different seasons presumably because these are the record-breaking seasons for that particular league/team? It also mixes men's and women's football. Another issue is that it will need updating every season so at the moment it is almost completely out of date. Refer to WP:LISTCRUFT Spiderone 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 07:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability for the topic, just a collection of stats. Eldumpo (talk) 06:56, 2 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willie E. Kees Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable small community politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 25 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? 13:48, 25 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? 13:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a small town mayor in Louisiana. We have an overabundance of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another article on a NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all elements of WP:POLITICIAN. Really run of the mill local leader. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly nothing applicably convincing, including WP:POLITICIAN, and then there's not even anything apart from this one position, to suggest anything else otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written article. I can't read many of the sources for various reasons, but they show sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't see any policy-based reasons for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 3 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metapress[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher. Most of the coverage appears to be press releases about their being spun out, taken over, etc. No evidence of the required in depth coverage. See also recent similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, however, I'd like to point to the following article. This linked article is from UCLA, explicitly writing that Metapress is an established journal hosting their content under their resources section. All referenced and notable mentions on the original page have references, although I understand and agree that several additional references would be appropriate for addition. I would appreciate your review of this link, and many other comparable references to be considered prior to the repeated attempts at deletion. Thank you, and I am looking forward to your reply. Here is the link: http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/aascpress/aj.aspx Mark54ems (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable publisher, but you didn't make that clear at all -- add more references. Paperpro (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. The article is somewhat unclear. The version of Metapress that was notable was the earlier system, which was not a journal or a reprinter, but a publication platform for publishing journals. It was used by a variety of publisjhers, many of them highly reputable. The best source for its nature is section 3 of [18], a blog, but a blog by a well-known expert in scholarly publishing. I consider it a RS. All references before 2014 refer to this platform,which is currently called Literatum. [19] Ditto for the UCLA reference cited above.

The present system has kept the name, but has essentially no content; as its home page says "We are currently in the process of redeveloping our entire site, so you unfortunately won’t find many published pages at this time." I cannot tell if it retains any connection with Ebsco, but I need to do some inquiries DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about all this, but neither of the sources you provide have in depth coverage of a thing called 'Metapress'. Without in depth coverage of a thing called Metapress, there can be no article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with rewriting, DGG, and also understand the need for additional references as stated by Paperpro. I agree that in-depth coverage is currently absent from the references, Stuartyeates, but there are numerous references that I just need time to add. I believe the second deletion attempt by Stuartyeates is inaccurate, although rewriting and adding references is certainly valid. I will begin to add references, but please review the following links in the meantime: Please see this article by Google Scholar, section "Journal Publishers", explicitly referencing Metapress: https://web.archive.org/web/20160328013659/https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html. Please see this in-depth article on UKSG, regarding purpose and overview of Metapress: http://serials.uksg.org/articles/abstract/10.1629/17287/ with PDF download to view. Please review this link hosted on Princeton, with references of hosting on Metapress: https://www.princeton.edu/~verdu/lossless.data.pdf. Please see this page on Worldcat, http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2005085660/. There are many others, which I will begin to compile shortly, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark54ems (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The google mention is a mention and not the required in depth coverage. http://serials.uksg.org/articles/abstract/10.1629/17287/ is by an EBSCO employee and thus not independent. https://www.princeton.edu/~verdu/lossless.data.pdf appears to neither be on-topic nor independent (I confess I may have missed the point there). http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2005085660/ is a database entry of the type explicitly prohibited by note 5 of the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removal of the "articles for deletion" tag: I have updated the Metapress page with additional references, including in-depth coverage and additional clarification of the history. There are many more articles possible to reference, but I believe this is currently suitable to be removed from the "articles for deletion" category. Please review, Stuartyeates, DGG, and Paperpro. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark54ems (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Notability isn't temporary, so current growing pains doesn't affect that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current version. Agree with DGG's statements, echoed by Dennis Brown. Rewritten version and updated references are more robust. Looking at the references, I don't see how this is even still a two-sided discussion of notability and in-depth coverage. Paperpro (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this edition surpasses previous objections of in depth coverage, and the questionability of being a notable publisher. TheSlingshotRun (talk) 12:43, 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 Archomental#Good archomentals. Please list the other articles separately (which could be one AfD for the lot) - they haven't been tagged for deletion and only some of the votes here refer to them. Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chan (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Archomental#Good archomentals. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially thought a merge all would have been fine, but spot-checking for RS'ing, I see things like [20], which makes me think a per-element exam might be more appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental#Good archomentals per the above. Seems like a win-win, to keep the information and expand the other article. bd2412 T 20:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental. Furthermore I propose adding the other creatures listed at Archomental to this AFD. None of these articles appear to have any sourcing other than of in-universe game materials or effectively in-universe dedicated D&D magazines.

