The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hubert[edit]

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

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

WP:TOOSOON. Even if subject's PowerDNS software may be notable, it doesn't imply the author itself is notable enough for Wikipedia with very few if any third party reliable sources (WP:RS). The only reference being mentioned is an RFC where the article subject is an author, and that is not enough to establish facts per for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). COI editor in PowerDNS article. WubTheCaptain (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Could not find the needed coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without much better sourcing for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur with nom, no indication of notability. MB 18:03, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

51degrees[edit]

51degrees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Software company that does not meet WP:CORP or the GNG. I've only been able to turn up one independent source that mentions the company [1], and it's a trivial mention. Joe Roe (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it stands per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Please advise as to why Forrester Research and Glanton do not meet the standard of "reliable independent source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysts are literally sources of sponsored content reports - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glanton is a self-published source advertising 51Degrees as a service they provide to customers. I can't tell the context in which Forrester 'Research' mentions the company as it's behind a ($349!!) paywall, but again it's an article appearing on their own website, so a self-published source. Joe Roe (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar software providers listed on this site, DeviceAtlas and WURFL, are not nominated for deletion yet their references appear similar in source. Can you assist in providing examples of sources on their pages which could be used as examples for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has many articles that do not meet its inclusion standards. That is why we have a process for deleting them. Joe Roe (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. There is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources to establish notability. I agree with David Gerard and Joe Roe that neither Analysts or Glanton help establish notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO. In addition to sourcing issues, the article reads like an advertorial and is non neutral in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant in its field of device detection. Deployed on 1.5 million websites. Kiwiprof (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete company is notorious for its marketing stunts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.122.156 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete company is not notable. No independent reliable sources that significantly cover this topic are available. This appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform - please see WP:PROMO for what Wikipedia is not. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAccording to these comments, 51Degrees is both "non-notable" and "notorious"! Conflicting reasons, amended reasons, and the permitting of competitors, DeviceAtlas and WURFL leads me to suspect foul play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Berg (journalist)[edit]

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

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

not a notable topic; subject has already been through the deletion process in 2016; attempt is to use Wikipedia as a resume Zefr (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage found to satisfy WP:GNG. It should be noted, however, that the previous deletion was per WP:BLPPROD--as this article was created by a different account and has sources (however weak), the previous deletion should not necessarily be held against the current version. Also, despite the flaws of the article, it's not obvious here that the intent "is to use Wikipedia as a resume", and we should remember to assume good faith on the part of the creator. Finally, the nominator blanked the article prior to applying the AfD tag--this is simply not the way to proceed. --Finngall ^talk 23:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, insufficient notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Logan[edit]

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

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

Topic already covered in the article Logan Lucky, which is the correct title NathanielTheBold (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged the article for speedy deletion. --Cavarrone 06:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Close AFD as I agree that under an incorrect name, the newer article duplicated the information of the older... both authored by Captain Assassin!. Sorry Captain, you need to check your contributions before writing new articles on topics you've already contributed. I have speedy deleted it per WP:A10. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please notice that WP:A10 applies to articles "where the title is not a plausible redirect". We may want to put aside the fact that Lucky Logan was started by the editor who started Logan Lucky, but we may conversely see it as added proof that Lucky Logan is a plausible redirect title. A search for "Lucky Logan" -"Logan Lucky" reveals that Variety used the title Lucky Logan in February, and that multiple other sources have used it since. Hence, as Alternatives to deletion suggests, deletion was not required, as a plausible redirect could have been boldly created per WP:ATD-R, categorized as a ((R from modification)) and ((R unprintworthy)). Pinging collaorators (NathanielTheBold—Cavarrone—Captain Assassin!—MichaelQSchmidt). — Sam Sailor 14:42, 12 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2413[edit]

VF2413 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a VF radio station that exists solely to provide information and music relating to exhibits at the Saskatchewan Western Development Museum. As has been established in several other recent AfDs, neither VF stations nor tourist information stations receive the presumption of notability for broadcast stations. In addition, the article itself admits that whether or not the station is still operating is "uncertain"; in the years since VF2413's 2003 licensing, the CRTC has exempted tourist information stations from licensing. (While technical authorization from Industry Canada is still needed, that's not enough, and unlicensed stations also do not enjoy any presumption of notability.) The call sign seems an unlikely enough search term that I am not recommending a redirect to the museum's article (WP:BROADCAST suggests that such a redirect might be an alternative to an article, but I don't believe this is required); I definitely doubt that it has any notability independent of the museum, much less sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with almost all stations of this type, the overarching problem here is the total unverifiability as to whether such a station is still in operation or not — for low-power specialty stations like this, the CRTC licenses have always typically been the only potential sources we ever really had in the first place, so as soon as it got a license exemption its status became impossible for us to verify any further. There's also little substantive public interest to be served in maintaining an article about such a narrowcast topic, since people are profoundly unlikely to be looking for information about it as a standalone thing. Nominator is also correct that a redirect wouldn't be useful here — VF call signs are such an obscure bit of technical insider baseball that even if somebody actually was looking for information about it, that still isn't the title they'd search for. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eshowdow[edit]

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. No evidence of independent notability, but good content can be preserved there. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per JMilburn. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities per JMilburn's suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Lacks any clear evidence for notability. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Ruppert[edit]

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

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

I worked on this article to tone it down. I'm also unhappy about the complete lack of sources, especially when the article was in its prior form. There's an interested party displaying SPA characteristics who has been questioning me about my actions, and upon reflection, especially after seeing the delete debate on StreetRunner and numerous other contributors to music releases (engineers, producers etc) and the result of those discussions, couple with searches on google and high beam (return nothing - literally nothing on highbeam and just discogs on google) made me think this was a candidate for AfD. nothing that in any way conveys notability. I personally feel producers and similar contributors are unjustly treated by WP:Music but this guy seems to fail GNG substantially. Rayman60 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete BLP without RSes. His name is slightly known and he has done stuff, but I'm having trouble turning up actual sources about him, even unreliable ones. We need the RSes (not hypothetical ones). (The correct search is "Ralph P. Ruppert", if you miss the "P." you get very little.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a WP:PROMO article with no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LGBT culture in New York City. Procedural close; merged as basically a duplicate article. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ Americans in New York City[edit]

LGBTQ Americans in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Badly constituted and illogical article topic. The article is titled as being about LGBT people but nearly all of the content here is about things such as the Stonewall and Chelsea and Greenwich Village and Hell's Kitchen -- content which would belong in the already existing LGBT culture in New York City, not in an article claimed as being about the people -- and outside of that, all that's really left is a random and very unrepresentative list of people's names. (Listed under Broadway: David Burtka, Neil Patrick Harris...and nobody else. As if they were really the only two queers on Broadway.) Worthwhile content can and should be merged to LGBT culture in New York City if it isn't already there, but this isn't suitable as a separate article from that. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain. I'm sure you're kidding, right? That logic is ridiculous, with all due respect. First of all, it's a stub, and a new one at that. It's supposed to be developed, with people adding more names to the list and more information, similar to many of the other demographic articles about NYC. I just started the article, but I can't do all of the work, and by no means is this article comprehensive or complete at this point – it's simply a good start to a fresh article with a very different subject of emphasis. Of course, there can be some commonalities, but there will be mostly significant differences, and Wikipedia policy dictates that all new viable articles with verifiable sources be nurtured in good faith. There's absolutely no reason that both articles shouldn't or couldn't co-exist on Wikipedia. Why don't you add information in good faith, such as other LGBTQ names on Broadway, rather than being closed minded about its great potential (without good reason, I should add)? For example, there co-exist LGBT in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States, and they carry very different emphasis. Castncoot (talk)

