< 10 February	12 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Sticky (abum)[edit]

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

Duplicate of the article "Sticky Sticky" Rockysmile11^(talk) 23:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A10. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:23, 12 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scepta[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only sources are to affiliated pages, makes no credible claim of significance due to its lack of independent sources. DrStrauss talk 22:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plus comment - I've tried to tidy the page up a bit. There were two links to outside agencies (MTV and the Jamaica Cultural Development Commission), which I've made clearer, but the only claim to notability is being a finalist in the Jamaica Festival Song Competition. I suspect that's not enough (and as it happens we don't seem to have a page about the winner). I can't find other significant coverage. Mortee (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:53, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Welch[edit]

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

Seems to be best known as an author of "The Last Witness" series, but these books aren't particularly notable. Most have very few Amazon reviews and low ranking. Could not find independent book reviews or other coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG MB 21:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (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. Page was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) TheMagikCow (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Abang Nelson[edit]

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

This article should really be speedily deleted. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The article is unsourced. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, A7 fits because there's no claims of significance. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7 applies and a Google search for the full name in quotes gets all of 2 results, one Wikipedia, one Wikimedia. Mortee (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the edit added this to AfD removed an A7 nomination for speedy deletion. Perhaps that was accidental? Mortee (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee: It was accidental. I honestly didn't see the speedy deletion tag User:KylieTastic placed in the article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: makes sense. Perhaps a patrolling admin could delete the page and close this discussion? Note also that Emmanuel A Nelson was deleted under A7 a few hours ago and a note left on the same article creator's talk page. I can't see the content but assume it was the same. Mortee (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete KylieTastic (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete easy ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 12 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Only claim of significance is a notable member but has absolutely no coverage in independent sources - reliable or otherwise. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better at all and the information and sources listed themselves show triviality. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:CCS, poorly sourced and therefore fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 22:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:MUSICBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:29, 18 February 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Tyler[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many Google News hits. Passes MUSICBIO #2. WP:TNT though, by all means. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to a significant biography in a secondary source? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[[1] MSwritersandmusicians]]. Also, all of the songs he wrote [2] are blue linked. Edit: Also, he is a songwriter, not a musician, and slots under WP:COMPOSER and passes 1,3, and possibly 4. I don't know enough about country to know what awards his songs have or haven't won, but they have slotted single digits in the Billboard Country charts, which I hear is big stuff. He is also mentioned in each of those songs on the Wiki page as a writer/co-writer which would make him notable. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're ready to "TNT through", but have only managed to find one biography written as part of a Starkville High School class project. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That class project yields a wealth of information about the BLP subject. So far I have restructured the article to resemble an actual Wikipedia page, and will probably add more facts throughout this next week. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The back of a cereal box is informative too, but I would not use it to source a Wikipedia article. Please take a moment to read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about cereal. SCHOLARSHIP is not applicable here. If you read the source, you will se it also contains an interview with the subject. If there is a difference between this "high shcool project" and what any other RS cranks out, please show me. If you want to debate the credibilty of the source, hold an RfC, not a AfD. WP:UNRS L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I nominated this article for deletion because I was "unable to locate secondary sources to support notability". An interview is not a secondary source, per WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that, and I will also note that subject is notable, and you have not demonstrated his lack of Notability. I believe in ATA it says that a lack of sources does not indicate lack of notability.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune here, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Nashville Banner. Unfortunately there do not appear to be online versions of the latter two, but they are similar to the Tribune article, and I've added citations to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:22, 12 February 2017 (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 per unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rod A. Martin[edit]

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

BLP unsourced except to his employer's website since 2009 Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of aggregated citations doesn't mean it fails N. Scholar is bringing back returns in thousands. He has also written more than the one book mentioned in the stub. Edit: plenty of news articles, His book appears to be a major deal in the field, etc etc. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Anthony Gottlieb in NYT calls Martin's book the quote "compendious college textbook on the topic" and Nick Tasler in Harvard Business Review describes him as the "pioneering humor researcher", it should give reason to further STFW. As L3X1 correctly points out, a Google Scholar shows 8000+ citations, and with an h-index of 40 and countless of quotes in Google Books search results, a few of which I have added as citations, I think subject meets WP:NACADEMIC #1. How the article was sourced at the time of AFD tagging is not a policy based argument for deletion, as notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Sam Sailor 02:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:58, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Bodhi College[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. No claim or indication of significance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to suggest this is notable and the article consists of so little right now that if it's deleted and a later editor disagrees, they've lost nothing. A PROD might have been appropriate. Mortee (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Fails WP:GNG. See WP:NOT. We do not normally create articles for grammar schools.. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gampaha#Education. Why delete? Adam9007 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I am unable to find any online coverage in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable education institute.Can't found reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Nominator already nominated in the according venue for redirects. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simec[edit]