Ping TTN, Jclemens, and bd2412 to consider commenting on my proposal to batch 10 additional articles into this discussion, all as MERGE to Archomental. Alsee (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging as to all at this juncture. bd2412 T 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure on all of them, merge or delete the result is the same. TTN (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I recommend against these kind of mass-list AfDs? They create confusion and bad feeling; it's entirely possible that some of these are notable and others not. One by one may be slow, but it is effective and allows people a good-faith chance to identify possible sources/make changes to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Archomental for Chan (Dungeons & Dragons) only. On adding other articles to the nomination after the fact, I share concerns with Jclemens and J Milburn. BOZ (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:19, 29 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 00:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libero Sports LLC[edit]

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

This article seems to rely on a single Goal.com source. There is an official website and so this company definitely exists but I can't seem to find any other reliable sources covering this that are independent of the subject. I, therefore, fear that this fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 18:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is it simply stating what there is to know about the company and its business, it goes to list its clients which is a notorious sign of advertising. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. A single self-published source falls well short of the requirements. C 679 13:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy delete by User:GB fan - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thirukoodalaiyathur[edit]

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

Simple Vandalism. Also candidate for WP:CSD. | Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 11:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick search reveals nothing of note. Probably should be speedy deleted as you say. Spiderone 12:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:A3. Next time, don't nominate for deletion if it's already been tagged for speedy deletion. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 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 speedy delete (G12). MER-C 12:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ending the Korean War: The Role of Domestic Coalition Shifts in Overcoming Obstacles to Peace, Elizabeth A. Stanley[edit]

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

Article consists of little but summary of the international politics essay/paper. Almost entirely referenced to the work itself (with the exception of one reference which probably was cited by the work itself). No real third-party references covering the work itself. Proposed deletion has been removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is basically just copied from various parts of the paper, which is protected by copyright. Accordingly, I've tagged it for speedy deletion. /wiae /tlk 12:38, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naziyah Mahmood[edit]

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

Non-notable - promotional article. This was a contested PROD by the original editor with none of the underlying concerns being met. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I founded zero search results with that person completely failing GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (provisional). Does not pass WP:Prof. I am unable to comment on actress/model notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Google search didn't turn up a single mention in a reliable sources, but many similarly worded pieces of (self?) promotion in non-RSes. Academic career does not come close to meeting WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending source search. WP:BASIC is best applied to someone with multiple jobs, her work as an academic "stacks" with other coverage by neutral, reliable third-party sources. The question is if all together get us to adequately significant. I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt for now. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can find nothing that shows she meets the notability criteria of any specialty. She definitely does not meet the notability criteria for martial artists (see WP:MANOTE). Every reference I see appears to be remarkably similar in wording. I find myself just on the other side of the fence from Montanabw because I don't see quite enough to agree she meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 2 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atongko[edit]

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

No references, fails WP:MOVIE appears to be be more of a home project by Habibur Islam already deleted along with Mobile Chai and others. KylieTastic (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Notability. I got zero hits on Google Newspapers, Google Scholar, HighBeam, and JSTOR. The only Google News hit was unrelated. Google Books gave a few hits, but none looked remotely relevant to a movie. I checked the top 100 general Google hits, none were relevant-RS. They were mostly download sites, the rest were blogs or Wikipedia mirrors or false hits for other things with "Atongo" in the name. Alsee (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be failing WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Anup [Talk] 22:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedy / snowball deletion. Unsourced speculations/allegations about AOL and Microsoft, borderline attack page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The My Aol Mail Mystery[edit]

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

Fails WP:NONSENSE, WP:HOAX, WP:CITE, the information could also be WP:FAKE. Doesn't meet any criteria for an article. | Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 09:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC) | How may I help you? 09:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Democratics: Please follow the steps on WP:AFDHOWTO and re edit the page. NgYShung ^huh? 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NgYShung pardon me for my forgetful self.| Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Should fall on WP:CSD criteria. Doesn't even know what this article fall on what category. (P/S: Everyone makes mistakes ) NgYShung ^huh? 09:39, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:52, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Kirigiri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable fictional character. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The article is just a plot dump. No sources. No information on the development or design of the character. No information on how the character has been received by critics or their real world significance. As there is no worthwhile content to merge, suggest deleting then redirecting to List of Danganronpa characters#Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc where the character is more appropriately covered. The1337gamer (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Never heard of this franchise, let alone this character, before, but she appears to be covered as a statuette [21] and as a cosplay opportunity. [22]. There's not a whole lot out there, but what I found with a trivial search there is far more opportunity to discuss this character in an encyclopedic way and the WP:GNG is met, so merging vs. standalone article should be an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best you can do is a figurine announcement and photos of people dressed in costumes? Both of these don't even discuss the character. You haven't demonstrated the topic is notable or worth keeping at all. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's an awful attempt to meet the WP:GNG. That's not even close to something that constitutes significant coverage in third party sources. That's not even good anecdotal evidence. I know you don't like how these fictional character article are being merged/redirected/deleted, but come on, you've got to come up with something more convincing than that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even close to meeting the WP:GNG. Entirely unsourced plot rehashing that only vaguely focuses on her. Nothing worth merging to the character article. I wouldn't object to a redirect, but I wouldn't particularly recommend it either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A character article needs out of universe information in the form of reviews, and conception. Can anyone provide some reviews of the character? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some decent sources can be identified. If someone's keen on doing it, I've no great objection to a merge. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:18, 29 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 06:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sree vana Sastha Sree Vana Thurga Temple[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. PamD 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no statement of notability such as age, and no reliable sources. If an article is created for the place it is situated a description of this temple could be added there with appropriate refs Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per WP:CSD criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. I wasn't able to find anything when I searched for it, but there may well be foreign language sources I can't utilize. agtx 14:51, 3 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Rontganger[edit]

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

There are many WP:PRIMARY sources in this article, but this person who won titles from 2012 to 2014 is not in the news.