• — Note to closing admin: Castncoot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes the first half does seem to duplicate LGBT culture in New York City; the second half, a list of LGBTQ people in New York that may or may not survive Afd -- this place is picky when it comes to such lists. LGBT in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States coexist so well because the rights article is so clearly and distinctly defined. You haven't done that: you've created a duplicate place for people to look for pretty much the same info, and that is not how we do things. I would say WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here, at least for the first half of the article. I wonder why you didn't begin by trying to improve the pre-existing article Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the other article until within the last hour or so, when I received the notice on my Talk page. So that tells you that my focus was entirely different to begin with. And the foci are indeed different. Any duplication that is coincident happens to be relevant to the subjects of both articles, and this is seen throughout Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is information which is out of context in one article, then you would selectively carve that material out - not throw the baby out with the bath water, as the expression goes. And I've clearly noted in my passage above that I was the creator. This article has tremendous potential and should be given a chance to be developed to that potential before any premature judgement (like what I'm seeing here) is made. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the other article as a "See also" in this article. There's no reason that two articles can't have a similar base but then diverge in two very different ways. This happens all the time in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the other article now in some depth. The two articles have very little if anything in common. Castncoot (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say any of the content in this article was already duplicating content in the culture article — nearly everything here, however, is stuff that rightly should be added to the culture article. Individual bars are an aspect of the culture article, not of a "people" article; gaybourhoods are an aspect of the culture article, not a "people" article; historical incidents are an aspect of the culture article, not a "people" article. The content here, however, isn't about people apart from the list of names — it's about the culture, and should be added to the culture article if it isn't already there. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as partially duplicating LGBT culture in New York City, Stonewall Riots, Greenwich Village, etc and partially just list of people with their own articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some background to start an article, and another editor has already adjusted for this in the article's edit summary. That's certainly no reason to delete an entire article, which is nascent at this time.This, by the way, is mutually exclusive of the other article introduced to me yesterday, which I had been unaware of and which has a very different focus from this article altogether, notwithstanding the similar title. Castncoot (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion yet on keeping or deleting but, if this is kept, it surely shouldn't be restricted to Americans but include foreigners who live or have lived in New York. Quentin Crisp springs to mind. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion. I don't think that the notables list (which, by the way, the other article introduced to me yesterday doesn't even address, simply because that is not its focus) necessarily has to include only Americans. As long as the entrant has been or was a New Yorker for a significant period of time, that entrant should be eligible to make the list. Let me look into it, and please feel free to do the same. Castncoot (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were absolutely correct! He identified with New York to the extent that decided to make a move there permanently. Thank you for your constructive and encouraging suggestion to nurture this new article and help it along to further develop its focus! I have added him per your suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was mainly concerned with the title of the article rather than whether any particular person should be included. Why did you think it a good idea for it to be about LGBTQ Americans in New York rather than LGBTQ people in New York? I would expect anyone interested in LBGTQ matters to understand the importance of inclusivity. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the article on LGBT culture in New York City. This article was started in good faith without the creator realising that another article already existed covering the same concept, but it is the same concept. There is no reason why content from here can't be added to the pre-existing article to improve it, maybe including a list of people who have contributed to LGBTQ culture in New York. I would urge Castncoot to concentrate on improving LGBT culture in New York City rather than develop a separate article covering the same ground. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title was originally started with the intention of being parallel in line to Ukrainian Americans in New York City or Korean Americans in New York City. Hence, the word "Americans" came into the title, but that can be changed very quickly to the title you suggested, namely LGBTQ people in New York City, and I've now created a redirect to accommodate room for that title. What I think would be a more appropriate merge if anything, however, is that the other (near namesake) article could be merged into this one, not vice versa. Please also look at Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region. That article includes a description of the various Little Manila neighborhoods in the region.This article, even in its nascency, appears to be far more detailed and comprehensive than its near-namesake article. I still think that no die (dice) should be cast so early on, and I urge people to give this article (and the other one as well) a conscious attempt and chance to diverge and to maintain both articles while (consciously) developing them further in different ways, to highlight the differences in concept and emphasis. Castncoot (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging, if done properly, treats the content in both articles equally, taking the best content from each, so it makes no difference which way round it is done, and, per WP:CONTENTFORK, Wikipedia doesn't work in the way that you describe, with multiple articles covering the same content. None of what I say should be taken as a criticism of your efforts in creating this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to respond to you so delayed, it's been very busy in real life. Thank you for your constructive comments. Just to clarify where I stand, I don't really have a problem with the articles being merged, say into a single article named LGBTQ people in New York City. After all, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the other article when I created this one. My only suggestion and request would be to give some time to give both a chance to further diverge, with one focusing more on people and the other focusing more on culture. Clearly this article is more detailed and comprehensive in its depth and breadth as they currently stand right now. Perhaps some communication should be made to the primary editor(s) of the other article, out of respect for their work, to inform them of this discussion and and to gauge their thoughts? Castncoot (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Pretty clear path forward here, it seems... The title needs to be fixed, it's not a history of gay people as a de facto ethnic group in NYC, which would be an encyclopedic topic, in my view. And we already have LGBT culture in New York City, which is what it needs to be fixed to, which makes this a fork... Ergo, it seems that a merge is in order. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • OK, let's merge both articles. Again, there's WP:NODEADLINE. Who does this? (I don't know how to. And also, how do you squeeze a 22kB article into a 12kB one?) Castncoot (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I figured it out. Merge accomplished. Castncoot (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like notability is not established yet for this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thillens[edit]

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

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

Delete. Article, written like a campaign brochure as these things almost always are, about a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All sources appear to be about his present candidacy too - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. I appreciate your comments. Can you please provide links to the Wikipedia policies that back up the statements you've both made:

• "if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself" - Can you please cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that says a subject must win an elective seat before being notable for an article?
• "No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article today." Please see my notes below.
• "All sources appear to be about his present candidacy too" - Can you please cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that makes the state of being a candidate a disqualifying factor?

For the rules regarding a subject getting their own article (notability requirement): "Notability is the standard of whether a subject can have its own Wikipedia article." To be pass the Notability test: "If a topic has received significant coverage [two news articles] in reliable sources [newspapers are deemed reliable] that are independent of the subject [subject has no control or influence over these publications], it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

If my comments come across as harsh, it is unintended and I apologize. My intention is to be very specific here and to adhere to the WP policies as best as I can, while learning too.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NPOL. Just being a candidate isn't enough in general. WP:POLOUTCOMES lists how politician articles tend to fare in deletion discussions. If he's had unusually more news coverage of his candidacy than the typical candidate, that might convince - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The article, in its current form, cites two local news articles about the subject's positions on issues (and another article that does not reference the subject. Previous AfD's have concluded that being a candidate for office is not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These discussions of candidates for elective office recognize that reliable sources cover the candidates only in the context of a single event, in this case, an electoral campaign (see WP:BLP1E). As WP:BIO1E states, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." From a practical perspective, articles on candidates for public office have the effect in turning Wikipedia into a campaign brochure, and containing information that is difficult to verify (see WP:V. Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Per POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." She hasn't won or lost. The election is in November. Also, I appreciate your effort in your argument, but it read like a legal brief, citing arcane rules and regulations. Makes me think of the most basic Wikipedia rule called "Ignore all rules." It goes, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IGNORE. At any rate, whatever the community decides, I'll support. I'm just trying to learn.--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like this topic is not yet notable to have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Parkhurst[edit]

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

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

Delete. Article, written like a campaign brochure as these things almost always are, about a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets her a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand your personal feelings on the matter. Can you please reference the Wikipedia policy you are saying?

To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's policies do not require that a person need to be "already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of [their] candidacy." For the rules regarding a subject getting their own article (notability requirement), the independent sub-requirement refers to the sources. The sources must be independent of the subject.