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

This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion, and I am not sure I have done everything right. The Simec article is currently redirected to a section of the Local currency article. I guess Simec could be some kind of local currency, but a bit of quick Googling doesn't turn up any references to it. Maybe it was somebody messing around, and there is no Simec local currency.

Anyway, when you land in the "Modern local currencies" section of the Local Currency article, there is no mention of Simec. Lower down, there is a list of local currency examples, including the bare reference "Simec", linking to the Simec article. The link is red, presumably because it is a circular reference.

The aim of my AfD nomination is to get rid of this circular reference, and have it all cleaned up, but if there is a better way to do it, that is fine also. Person54 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. --TL22 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2017 (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. Closing per WP:SCLOSE, article already speedy deleted under A7. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 23:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.Deepa jayakumar[edit]

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

This article has been deleted twice for not meeting WP:A7. The current form of the article should be deleted as it does not have any references and is about a person (could be deleted per WP:BLPPROD) The article does not meet the WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 17:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also pinging @Deb and RHaworth: as they have deleted this article in the past. Also the creator of this version of J.Deepa jayakumar created the previous versions -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 17:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 17:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Blatant COI. Deb (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:A7 and WP:COI. DrStrauss talk 19:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is the niece of a former Chief minister of Tamil Nadu Ms.Jayalalitha and that alone does not make her notable but she does have coverage in the media here [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON for a WP:POLITICIAN.My two cents says it looks like a delete but I have a feeling this article will be back due to the recent political turmoil in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu regarding the political legacy of Ms.Jayalalitha.FITINDIA (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to nominate J.Deepa as that article has the same content as J.Deepa jayakumar (before J.Deepa jayakumar was turned into a redirect to J.Deepa. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 04:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tagged both with A7. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brungaria[edit]

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines The Verified Cactus 100% 17:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything significant in secondary sources. This doesn't give significantly more info than the brief mention on Tom Swift Jr. and what it does have might be WP:OR, since it's been tagged for having no sources since 2010. Copying the text over would also unbalance Tom Swift Jr. as that page doesn't (yet) include other locations, races etc from the series. That wouldn't make it non-neutral, so it's not WP:UNDUE exactly, but something similar. Mortee (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any noteworthy content into Tom Swift Jr. DrStrauss talk 22:47, 11 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church at Addis[edit]

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

Non-notable church. References lack in-depth coverage. Verges on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Honestly it is borderline G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - An editor has taken a cursory look at the new Church of Addis entry and concluded that the Church of Addis is not of sufficient notability and the page should be deleted. I submit that this view is not correct.

The Church at Addis has reinstated the practice of First Century Christianity. This in itself is innovative and historic.

First Century Christianity has proven to be a magnet to people that cause them to drive by numerous other churches to get to the Church at Addis. The Church at Addis attracts members from as far as twenty-five or thirty miles away. Few other churches can make this claim.

The practice of First Century Christianity has caused extremely rapid growth in membership that has attracted attention state-wide.

The Church at Addis is involved internationally with support of a school in Nicaragua. This is quite unusual. This two is attracting attention beyond the local area.

When a historic flood occurred in the area, the Church at Addis turned itself into a distribution center to provide relief to flood victims. This has attracted notice from FEMA, Glenn Beck, and the West Side Journal newspaper. It received an award from the Chamber of Commerce.

The Church at Addis appears to be heading for mega-church status due to its rapid rate of growth. Wikipedia should not be short-sighted and delete this page.

If this page is to be deleted, then there are dozens or hundreds of other pages describing churches that are much less notable that should be deleted. I think it would be very unfair to delete the Church at Addis page while allowing other less notable articles to remain.