No third party, reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. The article exists to promoted the subject's accomplishments. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As interested as some people may be in the leather subculture, holding a Mr. Leather title is not in and of itself a reason why a person gets permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. There are thousands of such pageants around the world, because almost every city that's large enough to have an organized LGBT community at all will have its own Mr. Leather pageant — and most winners don't get enough coverage to actually satisfy WP:GNG. And the sourcing here isn't showing that he's the exception to that rule, either — I'm seeing a lot of blogs and wikis and video streaming sites and primary sources, with literally just one reference in the entire bunch (Siegessäule, #3) that actually passes the reliable sourcing test. But one valid reference isn't enough to get a person into Wikipedia, if they don't have an automatic pass of any specific notability criterion and are depending solely on "media coverage exists, ergo GNG" as their includability argument. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Out Rotisserie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this chain is currently defunct in its entirety, though I am not certain. It is possible one or two stores may still be operating. Chain went through bankruptcy in 2010/2011 and for the most part folded around 2013/2014. The website is still active and lists menu items, but does not list any store locations. One article indicates somebody may have been considering trying to revive the brand, but no indication that has been attempted. Even in its heyday, it was nothing more than a Washington, D.C. area chain, no presence outside the Washington Metropolitan area. Nothing other than local coverage. No indication that this chain ever satisfied WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Kept at AfD in 2005, but notability standards were not well developed at that time. Safiel (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked Google News and a pile of top general Google hits. Fails WP:NCORP when the only almost-helpful sourcing is the bankruptcy announcement. I note that there was a previous AFD on this article which closed as KEEP,[23] however it was in 2005. Wikipedia had no policy on Notability at the time. Alsee (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NCORP, especially because it does appear to be defunct. Their chicken was pretty good though. agtx 17:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are all I could find, but they're probably not enough for notability: 1 2 3 4 5 Adam9007 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a minor chain; no indications of significance or notability for the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:55, 2 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carr (writer)[edit]

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

Non-notable person with overly promotional article, lacking valid sources. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete news coverage is one burst of stories about leading hunts in Africa. One passing book mention. A very minor gun news site called him "Journalist of the Year". I can't find anything else, perhaps there is ... - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 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 keep. As evidence of notability has emerged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KISS (algorithm)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The notability tag was added 3 weeks ago by Altenmann. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak) Keep current sources are primary, so fails WP:GNG. I haven't searched for more, but articles ideally should be created based on WP:RS and I've not heard of this. If any are uncovered change to Keep. Widefox; talk 16:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are secondary sources. A 2013 book on Monte Carlo Methods calls it a "very good" generator and presents it as the only example of a pseudo-random number generator, with references as to where to find others. There is a complete discussion of KISS. I've added the reference to Further reading in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't have time to check. There's [24] [25] etc. !vote changed. Widefox; talk 10:00, 2 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 keep, with the article renamed. I've renamed the page to Nazism in the United States for the time being, as that had most support here, but further discussions can come to a more binding consensus on that. Sam Walton (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US support for the Nazism[edit]

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

Not enough information for a stand-alone article, and not really enough to merge with anything. Nothing notable in this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but rename to something more grammatical, perhaps History of Nazism in the United States? The article's creator just started today, and there is an under construction tag. There's certainly enough material for an article to fill in the gaps not covered by the Friends of New Germany, the German American Bund and the American Nazi Party. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cover American Nazis in Hitler's time in German American Bund, and Nazi wannabes since WWII in Neo-Nazism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Clarityfiend. The rename to something like History of Nazism in the United States is need. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- The present title suggests US government support. Support for the Nazism in the United States might be nearer the mark. WE only have a stub at present, making it difficult to judge its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC) (Sorry! I am not going to waste my time translating an article that will be delete.)Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors arguing keep need to explain why this material is not better covered in existing articles on: German American Bund, and Neo-Nazism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, at most, move to userspace. Maybe the gaps described by Clarityfiend could make an article, but this isn't it. I think I would vote delete or redirect on the Portuguese article on which this one is meant to be based. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snmurphy: which Portuguese article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pt:Apoio dos Estados Unidos ao nazismo is, I think, the article to which Dr. Loo (whose userpage suggests is Brazillian) is referring. Sorry, I should have included the link in my previous message, but I didn't look up how to do interlanguage links. Also, sorry for the slow response, you misspelled my user name, so I didn't get the ping. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have thought of moving the article?