"Notability is the standard of whether a subject can have its own Wikipedia article." To be pass the Notability test: "If a topic has received significant coverage [yes, in more than one newspaper where it's ABOUT her, not just mentions her, in addition to the political websites] in reliable sources [newspapers are deemed reliable, as is Ballotpedia] that are independent of the subject [subject has no control or influence over these publications], it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually Ballotpedia is not considered a reliable source — it's a user-generated source which will contain (usually self-published) content about every candidate for every elected office in every election in the United States. And yes, when it comes to satisfying WP:NPOL, an unelected candidate is not considered notable just for the fact of being a candidate — either she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:POLITICIAN, just a candidate for a subnational office, has not won anything yet, purely local coverage, and not a whole lot of that. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Carrite is absolutely true. Equally true is this: the United States Secretary of State is an unelected politician. Carrite, will you go delete John Kerry's article please? He is an unelected politician. You are an expert on Wikipedia rules. Because he is an unelected politician, he MUST not have a page. (I'm just going with what you said). But allow me to elaborate. If being unelected is (especially in the short matter-of-fact manner in which you write it) a disqualifier for being the subject of an article, then why has their existed since 2005 the Wikipedia category American political candidates (which includes subcategories for positions as far down the totem pole as mayors)? Carrite, will you go please delete that category? Clearly a category that's named after a rule that disqualifies a topic from being an article must be erased immediately. After all, as you state, an unelected politician cannot have a page. Allow me to pose another discussion. If someone is a candidate, they can only have a page if they are the incumbent (because the other candidates who are not the incumbents are not elected). Carrite, if you are 100% confident that what you wrote is correct, then you would have to logically agree there should not exist a category called "American political candidates" because such a category would allow for the rule-breaking pages of candidates who are not yet elected. Carrite, are you affiliated with the Democratic Party at any level, any Democratic PAC, or the campaign of the individual who Lindsay Parkhurst is running against? If so, you must publicly state that on Wikipedia. For the record, I have no affiliation or connection to the subject of this article. My core purpose is to give non-incumbents running for the state legislature their fair space on the 6th most heavily trafficked website in the world (as long, of course, as they are notable and covered in credible news sources). (The following is my opinion: The political system is so rigged and the deck is stacked against non-incumbents so bad in Illinois, that if we pile on to that stacked deck by refusing to allow CANDIDATES to be the subject of articles, then shame on everyone. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that once a discussion has been closed, you are not permitted to keep the discussion going by posting new comments to it almost a month after it's closed. That said, your logic is faulty. John Kerry holds a notable position to which he was appointed, and he did hold an elected position for many, many years before that — he is in no way analogous to a person who is notable only as an unelected candidate for office. The existence of Category:American political candidates does not mean that all candidates are automatically accepted as notable just for being candidates — there are some instances of people who were already notable for other things and then by the way also happened to run for office and lose (see, frex, Jack Kevorkian) and the category exists to file them in it; it does not mean that we automatically accept articles about every candidate in an election, if "candidate in an election" is the only notability claim they have. Wikipedia is not the media, and is not bound by an "equal time for all candidates" rule; we are an encyclopedia, and are bound by a will people still need this information ten years from now rule. That means people get articles for winning election to a notable office, and not just for being candidates — and no, it's not a bias either, because the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or a Green or an independent. We are an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures for political hopefuls. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 12 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 Userfy to User:Zazpot. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EOMA-68[edit]

EOMA-68 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is subject to heavy WP:COI editing. I am really struggling to find any sources which meet the required tests of being both reliable and independent. The sources we do have are mainly the company promoting the thing, posts on other wikis by the editor who is the main proponent on Wikipedia, and blogs. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've told you already until i'm blue in the face, Guy: there *is* no "company" behind EOMA68. if you actually bothered to do your research into the 5-year history behind the project, you'd know that fact. nevertheless, with all the references having been deleted or justified for deletion in the minds of people whom i can only describe - accurately - as "wikifascists", you're absolutely, absolutely right. as the author and Guardian of the EOMA68 Standard, i SUPPORT the deletion of this article as it is simply taking up too much of my time, and risks bringing the EOMA68 Standard into disrepute due to attempts to do "technical writing by consensus". The discussions *about* the page are far in excess of the length of the actual page, which is totally ridiculous and utterly inappropriate. has the Q-Seven page had this kind of ridiculous vilification, blatant lack of trust and false information entered by SIX separate individuals in the span of under ten days? What about the PC-104 standard? or the 96boards standard? total hypocrisy and violation of Wikipedia's own policy. Therefore i SUPPORT deletion of this page until Wikipedia editors and Administrators start acting with integrity, trust, and plain common sense. Lkcl (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lkcl, please do not call other editors names. See WP:Etiquette. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

soo.... *i* am not allowed to quotes call other editors names quotes (when in fact i am simply describing a perspective *on* an Administrator's inappropriate behaviour) but that Administrator is permitted to make serious allegations and commit severe breaches of Wikipedia policy, and even states brazenly "i've been here longer than you have"? (i'm referring to JzG's "warning", where he makes several clearly-biased and factually-wrong accusations) Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lkcl, please see two wrongs don't make a right. This isn't aimed at you personally: for an editor to call other editors names like "wikifascist" - even if they disagree about editing decisions - is much more offensive than I could turn a blind eye to, regardless of who did it. Had JzG done it, I would have called JzG out on it. Please note that by calling you out on it, I am not defending JzG's edits. I appreciate that feelings were running high in the EOMA68 edits on the evening of 6 September and early morning of 7 September, and I have remarked elsewhere that I found some of JzG's edits that evening regrettable. I feel that both of you made have made some belittling and regrettable remarks to each other. But I am asking you (and everyone here) to turn the other cheek, and put that behind us. Fundamentally, we're all people here. We all have feelings (and those feelings can be hurt). And we're all Wikipedians: we're in this together. So, let's all try to keep cool and treat each other with respect: you, me, JzG, and everyone else who is participating in this discussion. Sound good? It does to me. I really hope we can all do that :)

On a personal note, assuming you are who you say you are with respect to EOMA68, please don't treat any of us on Wikipedia in a way that would make me regret having backed your crowd-funder, even if you do feel wronged. I backed it because it seemed like a project that - from the technology right through to the developers of that technology - was taking a valuable moral stance: a project that respected computer users and wanted to create a solution in which people would not be abused by computer vendors. Abuse can come in many forms, however. Vendor lock-in is one form of abuse, and I appreciate you are trying to solve that; but calling people names or being dismissive of their concerns can also be abusive or at least feel abusive. I have friends who are not Wikipedians, and who backed the crowd-funder for the same reasons I did. We are all following EOMA68 discussions in various places online. I'm sad to say that we are all starting to wonder if we made the right choice. I hope you will take all this in the spirit that I intend it: i.e. not as an attack, but as a desire for mutual respect and understanding, and for calmer discussions. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

zazpot, i appreciate what you're saying... but it works both ways. i do not expect to be treated with such distrust and enormous disrespect (in direct violation of wikipedia's own policies) such that i feel it is necessary - with good justification - to even use the word "wikifascist" to describe JzG's behaviour. more importantly even than that, simply asking "stop calling people names" when the "names" are in fact an accurate summary and assessment of someone's behaviour has a dangerous side-effect of being denial of their behaviour. thus, by asking me to "stop calling people names" it is in fact endorsement of JzG's completely unacceptable behaviour, in direct violation of what you have just asked me to do! so, on the one hand you are asking me to be "respectful" (when others are not), yet i do not see any evidence of JzG altering his behaviour to be correspondingly respectful. this is an extremely common thing on wikipedia: people with Systems Administrative privileges are "protected" - people are too afraid to call them out, for fear of reprisals (having their accounts terminated, blocked, etc.) so their behaviour is never questioned, even if it is unethical. I have absolutely no such fear: i speak truth, and i do not back down if i see something as being important to bring to people's attention. i have no "vested interest" in Wikipedia, nor any kind of reputation to uphold except that of speaking truth. Lkcl (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lkcl, you say you want to delete the article for two reasons: it is simply taking up too much of my time; and it risks bringing the EOMA68 Standard into disrepute due to attempts to do "technical writing by consensus". I think I can address both those concerns, which I hope will convince you to change your mind to keep. To address the first concern, I would like to point to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and (again) to WP:COI. That is, you are not required to spend any of your time on the article; and in the long run it would probably be for the best (both for your stress levels, and to alleviate other editors' concerns about WP:COI) if you adopt a hands-off approach to it: maybe check in once a month or something and add a note on its talk page of any inaccuracies you perceive, and other editors will weigh these up and do their best to address them within Wikipedia's guidelines. To address your second concern, I wish to point to WP:NOR, and to my previous point about helping other editors to address inaccuracies in an unrushed manner. Please sleep on these suggestions, which are well-meant, and, if you are amenable to them, please switch your preference to keep. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i genuinely appreciate your efforts as well-meaning and well-intentioned, zazpot, but please bear in mind that we did not properly complete the review of COI that i told you was needed (and would be beyond the ability and authority of a single Wikipedia Administrator to resolve). i also simply do not have time to even "check in" on a regular basis on a *talk* page for goodness sake, to correct continuously-false information. six *separate* editors providing easily-demonstrably false factual statements in as little as ten days, man! no, it's much easier for me to place a warning at the top of the standards page on elinux.org, warning people that false information is being added, and false declarations are being made in direct violation of Wikipedia's own policies ("to assume good faith and to trust editors" is the main one that's been violated here). now, i do appreciate your offer to take responsibility for editing the page: however as i've already stated from experience of dealing with three prior separate highly-technical "unusual" pages (this will be the fourth) i have absolutely no confidence from the 100% *FAILING* track record of wikipedia's "multi-editor" approach to produce informative (and technically factually accurate) articles. three of those articles i was entirely independent: they *still* resulted in what can only be described as "wikifascist behaviour" (defined as the "hypocritical, reactionary application of wikipedia rules with blatant and unethical disregard for the harm caused"). anyway - again, i'm taking up far too much time here, i have over 2,000 people relying on me to deliver on my promises to them. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a (German) Wikipedia editor since 2004, and I have just started to improve this article about an admittedly young subject. Unfortunately, my edits were reverted citing WP:COI although I have no conflict of interest. Why can Guy not wait for this article to evolve? Please do not disturb. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The COI edits were made before the change you made, and were substantial. However, the sources you added still were not reliable and independent. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, your definition of COI seems to include everybody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the article's subject. Your definition might be reasonable for political or profit-oriented subjects, but this one is neither. --Thüringer (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he hasn't bothered to look up the history of the project, Thuringer. this is hardly surprising as it's only just come to prominence with the Crowdfunding campaign, but that's no excuse. anyway: just keeping the page from containing factually plain wrong statements is taking up far too much of my time: the simplest thing to do is walk away from Wikipedia, and to protect the standard and not have it brought into disrepute the simplest thing is to support the page deletion. Lkcl (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The features that make EOMA68 notable are not able to withstand controversy because there are too few secondary sources. Instead of limiting the article to technical details that don’t need to be on Wikipedia, we should delete it for now IMHO. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added more secondary sources now. Some of them are not in English because this standardization effort (which started 5 years ago) has received international media coverage. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thüringer, per WP:AFDFORMAT, please can you clarify whether your preferred resolution is "Keep", "Delete", or something else? I guess, from your "do not disturb" comment above, that your preference is "Keep", but I would be grateful if you could confirm that here. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons I gave above. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thüringer’s and Zazpot’s arguments convinced me that there indeed are sufficient reliable sources to keep the article due to media coverage. I’d like to see reliable sources for it being an open standard (CC-BY-SA does not mean open standard; there could be patents) but the article does not need these to remain. Pelzflorian (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelzflorian, you were one of the people who made factually-false edits. you should have consulted with me before making the factually-false edits that you made. regarding patents: if you'd *asked* me - or did even the smallest amount of research into my background - you'd *know* that it's a genuinely open standard. i'm a SOFTWARE LIBRE DEVELOPER. do you know what that means? it means we DON'T LIKE patents! for safety reasons i had to research this, to find a way.. why am i even spending time talking about this?? Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the false claim (on the COI noticeboard; I never edited the EOMA68 article) that you added the “designed for reducing e-waste”. I am sorry for that; I mixed up who did what and blamed you wrongfully. As to being an open standard, Wikipedia is more about verifiability than about mere truth. Since you have researched and IIRC posted about patents somewhere, it would be helpful to know why/if you believe noone else has patents on interfaces used by EOMA68 (because of the age of these interface standards?). I am not familiar enough with patent law, but I believe an explicit disclaimer of any patent rights you may have (even if you do not have any) also is legally safer than relying on your mere claim that you have no such patent rights. Please correct me if I’m wrong; IANAL and I do not know how to disclaim. Pelzflorian (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is no need to hurry; not having enough time for work on EOMA68 is much more harmful to EOMA68 than incomplete Wikipedia articles and false claims on Wikipedia. Pelzflorian (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelzflorian, that's great! As for whether EOMA68 is an open standard, and whether its Wikipedia article should comment on that, I agree this is worth addressing. Let's do that here. Thanks :) zazpot (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or, failing that, userfy). The subject of the article meets WP:GNG: it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example:

• an article in ZDNet;
• an article in the Russian language edition of PCWeek;
• a piece in the German language edition of Linux Magazine;
• several articles in Liliputing: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7];
• a post by Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing;
• a post by Elena Re Garbagnati in the Italian language edition of Tom's Hardware.

(If you wish, you may disagree that some of these are reliable or independent sources. But in order to justify removing the article for failing WP:GNG, you would have to demonstrate consensus among Wikipedians that no more than one of them is a reliable and independent source, and I doubt that such a consensus will emerge.)

Additionally, numerous Wikipedians have invested time into improving the article and addressing the WP:COI concern. It would be a pity for Wikipedia to lose that effort.

As for the WP:TOOSOON claim, I think this is amply rebutted by Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. zazpot (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they've *NOT* addressed the COI concerns at all! the "review" comprised an accusation that i'm an employee of a non-existent corporation, Zazpot! the "improvements" comprised reversion of factually-correct very specifically technically-worded information with factually false statements. to continue to have this page even exist serves one and only one purpose: as a demonstration and case study of how experienced Wikipedians (with no technical knowledge of a new subject) should *NOT* approach a technically-complex new topic. ever. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, JzG and a couple of other experienced Wikipedia editors have already noted that *all* of the news articles listed are... what's the phrase... "unreliable" sources. you can review a full list of all the "unreliable" sources here - i maintained a complete list as i could find them: http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/#articles_online - there's 64 of them which will need to be reviewed (that's just the ones that i could find or had been made aware of). None of these "matter" because they're *all* "unreliable sources" - many of them are done by experienced technical journalists, or by people who are respected in the technical journalism world... but because the technical journalism world is small e.g. compared to "The Guardian Newspaper" every single one of them can be disregarded. The Radio Shows - they're covering 200 stations across the U.S. but they're *talk* shows where i was featured. I'm fairly certain - without checking if it's correct - that someone knows a "rule" on wikipedia which says "if you're talking about your own stuff on a live radio talk show it's to be considered unreliable therefore is not notable". soo... after every single "not-notable" source is removed, we're left with articles which *only i* have written, because this is at an early phase of the standard's history and development. thus we may logically conclude that the entire article is "not reliable" and thus should be DELETED. it's too early, basically, Zazpot. i've taken a copy (snapshot) of the article at its best (before the cluster**** of factually-inaccurate editing began), put it on the elinux.org "talk" section so that it can be maintained there, so people's work is at least preserved, but right now it's best that this serve as a case study in how long-serving senior Wikipedia Editors and Adminstrators should *not* interact with long-serving technical experts (in their field). Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! cool - thank you, i didn't realise there was an italian tom's hardware article. make that 65 "unreliable" sources. added it to the ikiwiki on rhombus-tech - thanks for alerting me to it. Lkcl (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the article I suggest keeping it small and limited to verifiable facts. I believe the media coverage Zazpot and Thüringer cite justifies notability and provides enough reason for this article to exist. False claims may appear from time to time, but deletion is not a good way for Wikipedia to resolve that (whether deletion would be good for EOMA68 does not matter here). Pelzflorian (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built addresses only the promotion allegations, not the lack of notability IMHO. Pelzflorian (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Marginal notability. WP:TOOSOON applies. Might deserve a mention in the article of a company shipping such devices, if they ship and get good coverage. John Nagle (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of coverage would you consider necessary for notability? EOMA68 has coverage by international media and the FSF. Surely a device does not become notable just because it has been shipped. I do not understand why an article on a company is preferrable to an article on the EOMA68 standard. Do you think the EOMA68 article is not useful right now? Pelzflorian (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This new standard is worth documenting, because it's a free and open standard which can be implemented by anyone. How is that not notable? The problem is that editors who don't understand the technicalities have been meddling too much. Please, let the author of the standard help to document it, and stop replacing facts with FUD. User:ecloud —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a member of the Free software movement I support the creation-existance of this article. Have in mind that the EOMA68 is still a new technology which is currently being developed, it has just passed the Crowdfunding campaign, therefore it might still lack external references about this project, which will appear later. It is one of the projects that will greatly benefit the Free software community. Please allow the original author-developer User:Lkcl to submit the important technical specifications to this article and try not to interfere-erase that content later, about which other people might not have sufficient background and technical knowledge. Instead try and reshape the content into the usefull format for Wikipedians. -- Prunk (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless the FSF provides continued coverage, I don’t see how this justifies the article’s existence in terms of Wikipedia policy. Of course the standard is already released and so are parts of the EOMA68-A20 implementation’s “source code”, but they are not notable yet and if Lkcl were to cease any further work, they may not become notable in the future. Userfying as Zazpot proposed (who still prefers to keep the article) seems more appropriate for now. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Multiple WP:NOT violations. Wikipedia is not for promotion, nor is it for documenting current events, especially when the documenter is the propagator of the events in question. Wikipedia is also not for writing about oneself or one's own work, and I don't think we're really outside the realm of press release on a lot of this material. I'm also left wondering where a viable product is. MSJapan (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't the one that created the page, msjapan. i'm on record as being extremely alarmed when i heard that the page was being created, as i am keenly aware that Wikipedia has a long-standing track record of failing to accurately reflect the state of highly-technical subjects. i therefore stepped in to ensure that neither EOMA68 nor Wikipedia were brought into disrepute by well-intentioned people putting up false and misleading statements. those efforts have been interfered with, in ways that clearly violate Wikipedia policies. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coverage is mostly about EOMA68 being announced. Is that insufficient for notability? People may look up EOMA68 on Wikipedia to find out what it is about from a hopefully neutral source. Wikipedia could say that it is a proposed standard for plug-in computer cards. Pelzflorian (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've had to add a warning at the top of the elinux.org page because of the amount of misleading information. the EOMA68 page's very first paragraph contains no less than SEVEN false and misleading statements. that's a staggering (likely unprecedented) level of inaccuracy for something that's supposed to be "a place where people find information from neutral sources". Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is insufficient, either on the grounds of Wikipedia is not for promotion, or existence is not notability, and frankly, it doesn't really meet the general notability guideline either. MSJapan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You convinced me. Thank you. Existence is not notability/Continued coverage applies; media coverage was only temporary and lasting significance cannot yet be determined. Regardless of the general notability guidelines, it seems we really should delete this article. I do think it can be revived after release and more coverage though (not from a snapshot; we want to preserve its history). Pelzflorian (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelzflorian, if your preference is for the article's history to be preserved so that it can be resurrected in future with its history intact, you might prefer to vote "Userfy" instead of "Delete"? Your vote is completely up to you, of course, but I thought this would be worth mentioning in case you weren't aware of the "Userfy" option. I would be happy for the article to be userfied to my namespace if a consensus emerges for "Userfy". zazpot (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ah! didn't know about the userify option, yeah that's a good idea, plus, also, you appear to be a sensible person who both listens to and can write statements that contain consistent logical reasoning, so i'd trust you to... what's the word... be a "curator" of the article on a user-page. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Despite many comments, users Lkcl and Pelzflorian have not unambiguously voted, per WP:AFDFORMAT. Please add a "*'''MyVote''' ... --~~~~" There are programs which read and log AfD pages [8], so this matters. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks john, appreciate the heads-up. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry, the required format was not clear to me. Pelzflorian (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as Zazpot suggested. This way people can continue to work on the article even before there is sufficient continued coverage. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The EOMA68 standard has existed for at least 3 years. Here's a Youtube video from 2013 showing a card that meets the standard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM4cDjGY9vY It's true that the recent crowdfunding campaign makes it seem like maybe the standard is just a momentary phenomenon that won't take off, but I don't think the commercial success (or failure) of a given product that meets a standard is relevant. In the longer view, EOMA68 is the first open standard in the post-Raspberry Pi era of credit-card size computers; that's notable in itself. Pingswept (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a computer card standard! ye gods how many times does it have to be said when the page is right there on elinux.org! i'm actually going to have to add a FAQ entry to deal with this. i appreciate that you've pointed out this really interesting historical observation, but please for goodness sake read the standard! Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me it seems like it is *also* (not only) a computer card standard. Either way, being first does not mean it warrants its own article just yet. In the future it most likely will IMHO, so it seems best to userfy. Note that notability means fulfilling Wikipedia’s notability policy – if this discussion were about perceived importance, I would not switch sides all the time ;) . Pelzflorian (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy would be a good way to ensure that the page stays off of wikipedia (where people who are ignorant of the technical details, haven't read the standard etc. will feel less inclined to put false and misleading statements on it, thinking that they're doing some good), whilst at the same time preserving the efforts of those people who have spent considerable time working on it. i preserved a copy on elinux.org for the same reason. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda steele[edit]