The Church at Addis has been highlighted in both religious and secular journals. It is a notable church and deserves a place on Wikipedia Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The bottom line is the article subject needs to meet the criteria in notability and be supported by significant coverage. The items you have indicated do not support notability. Your comment that implies there are many other articles in Wikipedia of lessor "importance" than this article is not relevant - other stuff exists and is not a reason to keep this article. Please demonstrate how this article meets the criteria in WP:N beyond local coverage. reddogsix (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utku Köse[edit]

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

Fail WP:PROF. Still doing his PHD. Has got a fair number of Google scholar hits, but I don't think he makes it at the moment. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. GS cites not remotely enough for a very high cited field WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as far too soon in our standards. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a resume site. W Nowicki (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is the author of a large number of peer-reviewed papers. The article includes about ten from 2016, but there are many others going back to at least 2010, one being cited by 72. I think he meets WP:NACADEMIC as having had a significant impact in his discipline. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is citations to the work by others that counts, and a GS h-index of 8 is insufficient here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Citation record [9] (in a high citation field) is good for a student, but not good enough for WP:PROF#C1, and no evidence of any other type of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:Prof.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:40, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ágúst Bjarnason[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and subsequently WP:BIO. Minor actor at the moment. So far down the list of actors in Fast 8, that it is hard to see him. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON for an actor to be notable. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many of the listed films are unreleased to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to vote about deletion since the article is currently being worked on and relevant information needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ Notability is not isolated just to the USA. This individual is notable in Iceland, but somehow other people seem to ignore that completely.--Snaevar (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the verifiable sources please.scope_creep (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Striked my comment above. This actor has not been in an main role in a movie, and as such I can see why he is not notable.--Snaevar (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Added national lottery commercials and three dozen Icelandic projects - more work needs to be added before marking this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in lottery commercials is not exactly the think notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Commercials can be more notable than TV/FILMS - some even have their own wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman_Grill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The subject must be widely known, not just in Iceland. I agree with KGirlTrucker8. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion that The subject must be widely known, not just in Iceland. is wrong. — Sam Sailor 07:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Bjarnason is also known globally for successful Icelandic films including Life in a fishbowl (2014) and the Oath (2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ He is currently filming a series for Netflix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs)

Note to closer - Article creator, Anna Johannsson , who is new and may not know how to comment in AFD's, has !voted 5 6 times in this discussion. CBS527^Talk 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Article creator, it might be necessary to delete this article but it would be better to get help with improving it. I have made some improvements myself but this does not seem to change anything in this discussion, which is now longer than the original article. I would recommend we delete the article now if that is the goal so I don´t spend more time replying or improving it. Thank you :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article and source do not establish establish notability per guidelines. Fails WP:NACTOR and basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Current sources consists of Imdb and trivial mentions such as a birthday or a graduation notation. May be WP:TOOSOON for article on subject. CBS527^Talk 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ User cbs527 does not seem to have any knowledge of the subject and arguments for deletion are completely unfounded. There are nine different references from big magazines including seen and heard, news papers and a pretty solid IMDB profile. Hope you don´t let cbs527 change your mind based on limited info and knowledge. It would be great if someone would google the subject and add more references. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Johannsson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. This article does not meet the minimum standard of WP:GNG as the subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article's sources do not meet all 3 requirement. Current sources:

1. Article is about people who have a birthday on October 7th

2. Announcement of new advertising videos for University of Iceland Lottery. Subject isn't mentioned or credited in text or video's.

3, 4, 5. IMBd - not a reliable source. It's a user edit site.

6. Subject doesn't appear to be mentioned.

7. List of June, 2004 University of Reykjavík graduates

8. Short 8 sentence article - source with most coverage but nothing to establish notability.

9. Short description and video about subject's attempt to run in a marathon.

I tried to find some sources to add to the article to help establish notability but was unable to. A search of all Google search engines and HighBeam results in a few hits for Ágúst Bjarnason, the sciencest, but nothing for this subject to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 02:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck the duplicate !votes above. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. Hopefully a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Sam Sailor 07:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACTOR. The excessive keep voting of 1 user is disruptive. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:NACTOR. Winged Blades^Godric 17:08, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Samuel Koren[edit]