201.17.139.2 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Nazism in the United States. No reason to make the title any more specific than that, since that will cover both the history of Nazism in the U.S. and modern Nazi supporters in the U.S. In response to E.M.Gregory's remark, those other two articles don't quite cover the same topic. German American Bund is a historical organization that supported the Nazis in the late 30s, but that doesn't mean that it was the sole group supporting the Nazis. For example, Charles Lindburgh was, at least at one time, a Nazi supporter, but he had little to do with the German American Bund. Neo-Nazism is not a U.S. specific article and thus should maintain a global focus. agtx 14:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename subject is notable but Nazism in the United States is a more accurate title.LM2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Nazism in the United States. It's a worthwhile subject that can be an umbrella article to the topics discussed in Friends of New Germany, the German American Bund and the American Nazi Party. By looking at the article names alone I would not have known that "German American Bund" was Nazism related. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @Agtx:, German American Bund and Neo-Nazism do not cover influence, activities, social development or have a sole focus into US-Nazi ideas and relations during the entire period (20s to present). Both articles should be used as based for the Nazism in the United States artice.Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename this article has potential. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a heads up, there is a recently created article Support for Nazis in the USA, which appears to be adapted from the Portuguese Wikipedia article Apoio de norte-americanos ao nazismo. This topic is likely notable, but I'm not sure if it has been covered in any existing Nazism articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article (Support for Nazis in the USA) was written after a request was made to about 30 editors by an ip, see here. In my opinion, both articles (Support for Nazis in the USA and US support for the Nazism) are meant to be translations of the same article from the Portuguese and should be merged (and, as I !voted earlier, deleted). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of Support for Nazis in the USA, which has the potential to be a well-sourced and interesting article once properly translated and cleaned up. ubiquity (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "Support for..." is the right approach; that would make the article somewhat one-sided. I.e.: I'm sure there was opposition too. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the issues with the title (as mentioned by K.e.coffman), Support for Nazis in the USA seems to be a horrible machine translation which is literally incomprehensible. It is best to TNT that and build this version from a clean slate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as AfD hinges on notability and potential to expand, not current state of articles. Subsequent discussions can determine the appropriate title and redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now this has popped up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for Nazis in the USA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Nazism in the United States The subject is notable and the renamed title would be a much better description. It has a good potential to be an umbrella article which talks not only about the support but also about the domestic reactions to it. As for Support for Nazis in the USA, the article is a mess (translation issues) and it should be deleted or redirect to this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Fork per E.M. Gregory above. We've already got this material covered under two encyclopedic pieces. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something could be done along the lines of this article. 187.20.84.92 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?177.182.250.13 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bad copy of a bad article. Is this the usual standard at the pt.wiki? Anmccaff (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be a valid reason for deletion. The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is any good. agtx 14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable enough that it is already covered, as mentioned above more than once. This is a recent article that duplicates, essentially, existing work; that's grounds for speedy deletion, never mind this. It's also a near a near literal copy of another xlation of the same article, one or the other definitely needs to go. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that one must be deleted...but, why this one? Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 03:07, 11 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom of arcanum[edit]

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

Game that has not yet been released. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of WP:Notability. Completely unsourced article, for a game that hasn't been released yet, and Google returns exactly zero hits.

Comment to article creator Danbilkey: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means we summarized what independent Reliable Sources have already written on a subject. Please see GOLDENRULE for a brief summary. We only have article about things after the world already considers it noteworthy enough for multiple sources to have written about it. Alsee (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing on Google either. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 28 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. Michig (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Delhi Earthquake[edit]

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

Event has not received news coverage since routine coverage in 2012. Article does not pass WP:EVENT. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet earthquake notability, no deaths, some minor injuries. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable earthquake. Such magnitude happens every week, but considered as normal seismic activity.| Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 12:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls well short of all criteria in the earthquake notability guideline. Alsee (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. Anup [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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottoman Lieutenant[edit]

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

See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Films that have finished principle shooting meet WP:NFILM. Films that will be released before the end of 2016 do not violate "CRYSTAL". Any film with the cast that this one has is going to meet WP:GNG. Yes, the article can be improved but a little WP:BEFORE should have been applied here. This list 2017 in film is replete with unreleased films yet they all meet WikiP's notability guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 04:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG, WP:NFF - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It meets WP:NFF since the principle shooting of the film has begun. WP:BALL does not apply since the subject is an "expected future event" and not "speculation or rumor". -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J'Mon Moore[edit]

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

See gridiron football notability guidelines. College football players are not normally considered ipso facto notable, and there is no evidence of general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding significant coverage at this time. Could achieve notability in the future (and probably will--maybe this season, heck maybe even this week) but I would call the article premature at best.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogel micropatch sampling[edit]