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

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

No sources, last name not capitalized (although can be fixed via a redirect). There are some sources out there but wanted to nominate for deletion to see if the sources are enough to warrant an article on this person. Andise1 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are some sources I have found via searching Google News:

• W Magazine: YouTube Vlogger Amanda Steele Wants to Be a Model
• Daily Mail: Stunning YouTube star, 17, who made her first video at the age of TEN, is hailed as a 'mini Kendall Jenner' after landing a modeling contract with IMG
• Variety: YouTube Star Amanda Steele Signs With WME and IMG Models
• Seventeen: Amanda Steele Reveals How She Got Rid Of Acne In Super-Honest Video
• People: YouTube's Amanda Steele Dishes on Her New Album – and Why She 'Weirded Out' Everyone at Her School
• Billboard: Makeup Queen Amanda Steele's Coachella-Inspired Compilation Album 'Just Gets You Pumped Up'
• Tubefilter: Amanda Steele Is Next YouTube Star To Announce A Compilation Album
• Tubefilter: YouTube Star Amanda Steele Plans Bank Heist With Funny Or Die On Go90
• Bello Magazine: STEELE HER STYLE: AMANDA STEELE
• The Video Ink: YouTube Beauty Vlogger Amanda Steele Signs with WME and IMG Models
• Tubefilter: YouTube Star Amanda Steele’s Sunglasses Line Is Selling Out Very Quickly
• Luxury Daily: Gemfields teams with M2M for style-centric content
• EXCLUSIVE: YouTube star, 15, who boasts over two million subscribers reveals how the 'hobby' she started at age TEN earned her online fame - and a lucrative business
• Daily Mail: Marcus Butler and US vlogger Amanda Steele have teamed up with Adidas for the Step In campaign, aimed to promote the company’s new shoe range.
• Fanlala: YouTuber Amanda Steele has a Brand New Series Coming Your Way!
• andPOP: MakeupByMandy24’s Amanda Steele Talks #TheSocialLife And Her Amazing Instagram Game
• New York Times: Verizon and Hearst to Create TV for Mobile Millennial Viewers
• Tubefilter: Kohl’s, AwesomenessTV Promote Fashion Line With Original Web Series

There are plenty of sources out there which are about Amanda Steele or mention her in some way (I tried to exclude sources that just briefly mentioned her name or did not seem relevant for her Wikipedia page). Whether these sources are good enough to keep the article is to be determined, but if the consensus is to keep the article, then we can add these sources to the article. I don't have a major issue with keeping or deleting the article, since there may be some room for improvement (but possibly not enough), thus I mainly decided to nominate the article for deletion to seek the opinions of others. Andise1 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to me to plainly pass notability guidelines based on considerable coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Agree that the article should be improved; starting with the last name :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article was likely created with the small "s" last name since the proper capitalization was WP:SALTed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable blogger, lots of mentions no indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ginsengbomb is right. Notability guidelines passes. plenty of good sources. Sources trumps IDONTLIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clear GNG pass per a selection of the sources cited above by Andise1. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the article is to be keeped (which it looks like it's headed that way), the article should be redirected to "Amanda Steele". The "Amanda Steele" article is not protected but I don't want to move it while there is a deletion discussion ongoing. Andise1 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOWBALL closure. Consensus is not going to change at this point. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W.H. Jones Mansion[edit]

W.H. Jones Mansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable building. The person W. H. Jones is also seen to be unremarkable as well. S. Salim (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (was Comment) Dunno how much this means, but it's NRHP-listed, so notable. Blythwood (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that that means an awful lot. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - In neither of the nom's two sentences are there any proper rationale for deletion of this article. The claim "Unremarkable building" is not backed by any deletion rationale and a previous owner being in the nom's opinion "unremarkable" is completely irrelevant to notability. The The Columbus Dispatch and the American Institute of Architects sources satisfy WP:GNG. Additionally it's part of the National Register of Historic Places. [9]. And S. Salim, why did you nominate this article for AfD within one hour of its creation? [10]--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:GEOFEAT we always keep any building on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NRHP-listed. --doncram 00:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Management College of Southern Africa[edit]

Management College of Southern Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains no evidence of notability and no reliable independent sources about the subject. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a degree-awarding institution as per longstanding precedent and consensus. Appears to be fully accredited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in line with college and uni notability, although acknowledge that article could be improved with more references. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 4 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Aimé Pierre Guerrier[edit]

Jean Aimé Pierre Guerrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable soldier. The Chevalier grade of the French Legion of Honour does not qualify as France's highest military honor (one would have to have been awarded the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour to claim the highest grade of award), and Guerrier's other decorations are merely campaign decorations (i.e. he participated in, but did not distinguish himself in, several military campaigns). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The French National Order of the Legion of Honor is France's highest military award. Higher ranks within the Order, in addition to other criteria, are subject to seniority within the Order. The award being bestowed posthumously onto Lt Guerrier, a higher rank within the Order can never be achieved, thus reiterating that this the highest military award that could be bestowed. Lt Guerrier distinguished himself several times and was awarded the following:

• He received the Legion of Honour.
• He received the highest level of citation (mentioned at the Army level) and was awarded the Croix de guerre des théâtres d'opérations extérieurs (War Cross for foreign operational theaters) with "Palm" for his gallantry in Indochina.
• He received another citation (mentioned at the Division level) and was awarded the Croix de guerre 1939–1945 (War Cross 1939–1945) with "Silver Star" for his gallantry in World War II.
• He received the Medaille Coloniale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmontabe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Cmontabe: The article mentions that Guerrier received the Croix de Chevalier (the Knight's Cross) of the Legion of Honour. This is, in fact, the lowest grade of that honor, and has, according to the Legion of Honour article, been given out almost one million French and foreign citizens over the centuries. According to the footnote at WP:SOLDIER, only the highest grade of the Legion of Honour (the Grand Cross) would impart presumed notability. The various Croix de Guerre medals are what are known as campaign medals that are given to all service personnel who serve in a particular operational theater. They do not denote any special notability, even if mentioned in dispatches. The Medaille Coloniale is a similar campaign medal, reserved for operations that occurred in territories that were, at the time, French colonies. Again, no special notability is indicated by such a medal. Failing the requirement of having received his nation's highest honor, we would need evidence of significant coverage of Guerrier in independent sources. The mentions you have found of Guerrier in various databases of military honors is not sufficient, as such databases list ALL recipients of such honors. We'd need to see that someone (preferable several someones) took the time to write a significant piece of work (a book or book chapter, or magazine or newspaper article beyond his own home town) to be able to say that this person was notable. (See WP:BIO and WP:GNG.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a tricky one. Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur for service is far too common (with a maximum permitted number at any one time of "just" 113,425!) to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. However, does it qualify under WP:SOLDIER when awarded for gallantry? It does appear to be true that, while it is commonly awarded for service, it is indeed relatively rarely awarded for gallantry, but I'm not sure it is awarded rarely enough to qualify (according to the Légion's website, a maximum of twenty special awards may be made every year to those who do not qualify through length of service to the nation - this includes awards both for gallantry and for such people as Olympic gold medallists - but the implication is that more than this may have been awarded during major wars). I would also dispute that the Croix de guerre is a campaign medal - it is awarded for gallantry (and not, as alleged above, to all personnel who serve in a particular theatre), but it is certainly too low to confer any sort of automatic notability. The problem is that France, in common with some other countries, diverges from the system of first-, second- and third-level gallantry decorations that we see in the USA and the Commonwealth, for instance, and therefore is not really covered as far as decorations are concerned by WP:SOLDIER. Nobody is ever given anything other than Chevalier the first time - you can only get the highest grade by being awarded it five times; so I very much doubt that anyone has ever become a Grand Cross through gallantry alone, thus qualifying nobody under WP:SOLDIER. I would like to see figures for the numbers of Légion d'honneur awards made for gallantry, but sadly I have been unable to find any. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Necrothesp: I refer you to footnote 1 of WP:SOLDIER where the Legion of Honour is specifically mentioned, limiting presumed notability only to those who have received the highest grade of the honor. The article on the Croix de guerre 1939–1945 (France) does not mention any particular gallantry required to be awarded the medal, although the Silver Star that Guerrier earned does denote gallantry. Also, this article published by the Pentagon's Institute of Heraldry does mention that the Croix de Guerre was only awarded to those who were mentioned in dispatches (i.e. had demonstrated some level of gallantry). However, none of this rises to the level of notability generally required for soldiers, and there is no evidence of the kind of significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!
    • I was the original source (although not writer) of that footnote, although it was really a response to those who were saying that the Légion d'honneur for service met the notability requirements (which it obviously does not, given how ubiquitous it is)! And I think you need to reread the Croix de guerre article. "The Croix de guerre may either be awarded as an individual or unit award to those soldiers who distinguish themselves by acts of heroism involving combat with the enemy." The silver star simply denotes the recipient was mentioned in divisional despatches. You will note, I did not say "keep", but I don't think it's an automatic no keep either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Server[edit]

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

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

Procedural AFD - was PRODed, but has been deleted at PROD before. Also CSDed. PROD was "Concerns: notability: significant independent RS coverage cannot be found. A promotional article that's been edited by accounts with conflicts of interest." I concur - this is blatantly deletable and needs to be killed properly as it stands, probably with SALTing. David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO and COI. This edit summary says it all: "Page was created and heavily edited by Hannon Hill employees" :-) Support salting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 10 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) 05:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CADbro[edit]

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

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

Software program that fails WP:NSOFT. noq (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if I were being generous this article would have to be trashed and started over. Everything in Google News is a press release or a reprint of one. I suspect this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:WEBHOST. This is a product brochure in the form of a Wiki article. Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Zw3dmkt with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be created as an editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Games[edit]

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

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

Absolutely no reliable sourcing found whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:01, 30 August 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) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic notability pass on every television series just because its existence is nominally verifiable on IMDb — a series has to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources for an article to become earned. But no reliable source coverage has been shown here, and I'm having the same lack of success as the nominator at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network or delete. I found a few trivial mentions ([11], [12]), but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article may need serious cleanup, but the topic seems to satisfy inclusion criteria in the opinion of the commenters. I'll apply some tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal World[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable book, written like a book report or review. Unsourced, no sources found, but Spanish search may turn up something. Possibly redirect to The Animal World, if deemed not notable. ansh666 03:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, seems like my searching skills and/or Spanish are a bit worse than I thought. I still can't shake the feeling that this is a copyvio or something, but Wikipedia mirrors make those nearly impossible to find just by Googling nowadays. At this point, it's looking probably notable, but needs a complete rewrite, and possibly a move to a disambiguated title. ansh666 18:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like it was the focus of this journal article in the Anales de Literatura Hispanoamerican. I'm not entirely familiar with this journal, so I don't know how exclusive they are. It makes it seem like there might be coverage out there, probably in Spanish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• More possible sources: (may add to this as I find them) [13] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This says that it won a national prize, so maybe some more digging can find out what it is? I'll keep looking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This also gives out some hope for coverage, but I can't get a good look at it - plus my Spanish skills are rudimentary at best. It does look like it was on Clarin's "best of" list at some point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll ask for help at the applicable WikiProjects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I came here in response to Tokyogirl79's post. I found two scholarly sources that appear to give this substantial coverage: [14] and [15]. Unfortunately my Spanish is perhaps good enough to find these, but not near good enough to evaluate them: so I'm just going to leave them here for others to look at. I will note, though, that I would tend to consider coverage in two scholarly pieces more than enough to keep. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An English-language review here: Boria Sax. Review of di Benedetto, Antonio, Animal World. H-Nilas, H-Net Reviews. February, 1999. -maclean (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect (change from Keep) to Antonio di Benedetto. The national prize mention and the H-Net review appear to make the book notable, but the current state of the article does not make this topic worthy of inclusion in current form. I agree that the article needs to be completely re-written; the redirect would preserve the history if someone would want to undertake improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep plenty of Spanish Language sources establishing notability and discourse (just added two, but there are dozens in reputable academic journals). @K.e.coffman:'s argument makes no sense: deletion discussions are about notability, quality improvements are not created by burning everything to the ground -- but by leaving comments on the talk page or through tagging, and letting WP:Eventualism kick in. Sadads (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a valid argument, see the essay WP:TNT. That said, it's probably better to stubify than redirect in this case. ansh666 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stubify may be a form of TNT, but that is something you can do without a AFD discussion -- and it was a pretty trivial action to remove the clear Peacock material. As much as these kinds of AFDs do force work on articles -- its not always best use of experienced editors time in many cases. Thanks for entertaining the conversation though! Sadads (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the improved sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody knows of a good target, you're free to go ahead and recreate this as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP Engineering Radio Guild[edit]

UP Engineering Radio Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The engineering radio guild of a university created four years ago by a WP:SPA that has developed no references since its creation and which remains without independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Am now voting to Redirect, as interest in the nomination has been zero. KDS4444 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? I can guess based on the article content, but it's still necessary to explicitly specify the target in your nomination. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is minimally sourced to its own primary source content about itself rather than to reliable source coverage, contains a lot of completely unsourced insider baseball cruft, and has no strong claim of notability (which is not the same thing as mere existence). I don't see it as warranting a redirect, as it's not a particularly likely topic of reader interest or a particularly likely search term in its own right — nobody outside of its own past and present membership is likely to ever be looking for this, and it can keep its own website for that purpose rather than taking advantage of us. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center[edit]

Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subunit of a university. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep This is an actual museum. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has nothing to do with an actual museum housed on the campus of a University. Move to KEEP this on the grounds that the Nom is mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a dispositive source. This should not have been necessary. We do not delete actual, significant art museums with significant collections. We tag them for sourcing. And we run a WP:BEFORE check before taking the m to AfD. That informs us that they are real. end of Rant, but, honestly, AfD could try the patience of a saint. I am not a saint..E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GEOFEAT, note and sympathise with E.M.Gregory's frustration but remember WP:BURDEN falls on the article creator to provide sources in the first place (why can't article creators provide enough sources, i do (coola says modestly), oh, and heres another source that may be useful - Research Paper: The Jorge B. Vargas Art Collection as a Microcosm of Art during the Commonwealth Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 9 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 Nomination withdrawn. I'm doing a bit of IAR and closing this per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Should the bold redirect be undone, we can come back to AfD again. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.P. Naming Mahal[edit]

U.P. Naming Mahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A university anthem without any independent notability. KDS4444 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me reiterate that: this is an article about a university's hymn. I could find no evidence of discussion of this subject in any reliable independent secondary sources, only lots of evidence published by the university itself— which makes those publications self-serving and unsuitable for establishing a case for real-world notability (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has no provisions for handling school hymns). I welcome anyone who can demonstrate otherwise, but unless that happens, I nominate the existing article for deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Redirect to University of the Philippines Clearly not independently notable. I would say a redirect suffices here as the term is a valid search term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination I will convert this into a redirect myself. KDS4444 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my bolded redirect vote KDS4444 as there is no other !vote other than mine. I don't see a need for bureaucracy so I'm closing this as nomination withdrawn. I guess you can boldly redirect and if it is undone, we can come back to AfD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of the Philippines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines ROTC[edit]

University of the Philippines ROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A campus ROTC program without independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES KDS4444 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable; common for colleges and high schools to have such programs. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to University of the Philippines; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the University of the Philippines page, it has the ROTC stuff on it. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charlotte Bruus Christensen. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Between Us (2004 film)[edit]

Between Us (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable film. Koala15 (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would seem that a non-controversial redirect to arguably notable filmmaker Charlotte Bruus Christensen would have served rather than the AFD process... but as it is now here and the film did receive some awards, it might be possible through modified search parameters to find critical analysis enough to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Charlotte Bruus Christensen. I can't find any information on this film that would satisfy the criteria at WP:NF or WP:NFO (with the possible exception of NFO #3). It seems like it ought to be notable given the awards previously mentioned, but significant coverage of the film is sorely lacking. clpo13_(talk) 22:33, 6 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. Kinda WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input and that this may be a case where sources exist in non-easily searched languages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamisi 'B12' Mandi[edit]

Hamisi 'B12' Mandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. Local radio personality in Tanzania. No reliable sources to be found. Claims of award nominations are not verified by the sources given, and are too vague to verify otherwise. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't checked notability yet, but I see no reason to think that the subject is a local rather than a national radio personality. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javotti Media[edit]

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

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

The page continues to lack and/or fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO; no proof of reliable sources within coverage. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe that this page had good enough proof of cited sources in referencing its history and artists. There wouldn't be anything wrong. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'delete - not a notable company. Or at least redirect. Kellymoat (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hindustan Janata Party. Redirect counterpart to WP:SOFTDELETE applies given the low input despite two relistings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. U. Gosawi[edit]

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

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

Unable to find any reliable sources which will prove notability.

Hindustan Janata Party itself is not a big party. It's president is not notable as not covered much in the news.

He contested election, but did not win any election. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hindustan Janata Party. Anup [Talk] 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Nu[edit]

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

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

The sources are WP:PRIMARY. I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like there are sources, but disagreement about whether they meet the first NMUSIC criterion and no slam dunk argument or clear preponderance of numbers favouring one side. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLARK the band[edit]

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

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

Delete. Full disclosure: I'm actually the original creator here, in 2005 when our notability and sourcing rules were very different than they are today. This is a band that has no strong claim to passing the 2016 version of WP:NMUSIC — the strongest thing here is that it temporarily had two members who later joined Arcade Fire, but they weren't core members of this project: this was a "rotating lineup" collective that had only one constant member, so session players can't be the notability in and of themselves. And more importantly, there's no strong reliable source coverage to get them past what NMUSIC demands now — the only RS-worthy source here is a single album review in Exclaim!, but it doesn't substantiate anything that would constitute an NMUSIC pass, and I can't locate any stronger sourcing that would fix the problem. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a few reviews at Exclaim!: [16], [17], [18]. There's also [19] from PopMatters, though it's a rather brief review of a single. There's some coverage about the band at Chart Attack, too: [20], [21], and [22]. There's also [23] from Canoe.com. I think this is possibly enough. Bearcat, what do you think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm not seeing a lot of substance there that would convincingly pass any NMUSIC criterion — the most substantive new notability claim added by any of that coverage is that they were a finalist in (but not the winner of) a regional "battle of the unsigned bands" competition, and I don't see that as being enough. The Chart references, for example, aren't articles about the band, but merely namecheck it in "local scene news" columns that blurb numerous unrelated and mostly non-notable bands doing unrelated and mostly non-notable things on the order of "played at Barrymore's last Friday". Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that the Chart Attack sources are a bit light, but I figured maybe they might add up to something collectively. However, if I can't even convince the article creator that the topic is notable, I guess the sources probably don't pass muster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I take the view that a large number of sources (album reviews and similar) which constitute brief but non-trivial coverage, is sufficient to meet WP:NMUSIC criterion #1. In addition to what has already been cited above, I found multiple articles in the Ottawa Citizen that also have some coverage of this band; examples include Fateema Sayani. "Clark the band deals and heals", Ottawa Citizen 25 August 2005: F3 – also, Smiderle, Wes. "Star's brother rocks his own way: John Tielli finds a home in Ottawa", Ottawa Citizen 31 January 2002: E3. Another album review is Jagernauth, Kevin. "Clark: Terra Incognita: By Land, Sea & Air", Broken Pencil 18 (2002): 75. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 12 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) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas A. Jeffress[edit]

Nicholas A. Jeffress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No longer associated with Washington, DC or Republicans. Not noteworthy Njeffress (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have reinstated text that was removed (actually a page blank), by Njeffress so that editors may consider the article with regards to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Hi Njeffress, please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The position of Executive Director of a national political party is usually deleted per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The leader of the Republican Party would be the Chair, not the Executive Director. Enos733 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having been the executive director of a local chapter of a national political party, even if it's the local chapter in the capital city, is not in and of itself a valid claim of standalone notability — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to claim WP:GNG. I note that the nominator appears to be the subject himself — and was also the creator of the article, in defiance of our conflict of interest rules — so I will note that the deletion rationale provided was not a valid one as (a) notability is not temporary (i.e. a person who was notable because of a public role they held does not lose that notability just because they leave the role later on), and (b) our content policies, not the subject's own wishes, determine whether the article stays or goes. But I can't argue for a keep on that basis. This is not an article about a person who was formerly notable enough for an article but isn't anymore — it's an article about a person who never met our inclusion standards to begin with. All of that said, WP:BIODEL does also come into play here, as an article about a low-profile individual who has personally requested deletion, but that remains secondary to the fact that this article should never have been created in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really Not a Rapper[edit]

Really Not a Rapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable album by nonnotable rapper whose own apparently-promotional article is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Montana Montana No evidence of passing WP:NALBUMS, either presented here or on a search. I couldn't find the claimed chart placings on billboard.com. David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and my reasoning at the Montana Montana Montana nomination. Non-notable album by non-notable artist. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the artist article has been deleted at AFD as well - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:A9 -- as noted above, artist article was deleted at AfD as a non-notable subject and therefore the album article now meets WP:CSD criteria. --Finngall ^talk 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Dhoop Tum Ghana Saya[edit]

Zindagi Dhoop Tum Ghana Saya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One link is broken. The second link refers to a web page that can not be considered reputable. Manoflogan (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated previously, the wiki page fails notability test, lacks references and has not been updated in a long time. Manoflogan (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as nationally broadcast passes WP:TV offline references would be helpful as Pakistan's internet coverage seems to be limited in entertainment subjects. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am afraid I disagree. One reference is a dead link. The 2nd reference is http://7thsky.biz/current/prg027_Ztgs_main.html, resembles WP:PROMO. There is no objectivity evident in the references. Since the two references are not reliable, it only makes sense that the page be deleted. Lack of reliable internet coverage can not be used as an excuse.Manoflogan (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as a delete !vote. You are welcome to comment on users' !votes but not starting with a delete marked bold. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:36, 6 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) 05:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Messenger[edit]