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

Fail WP:BIO. How is he notable? Most of the ref's are about his current work, which is the basis of the article. It's all his company and nothing about him. scope_creep (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertised business listing followed by advertised PR sources, none of which benefit a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of inflation and puffery going on here. I checked several refs (e.g. Guardian) and they did not even contain the guy's name. They refs were being used peripherally to say here's an article about a concert hall that my company provided acoustic tile for. big Delete.198.58.162.176 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:notability. Not generally well known. No articles specifically about him. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:42, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center in music[edit]

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

Generally unsourced and hopelessly indiscriminate. A useless catalog of music videos including images of New York City where where the Towers appear in passing, similar album covers, passing mentions in song lyrics, and even a music video where one scene was reportedly shot in a WTC elevator. The list also omits such songs as Springsteen's "The Rising", where the WTT attacks are the central subject. An unsalvageable, irreparable mess without encyclopedic value. Whatever small share of content has value can be restored to the World Trade Center in popular culture article, which itself badly needs pruning. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. And possibly this is a WP:HOAX and should be a speedy delete. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was brought to this AfD from a message to my talk page. Though I am the "creator" of this page, I only served to split out content from World Trade Center in popular culture. I would disagree that this is a WP:HOAX, as there have been numerous songs with references to the World Trade Center. Overall, I am neutral in this topic, and would not oppose merging content back to the main popular culture page, and deleting this page. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Subject to repair. There are many such articles that list things. CaseeArt ^Talk 03:57, 13 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WeNeed1[edit]

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

deProded by the author. The available sources covering only the founder and I can't find significant coverage in independent third-party reliable sources to support WP:WEBSITE. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article sources appear to be multiple versions of the same press release material where the product creator explains the subject through an interview format. It's not independent and it's not much about the subject. Searches found more of the same which didn't help for notability. Fails general and WP:WEBSITE. Gab4gab (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bissau Palace Hotel[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. using lonely planet as a source doesn't cut it. Could only find coverage of same named hotel in India LibStar (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGEO. No significant coverage. Lourdes 16:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable hotel, fails WP:NGEO. Lonely Planet is not a secondary source, proves its existence only. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NGEO. Not notable. South Nashua (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, non-notable hotel, sources not available to establish notability per WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 07:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hotel.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:47, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Şayan Kadın (wife of Abdülmecid I)[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced and the subject doesn't seem to be notable. The main problem, however, is that this woman was not the wife of an Ottoman sultan. Per this discussion: User talk:Retrieverlove#Moving pages without discussion User:Retrieverlove clearly states that according to his research this lady was a treasurer or kalfa. There's no obstacle in having an article about a notable imperial treasurer (as we already have) but the main issue with this article is that not even a single sentence is backed by a reliable source. So it's unsourced and provides wrong information too, thus it confuses the readers and gives them wrong feedback. Keivan.f^Talk 13:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's not listed among 27 wives of Abdulmecid at https://web.archive.org/web/20060422084735/http://4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey10.htm. I can find no evidence that she was one. DrKay (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too good. Lourdes 16:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source given, not found as a wife of this sultan, possible OR.--Phso2 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mickaella L. Perina[edit]

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

Worldcat shows no published books, and only a small number of papers. Google Scholar shows almost no citation, except to her thesis.This does not meet WP:PROF --the standard for fields like philosophy is several books by major publishers, or a large number of widely cited papers. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this entry as part of a hackathon. I am a new user to Wikipedia, so I am still familiarizing myself with how to edit articles, both in terms of content and the Wikipedia formatting. I found this academic on one of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject: Women in Red pages, and I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia's project of turning red links into blue ones. Though it is possible you may disagree with the credentials of the women appearing on these pages, or the logic of my contribution, I created this article as part of the effort to provide more information about women in academics that appear to be underrepresented on Wikipedia.