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

Single author is principle developer of technique, search of Google scholar doesn't find coverage in secondary sources, otherwise no indication that the individual method is notable. Its a bit out of my understanding of chemuistry, but very skeptical that its more than his lab's project. Sadads (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, I agree with you. It would be best to ask other chemists to comment on this issue, and ask them to compare this article with other Wikipedia articles on new concepts in analytical chemistry. I believe the key issue is "secondary sources". The other part of your comment "his lab's project" is tricky, as there are several references. So, you need to answer the question is it still "a project", or is it already "a technique". In science, we often match a project with a publication (the final outcome of the project). Here there are four references - the newer ones cite the older ones. Can the newer ones act as "secondary sources"? My answer is - yes. But others may have a different opinion. As long as the same standards are applied to all such Wikipedia articles, then it is fine for me, and I support your request to delete the article "Hydrogel micropatch sampling". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish Notability. All sources appear to be written by Urban and colleagues. P.S. to Natriumchloratum, I almost complimented you as an excellent newbie because your username is redlinked, chuckle. Regarding chemists to comment on the issue, part of the key to Wikipedia is that editors (usually) don't need topic expertise. It's the job of scientists and Reliable Sources to evaluate subject matter and establish notability. Here we just need to evaluate sources and other policy issues. Alsee (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (Clarification: I meant I almost missed that you've been around a few years and that you have significant experience.) Alsee (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the four references in the article, all are journal articles published by the team that developed the technique. The fourth is just a link to a list of upcoming publications, but searching for the article title "Quantitative mass spectrometry of unconventional human biological matrices" (abstract) shows that it appears to be mainly about testing the specimens once you have them. Hydrogel micropatch sampling is not mentioned in the abstract so the use of this technique may be just a passing mention; I'm not prepared to pay for the full article to prove that though. I can't find any secondary sources mentioning it and would agree with Sadads that it is the non-notable project of one lab. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:09, 29 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. Based upon improvements made during the discussion. Note that being created by an SPA is not in itself a reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Conifers[edit]

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

This page appears to exist for promotion and advertising, and is for a non-notable book. R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a review of the book in an independent reliable source here, but I don't think that's enough on its own to get this over the notability bar. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no indication this meets WP:NBOOK. Article has no independent RS. Created by SPA who has only edited this article and added promotional links to the books website in various other articles. MB 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability independent of the book itself or independent of online stores, with no assertion for future improvement. —Mythdon 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must note that the two opinions above are factually incorrect, because the article links to a review of this book in The Gardening Times, which appears to be an independent reliable source, and some other reviews in more debatable sources. And the review that I linked above is certainly in an independent reliable source, being in an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the user at IP 86.17.222.157 (that's a first for me!). This is a book (actually two volumes) published by a learned society that has been reviewed by at least four reliable periodicals. Even if there were a COI, or editing is needed, those are not fatal flaws. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews in the Arboricultural Journal and The Gardening Times push this over the notability bar. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Keep as per IP 86.17.222.157 however rewrite the Concept section to meet some criteria like WP:NONSENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 09:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I cleaned up the article a bit, and I believe that The Gardening Times review is sufficient to give this page a pass. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 2 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 redirect to Death of Samia Shahid. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Shahid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Now that there is a separate Murder of Samia Shahid article, I would like to bring the WP:BIO1E argument again. Most of the "keep" arguments in the prior deletion discussion seemed to support the notability of her murder, but there does not seem to be enough coverage available to write a balanced, standalone article that is about Shahid as a whole (e.g. her history and impact as a beautician), not just the circumstances of her death. I recommend a redirect to Murder of Samia Shahid outcome. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Samia Shahid article is created almost a month earlier than Murder of Samia Shahid. I don't know Wiki Policy about such an issue. it is a second nomination. I think the article created afterwards should be merged with this article. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article created afterwards is an accepted draft.--115.167.70.196 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snehahurrain: The issue is that the two articles are, in fact, different subjects. One is about the event of her murder—combining information about the perpetrators, the crime itself, and the aftermath—and the other is a biography about Shahid as a person. The murder might be notable as a result of significant coverage in reliable sources (the general notability guideline), but the overwhelming majority of the coverage about Shahid is about her death. The event of her murder has received significant coverage, but not Shahid's life as a whole. I could accept merging this article to Murder of Samia Shahid as well. Mz7 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this stub with Murder of Samia Shahid. Her life is not notable but her murder is.--115.167.70.196 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this arguably WP:ONEEVENT, does not require two articles, suggest a merge of this into Murder of Samia Shahid as the prime subject (WP:NOTMEMORIAL may also apply}. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Murder of Samia Shahid, as is our usual structure for such articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. We certainly don't need two articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I will say that "murder" is a tricky word. It has a specific legal meaning, and considering that we have listed an accused perpetrator on that page, we could face a BLP issue should that person be convicted of a homicide crime that is not murder. I also understand that we use common language here, and not technical legal terms. I just wanted to bring that to folks' attention before we decided on a name for the page. agtx 15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Agtx: This is an excellent point. I would support moving the article something like Death of Samia Shahid ~~after this AfD concludes~~. I used "murder" here since it is the current article title. Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC) On second thought, since BLP is involved, I would support the move right now. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that if this turns out to be all true, then it is a heinous crime. If the perpetrator is eventually convicted of murder, then the page should absolutely be titled as such. agtx 16:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved Murder of Samia Shahid to Death of Samia Shahid per above. Mz7 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Trussell[edit]