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

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

WP:NN IM service. Couldn't dredge up any independent sources Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS refs. Only ref provided does not mention Hej Messenger. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article making unreferenced claim about a product, and largely providing its feature list. No evidence found that the product is notable in terms of WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Incertae sedis. ...Any interested editor may include details of Porifera incerta sedis into the target page. The history of the redirected page is intact. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Porifera incertae sedis[edit]

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

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

Incertae sedis is an indication for uncertain placement at one more ranks in a taxonomic hierarchy. Porifera incertae sedis is not a taxon we can write an article about. It's entirely possible that there could be multiple taxa that are incertae sedis at the same rank(s), but which are obviously not at all closely related. Incertae sedis does not represent a coherent entity. Incertae sedis should be used as a placeholder in a taxobox; an article is impossible to write. Plantdrew (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I understand and agree with the nom's reasoning. Probably an article should be written on Placodictyum instead. But it is interesting to note that the class Porifera incertae sedis does occur in databases, such as World Register of Marine Species and World Porifera database. In both of these databases, the class has the status of "accepted". Even with these entries, there does not appear to be multiple in-depth reliable sources about this class. Hence the class fails notability thresholds, and should be deleted. No prejudice to creating a redirect to Placodictyum, should it even get written. --Mark viking (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Incertae sedis. The article (microstub...) at this point is plain misleading. I think it would be most informative to make clear that this is a particular instantiation of a nomenclature convention by redirecting to that usage. Maybe put a mention of the use of "Porifera incertae sedis" as an accepted class into Incertae sedis? (that does strike me as unusual) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Church Kaliakkavilai[edit]

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

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

Non-notable church. There is nothing about this church, either as an organization or as a building, to distinguish it from every other church. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- It would be nice if we could keep articles on every NN local church, but we cannot and do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Photos of chruch and few lines however could be added into Kaliyakkavilai article. Anup [Talk] 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The form does not appear to be sufficiently established for an article.The only "keep" arguments are from a couple of special-purpose accounts (who were also responsible for the unsigned comments), and they do not provide convincing evidence of Independent Reliable Coverage. MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherita[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

Found this article whilst working through the underlinked backlog. Created in 2014, its subject is a form of poetry purportedly derived from haiku that is so obscure it doesn't appear at all in a Google Books search. Most of the references cited in the article are bunk like self-published books and Tripod.com userpages (remember those?) but there is apparently one good source -- a brief mention in Frogpond, the journal of the Haiku Society of America. Additionally, the first three paras of the article are copy/pasted from one of its dubious references.

I will happily withdraw the nom if good sources can be found -- I had enough MFA student friends at university to know that poets have it tough all over. But as it stands there just doesn't seem to be enough meat here to pass WP:GNG. A Train^talk 16:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have updated the article with a lot of recent references.

There has been a lot of activity in Atlas Poetica and Bright Stars, along with a number of books of Cherita. I'll see if I can dig out some more books and add them over the next few weeks. Thanks for being so polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — GrahamJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete virtually everything I see as added references refer to this form being "created in 1997 by American poet Ai Li." I daresay WP:NOTMADEUP applies. Not notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The form was part of a series of different genres developed out of Tanka and Haiku over several years and is now accepted by major Tanka journals with many different writers. If I follow your argument then all forms developed out of the haiku and tanka roots such as Haibun should be removed as WP:NOTMADEUP applies to Matsuo Bashō when he invented the form in a letter to his disciple Kyorai. That appears to be the logical conclusion of your analysis of a form now written by many different authors around the global.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More generally, cherita is a subset of micropoetry, a phenomenon that has gain popularity with the emergence of microblogging sites in the 21st century. Both 'micropoetry' and 'microblogging' have pages of their own on Wikipedia.Soaphollow (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Soaphollow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it's a linguistic issue, but I cannot find instances of this new poetic form discussed in truly unaffiliated, non-user generated reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I know Frog Pond, Atlas Poetica and Bright Starts (for example) have no affiliation to the authors who published Cherita in them — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to prove that the poetry form is popular. And this requires significant coverage. Poetry forms are invented daily. What sets a poetry form apart from the others is if it has been adopted by others and reliable sources are talking about it. At the moment, I don't see significant coverage. A brief mention in Frog Pond is all I can see - and the rest seems to be references linked to one particular poet which I doubt are independent and secondary. Previous AfDs on made-up poetic forms have resulted in deletions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udaiyaathathu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liwuli. At the moment, I don't see enough about the poetry form to keep this article. I'm also concerned that keeping articles like these in Wikipedia is possibly an attempt to increase the usage of these forms; WP:NOTPROMO applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Surely independent poetry festivals count? The New Hampshire Poetry Festival made this their featured form last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to !vote twice. One per customer. Striking through your second one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for that festival, the Folded Word blog has a link about that panel -- and a link to "the inventor's website," here. Doesn't sway me, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the fact that it has been featured in The Philadelphia Inquirer, you have authors promoting it in India, and supporters in Sweden and the UK ? It has been used for teaching in schools in the UK, a Cherita has even been a winner the Japanese Tanabata poetry festival. It is great to see this form having worldwide interest, as is anything that helps a wider audience find an interest in micro poetry, be it Haiku, Tanka, Haibun or any of the related forms. Whatever we can do to spark creativity and discussion in an oft overlooked genre - poetry - must be a good thing, as we often discount the importance of literacy in a modern abbreviated world where AT prevent us :| at the 411 - :-). GrahamJB (talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general, for stuff like these we require significant secondary coverage. Poetry forms, like scientific inventions are created daily. We don't include a scienctific invention on Wikipedia till multiple people talk about it and analyse it. For this poetry form, I don't see any references in scholarly literature. Simply being used in a festival is a proof that it exists, not that it is notable. Someone needs to do a detailed study on the poetry form itself, maybe a peer-reviewed journal paper or a PhD thesis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you mean scholarly literature like these links from the Chertia page A History of Tanka in English Pt I : The North American Foundation and Good Company: An Exploration of Haiku-Related Linked Forms, Supplement #3 of Acorn haiku journal ? If these are not scholarly, please can clarify your definition of scholarly? In fact I believe that either of these would be applicable for a PhD thesis. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • In general, scholarly literature refers to peer-reviewed papers published in a major journal (with a track record of publishing integrity). The coverage also has to be significant coverage: for example several pages focusing solely on "Cherita" is required. The coverage at A History of Tanka in English Pt I : The North American Foundation and Good Company: An Exploration of Haiku-Related Linked Forms, Supplement #3 of Acorn haiku journal is restricted to a few lines at best which literally doesn't tell much. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The foremost Tanka journals (and many Haiku journals) have written about/ featured/ accept Cherita, so I have to disagree strongly with you there. I think you also insult the editors of those accusing them with not having integrity - they would be strongly offended by that accusation. I am sorry if you are not involved in the worldwide societies and journals that promote Haiku, Tanka, Haibun and the related forms and so may not have recognised them. How many Haiku and Tanka societies are you a member of, or have you been actively involved in?. Unfortunately poetry is not like ieee (if you are a member of that, as I once was) with huge worldwide grants, membership fees, and a single worldwide organisation - poets do not in general have an overabundance of funds and are more independent - but I have shown clear evidence of worldwide peer review by independent editors and publishers, and demonstrated that significant numbers of the print and online outlets for this type work have promoted the Cherita. I do accept that it is a smaller community than say, the membership of the ieee, but percentage wise, the impact has been significant.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• When on earth did Lemongirl942 "insult the editors of those accusing them with not having integrity?" She's been far more patient than I would have been. I caution GrahamJB here that this is the sort of WP:Drama and unfounded accusations that we have little patience for, here. And if I see more of it, I won't hesitate to start issuing user warnings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To quote - 'peer-reviewed papers published in a major journal (with a track record of publishing integrity)'. The journals already mentioned are some of the leading tanks and haiku journals across the world - as is self evident to any SME- this is therefore answered unless you are arguing they have a lack of integrity. Stop arguing something already demonstrated as false. The only basis you can therefore be arguing - in your words - for not doing this - is on their lack of 'publishing integrity'.(talk)
• Comment I just found this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive_12#Cherita.2Fwikilink. Seems like others agreed that it was WP:MADEUP way back in 2009 as well when our standards were much lower. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry if you feel we did not have a proper debate at that time. The Cherita came out of a collaboration of leading poets in their genre from around the world over several years. It is plainly not made up in a pub quiz or a weekend, but was part of a long collaborative exploration of forms - as I can see from reading the sources - and BTW - I am not the creator, only the poster of a form that had been internationally written since 1997.(talk)