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

No significant coverage whatsoever. Clearly fails GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Comment Modifications to the article since the AfD indicate subject has won a Gold at the Pan American games which may cross the notability threshold. I am having trouble tracking down exactly when that was (given references are not helpful or reliable) so I change my vote to a comment for the moment. I suspect there is an error since I don't think there were women's Judo events in the time period where she peaked. Perhaps it was Pan American Judo championships which in not as notable but I am guessing. Note Judoinside does not list anything.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence of her winning a medal at the Pan-Am Games or even at the Pan-Am championships. The first Pan-Am Games women's judo competition wasn't until 1983, which was 8 years after her only medal at the U.S. championships. The article gives no significant independent coverage, there's nothing that shows either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE is met, and being in a local club's hall of fame certainly is insufficient to show notability. In addition, her sister is irrelevant to her notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to this source she held five national titles. How does that stack up against the GNG? Also, the statements on the drug scandal are referenced to a book on swimming so I'm going to delete them. Possibly the wrong "Becky Scott". MurielMary (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And back to delete - I am convinced there was no gold at the Pan Am games.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emelio Bruno[edit]

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

Really confused as to why this wasn't speedily deleted. Subject never was at the Olympics as a participant. Bruno has only one mention in a 1971 magazine so there hardly is any coverage. Being the "father" of Air Force judo is not an accomplish in itself either as I've seen many claims of martial artists to be the "father" of military arts. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Doesn't meet the basic notability guidelines, WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – I have never seen a page as blank as that, that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Browndog91 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Coaching a U.S. team on a Japanese tour is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article wasn't much to look at when this nomination was made, an IP address (not me) made significant additions earlier today. The article still needs work, a lot of it in the form of converting in-article external links into properly formatted references. But notability is well established by these additional links. According to the subject's obituary in Black Belt (magazine), the subject is credited with popularizing judo in the United States (and not just with the military). He was also the subject (while living) of a five-page article in that same magazine. And I've only yet scratched the surface of the approximately two dozen new links in the article. What is needed here is clean-up, not deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up I've started the first round of clean-up for the article. In the process, I learned that many of the new links were duplicates of each other, so that the actual number of additional links added by the IP address is much lower than the two dozen that I had reported. However, these new links still do document the subject's notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is one good Black Belt article on him ("The Grand Old Man of Judo" article isn't about him). However, there is nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE since rank is not an indicator of notability. In addition, WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that I can't find and don't see. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. Before I respond, I'll note for the closing administrator that Papaursa and I are the only two discussants who have commented on the article since it was expanded on September 26. I also note that Google searching might have been hampered by the incorrect spelling of the subject's name in the article title -- it should be "Emilio", not "Emelio". And during his career, the subject was largely known as "Mel Bruno".

Papursa, it might well be true that "rank is not an indicator of notability" under the essay that you cited. But that essay also says that the existence of an independent article on the subject is such an indicator, and the essay does not insist on there being more than one such article. But that's a moot point, because the subject passes the general notability guidelines without recourse to the martial-arts essay. One of the criteria for being notable under the general guidelines is that the person's contributions have become part of the enduring historical record of his field. And that's precisely true for the subject here. That five-page article in Black Belt is evidence of this, as it was published in the 1970s, well after Bruno's peak years of accomplishments. And the obituary that the magazine ran in 2004 described him as a "pioneer" of American judo. The website for the United States Judo Federation uses that same word to describe Bruno in its article on the development of Judo in the United States (and that article includes an extended biography of him). In 2007, Bruno was inducted (posthumously) into the Hall of Fame at the Martial Arts History Museum (a fact that I added to the article earlier today). Add to all this the subject's role in developing the US military's judo team, and we have more than enough material with which to build a decent, well-sourced article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC) slight revisions by NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG uses the plural in describing "reliable sources" and saying "multiple sources are generally expected." Martial arts halls of fame have never been considered to show notability due to the large number of them. When I searched the USJF website, I didn't find the source you mention--just passing mentions. In addition, I'm not sure how they could describe him as a "pioneer" and yet not put him in their hall of fame. That seems like a disconnect to me. I'm also not convinced that an obituary is sufficient to show notability, unless it's in a major general publication (e.g., NY Times). Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fallen victim to my own poor note-taking. The website that described Bruno as a pioneer was the one for the Judo Encyclopedia, not the USJF. Because I don't believe that the encyclopedia is a top-quality source, I've stricken my comment from above. But one good thing came out of my mishap -- the additional searching caused me to stumble across the web site for the United States Judo Association, which discusses Bruno's role in the creation of that organization. That site has been added as a general reference to the subject article (though it can be brought into the article itself as part of the general clean-up that is still needed). So that brings the number of independent reliable sources up to at least six, more than enough to create a well-sourced article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have not commented because opinion has not changed.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:53, 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 Already deleted. Procedural close. Article has already been speedy-deleted. (non-admin closure) Alsee (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lashgari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:02, 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. The arguments for Keep have established that the treaty exists but there is no successful argument to show that it is notable. If anyone wants to merge any of the information elsewhere I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 18:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Kurakchay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Treaty of Kurakchay

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

After having digged about this whole matter for a pretty long time I found out and can conclude, pretty safely, that this entire matter is a complete hoax. There was no such thing in history, as a "Treaty of Kurakchay" or "Kurakchay Treaty". I brought the matter up at Doug Weller's talk page as well, not that long ago, asking about the main source that was cited here (Johannes Rau), who turned out to be non-WP:RS as well, see; [26]. Not a single reputable historian or scholar who specifies in the region has ever coined such a treaty. When you type "Kurakchay Treaty" (or any of the two other names) in google, or google books you get either 1) non-WP:RS books/links 2) websites from the Azerbaijan Republic. 3) Wikipedia mirrors. The image added here as well, is not even the Kurakchay Treaty, but a file dating from 1868 authorized by the Caucasian Archeological Commission (in Russian), which thus dates from some ~ 60 years after the so-called "Treaty" was signed. Furthermore, I have all the pages of the other authors put in the article literally laying in front of me as well, by Mostashari (2006), Bournoutian (1994), Atkin (1979), and not a single one of these mention anything even remotely close to the matter presented here, aka a treaty with such a name/such names.

Its pretty amazing how such a hoax managed to linger forth for such a rather long time, just because the whole matter is a low-profile subject. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not a hoax, per reliable sources found by this search and the same search in Google Books, which I can't link because for some inexplicable reason I can't save this page with that link included. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These "reliable sources" just copy-pasted it from Wikipedia. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of them does that? I certainly can't see any such copying and pasting. One example where that would be impossible (and it's not the only one, just the first that caught my eye) is this book published by Aarhus University Press in 1998, eight years before our article was created and several years before Wikipedia even existed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since LouisAragon has had a longstanding awareness of the article he is probably more able than most to spot if current or previous versions of the Wikipedia article's text has made it into any of those sources. But each Google Scholar source is going to have to be individually looked at (though there are not many so it is do-able). Also, a number of then seem on the surface to be non RS, being black propaganda texts produced by Azerbaijan. There is a past edit that placed into the article the actual text of the supposed treaty [27] but its source, a book titled "Sources on Azerbaijani history" published in Baku in 1989, so will be very doubtful as a RS. If this treaty did exist it surely must be mentioned in sources written before the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh began. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bournoutian is cited as a source in the article, and in the talk page is mentioned as the source for the "Russo-Karabakhi treaty" alternative name. LouisAragon, what does Bournoutian actually say? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that text from the Wikipedia article, on a site that was created in 2001, might have made its way into a book published by a Danish university in 1998? Let's keep the discussion in the realm of the possible. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you, Mr Anon, are going to continue to make accusations without any substance I suggest you leave this discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without substance? Do you dispute that Wikipedia was created in 2001? Or maybe you want a reliable source that says that 1998 came before 2001? What substance is missing from my observation that not all of the potential sources are copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article, as stated by KATMAKROFAN? And you don't get to choose who takes part in deletion discussions. Those of us without a dog in this fight are better able to judge notability than editors with a preconceived point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), IDK why you're constantly bringing up a book that's not even WP:RS. I agree that the content of that book doesn't seem to have been copied from Wikipedia, but nevertheless, its authors are not historians, thus the whole thing plays no role here.

@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, the Bournoutian source cited here, without a page, is a translation of an early 19th century work ("A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh"). Bournoutian adds to the relevant passages himself (page 11) that; "His [the writer related to the Khanate] work covers the history of the khanate of Qarabagh from the death of Nader Shah and the appointment of Panah Khan as the khan of Qarabagh in 1747/48 to the signing of the Russo-Qarabakhi treaty in 1805", while on page 3; "Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tsitsianov.[footnote]" In later passages of the journal, Bournoutian always refers back to the same thing as "an agreement" or the "treaty signed with Russia", but never the words "Kurakchay Treaty" or "Treaty of Kurakchay". Mind you, Bournoutian is the sole WP:RS author that even mentions such a word (Russo-Qarabaghi), and even then, throughout his entire euvre, as far as I can see/know, he does so on one mere occassion; only in this translation. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be hung up on the name of this treaty, rather than its existence. Are you doubting that a treaty was made between these parties on the date given? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not actually called "Treaty of Kurakchay" then there are problems calling the article "Treaty of Kurakchay". Yes, something existed. An agreement was made between the Russian commander on the ground and a local ruler who was dependent on Persia, in which that ruler agrees to switch allegiance if his and his family, and his descendants position is guaranteed within the Russian Empire. The modern back story here is that Azerbaijan tries to inflate this agreement concerning a ruling family into a treaty entered into between two states - the Russian Empire and an independent state called the Karabakh Khanate. If an independent Azeri-ruled state can be made out to have existed in 1805, with its continued existence treaty-guaranteed by Russia, then this can be used to question the legitimacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic. My feeling is that, given the vagueness of its status and its name, the content of this article should be merged into related existing articles. There we can refer to it as an agreement, described in later sources as the "Treaty of Kurakchay" or the "Russo-Qarabaghi treaty". (Providing of course that there are at least some RS sources that do refer to it as "Treaty of Kurakchay") Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that this discussion is a puerile nationalist dispute rather than an attempt to improve this encyclopedia. As I said before I have no dog in this fight, but I have no trouble identifying who does. The legitamacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic is not recognised by any UN member state, so anything other than questioning of that legitamacy is very much a fringe view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually confirming to us your fringe pov. The Nagorno Karabakh republic bases its legitimacy on the self-evident fact of its existence, on the right of its population to have self determination, and of it being historically an integral part of Armenia, ethnically and culturally. However, Azeri historiography, which is not supported by RS, claims that, historically, NK was actually "Caucasian Albania", that its "Caucasian Albanians" over time either became assimilated into Muslim Azeris or assimilated into Christian Armenians, and that any real Armenians in NK are actually post-Russian conquest newcomers. This is why Azerbaijan talks up the status and importance of this treaty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the position held by 193 UN member states is fringe, but that held by none is not. That's a weird topsy-turvy interpretation of the word "fringe". I have no doubt that many Azerbaijani nationalists distort history to support their aims, just as other nationalists, including many Armenians, do, but to any neutral observer the existence or otherwise of a minor treaty signed over 200 years ago is utterly irrelevant to the issue of how Nagorno Karabakh should be governed today. I'm not here to further any nationalist point of view, and haven't given an opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I'm challenging errors of fact, such as that this is a hoax and that all sources found are copied and pasted from Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the treaty is mentioned in a book by Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, which appears to be RS. So it's not a hoax. It's significance is unclear, so I'm not sure it warrants an article or not; the book devotes several paragraphs to it noting: "The exact nature of the Kurakchay treaty has been disputed".

The book Small Nations and Great Powers mentions that Karabakh was "conquered" in 1805 so the date matches the supposed treaty under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Svante Cornell source is non RS propaganda that peddles Turkish and Azeri historiography - I can spot numerous lies and distortions in just that single page. "Russia's stirrings in the South Caucasus soon led to a Russo-Persian war". This is a lie - it was Persia's stirrings, seeking to re-impose its traditional supremacy over the Southern Caucasus, who invaded, causing the local Christian rulers in Georgia to ask Russia for help. And similarly, the "former Persian Lands" were not, they were still officially part of Persia though in the hands of mostly autonomous local rulers. The claim that Russia tried to extend its control over Armenia because Armenians were Christian is ludicrous, and it is a fantasy I have seen expressed in no other source. Russia had no intention during WW1 to "annex large parts of eastern Turkey". W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, in "Caucasian Battlefields", the definitive account of the military events, makes clear that for the Russian Empire the Caucasus front was always considered a sideline, was always under sourced, and was to be fought defensively. And of course Cornell is an Armenian Genocide denier, even using the stock denialist wording "tragic events" to dismiss it, placing "genocide" in inverted commas, and accusing Ottoman Armenians of being allied with Russia and being a fifth column. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the Kaveh Farrokh source that I found is not sufficient RS for a stand alone article. PS -- I do not quite understand the above comment. Anyway, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is content in the Farrokh source found by K.e.coffman that could be added to the Shusha article - currently there is nothing on the Russian occupation of it, the Persian advance, Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir ignoring his earlier treaty and switching back allegiance to Persia, his subsequent death, etc. I think there, and on the Ibrahim Khalil Khan article, and with a mention on the Karabakh Khanate article, is the most appropriate place for the subject detailed in this article. It was not a treaty between nations, but was an agreement with an individual (Ibrahim Khalil Khan) who had been appointed by Persia to govern territory that the Persian empire considered an integral part of Persia. Even though sources describe it as a treaty, giving it various names, I think it does not have the status that justifies an article - unlike an actual named treaty between nations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: could you please clarify? If the source that I presented is good, it can be used at the Shusha article. This article under discussion does not need to be merged there, as this source is not being used in the article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly merge). A book published by a University Press is certainly RS; hence this is not a hoax. It may well be that the treaty had little effect, due to the vagaries of war, but that does not mean we should not have an article. I am not clear what merge target is proposed: an article on the war, in which it was a diplomatic event might be a feasible target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It being published by an "University Press" means nothing. "Ole Høiris" and "Sefa Martin Yürükel" are both anthropologists. This being a purely history-related matter, the source is therefore absolutely non-WP:RS.- LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A book that apparently does not mention the subject is not a good source for the subject, no matter who wrote it or who published it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 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.