I have found a CV of Perina's through 2013 that includes her first book. I have not yet found a simple template for creating a "Published Works" list on her page, as many of the titles were published in French academic journals. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated! Though it is true that Perina has only published one book, she is contributing currently to the study of race and philosophy in academia through her programming and article publishing. Her contribution to study of race theory and philosophy in Martinique is one of the few scholarly contributions on that topic overall, which under the WP:PROF Criteria 1 seems fitting: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." Drapered (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to do some more research when I saw this entry go up in hopes I could help avoid AfD, and I did find her book, but the entry still seems TOOSOON to me. Drapered--and DGG could explain this better than I could as its one of his areas of expertise--but in order to satisfy that version of criteria #1, there needs to be evidence of "substantial" external recognition to show the concept pioneered is "significant". I.e. qualifying is about about recognition by others rather than about how much she's written, and I haven't been able to find that recognition--yet. Do keep in mind she may still qualify later; as associate professor, this is still pretty early career so it doesn't at all mean she'll never qualify. Still I'm really sorry, I know it's extremely discouraging to have one of your first entries nominated for AfD, and I can fully understand that a WiR list of redlinks seems like a safe bet, but unfortunately it's not always a sure thing (among other issues, not everyone realizes they're supposed to confirm a subject qualifies as wiki-notable before creating the redlink). I hope at least this info can be helpful going forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful Reply Innisfree987 Thank you for your insight on the qualifier of recognition in the field versus overall proliferation of published books. Even if this page gets deleted, I will keep that guideline in mind in the future. I have seen Perina mentioned in the "Thank You" sections of numerous other published books in her academic field (not that that represents any physical contributions, but notes to me her impact on this academic community). I appreciate the need for more substantial references, though, and I will do my best to find more if the article is deleted. I am very grateful for the helpful discourse as well as code. Drapered (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tenuous notability which rests on MMQD which is a Time blog possibly?, as notability pass. Huff ref is a blog. Don't think it passes rigorous BLP. scope_creep (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MMQB not MMQD stands for Monday Morning Quarterback and is written by Peter King. It is a Sports Illustrated website. The film is distributed by a major independent film company, Gravitas Ventures. The book authored by the subject is available on significant marketplaces like Amazon, iTunes, and Barnes and Noble. There are far less relevant people than Rhett Grametbauer on Wikipedia. Unsigned comment by User talk:Mosimdance.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason the article has suddenly appeared is because his self financed documentary is being reissued, and as such is for advertising plain and simple, subverting WP at the most fundamental level. As regards the book Amazon is full of books that are not notable. The first reference is dead, pointing to his own site for a ref for a documentary, which starred himself visiting every NFL stadium, and is not notable. The whole lot is a WP:PROMO article. Curious how the book appeared just at the same as the article appeared. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTADVERTISING #5. Really?

The film was released on major VOD platforms through Gravitas Ventures in 2016.[6] The film will be released as a Blu-ray and DVD[7] on January 10, 2016

scope_creep (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure advertising for a non-notable person who fails WP:GNG, whose book does not qualify them for WP:AUTHOR and whose film does not meet WP:NFILM. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Exemplo347 and nom.Winged Blades^Godric 13:19, 19 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.N.D.Y.[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:Music - TheMagnificentist 11:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 11:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 11:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 11:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC in every way. There are no multiple indepth articles about this group. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for publicity. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2017 (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) — Yash^talk stalk 16:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners[edit]

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

I consider this article should be nominated for deletion for a number of reasons:

It was originally a list of people convicted and currently serving jail terms for murder, kidnap, extorsion or belonging to an organization which carries out those activities, although it has eventually evolved into a massive treatise on how "Spain" opresses the Basque people, somehow ignoring that half of the victims of these convicts were themselves Basque.
It is OR and non verifiable. There is no credible source which defines Basque National Liberation Movement as an ilegalized group per se. There are certain organizations within this broad (self-defined) concept which have been ilegalized due to their connection to ETA, others have not. No one has been imprisoned for belonging to the BNLM. Unless such a term is defined by being illegal - which as far as I know is not the case. The Abertzale left is for the most part legal and even in local government in many places. So this article creates the sense that people are jailed for belonging to a group which legally does not exist.
The tone of the article seems to portray this list of convicts as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience, and the list of individual convicts carefully omits what they were convicted for and who were the victims of their violent acts/how many people they killed etc....
The vast majority of sources are not really related to the actual title of the article and are joined together to weave a "story" which diverges significantly from reality in an exercise of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No credible source actually mentions BNLM prisoners. They can mention people convicted for terrorism, ETA membership or collaboration with ETA. They also happen to mention who they killed which is censored from this article. Furthermore, accusations of torture allegations are taken as fact and given a massive coverage, without being based on credible sources. It is concerning that one of the most advanced countries in Western Europe in terms of protections of Human Rights is presented as something on the lines of North Korea.
There is no equivalent list of convicted terrorists serving sentences for other organizations on Wikipedia. There is a list of IRA members, but no list of "Prisoners of the Irish liberation Movement". The name of the article is inherently an exercise of apology.
A list of ETA victims was deleted from wikipedia for violating policy a few years back. A list, largely composed of criminals, presenting them as victims of oppression may be disturbing to the families of their victims, particularly where the reasons for their convictions are omitted.
I think deletion is the best avenue for this article. It does not exist on Spanish language wikipedia for evident reasons. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilah1981:, you need to show how the article fails to meet policy. See WP:AfD. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Google returns this article, but no indepth articles about this subject. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL, the current citations alone easily prove large amounts of substantial worldwide coverage in numerous reliable sources independent of the subject. I don't know what you are searching under, but you can't rely on the exact phrase of the lengthy article title to determine coverage or notability. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's hard to see how this topic is not notable. The issue of "Basque political prisoners" is a long running one. There was a general strike on the issue in December 1974 and there have been numerous demonstrations since then, in 1998: "Thousands of demonstrators thronged the streets of Bilbao in northern Spain on Saturday, calling for Basque separatist prisoners to be returned to the region." according to the BBC. "Tens of thousands" in 2014 and up to 80,000 last month. Searching for "Basque prisoners", "presos vascos" or "Basque political prisoners" will bring up numerous such articles, showing how well covered the issue is. It isn't under any of those titles because "Basque prisoners" is ambiguous and "Basque political prisoners" is POV.

Few if any of the nominators rationales are reasons for deletion. To take just some of them...

"It was originally a list of people convicted and currently serving ....although it has eventually evolved into a massive treatise on how "Spain" opresses the Basque people." I don't see any stuff in it on how the Basque people are oppressed. Making edits to the article to make it WP:NPOV would be the way to deal with such concerns anyhow. WP:SOFIXIT.
"It is OR and non verifiable. There is no credible source which defines Basque National Liberation Movement as an ilegalized group per se." On the contrary, it defines the subject very clearly as: "all those people who have been jailed, placed on remand, or otherwise kept in custody due to their illegal activity in support of the Basque National Liberation Movement." This can be easily verified in numerous sources such as this one: "The Plight of prisoners associated with the Basque conflict is also a serious political issue. There are currently (in October 2002) around six hundred Basque political prisoners..."
"The tone of the article seems to portray this list of convicts as political prisoners." On the contrary the first line of the lead mentions "their illegal activity", while the second line notes that they "have been convicted of a range of crimes such as murder, attempted murder, participating in terrorism, kidnapping...." Again, WP:SOFIXIT.
"There is no equivalent list of convicted terrorists serving sentences for other organizations on Wikipedia" .... a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument which carries little weight at AFD. The point about the Spanish Wikipedia also falls under this heading.
"A list of ETA victims was deleted from wikipedia for violating policy a few years back." Similar to the previous point. Without seeing this alleged deletion, it's hard to say why that happened, it could be for WP:NOTMEMORIAL reasons which are not relevant here.
"A list, largely composed of criminals, presenting them as victims of oppression may be disturbing to the families of their victims." Again, not a valid deletion reason. WP:HURT and WP:NOTCENSORED apply.

Issues connected with alleged WP:POV, WP:UNDUE etc are best fixed through normal editing of the article. AFD is not clean up. Valenciano (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Valenciano: Valenciano Your last three arguments are perfectly valid and maybe I should not have included those points in the AfD.
Evidently sources exist on the existence of members of various militant organization in Spain serving jail time for political violence (GRAPO, ETA, AlQaeda etc..). I was not denying that those sources exist on this matter. What I deny exists are sources saying there are prisoners of the BNLM which implies causality and imprisonment on political grounds.
The only source you provided which claims "The Plight of prisoners associated with the Basque conflict is also a serious political issue. There are currently (in October 2002) around six hundred Basque political prisoners...". Just look at it. Its not a serious source, its just a self-confessed politically financed rant against Spain by some very obscure person in Reno, Nevada. Any source which defines convicted serial killers and accessories to murder (mostly of basque victims) as political prisoners is non-credible, and its the only one you have presented. The core issue is Verifiability and OR. BNLM was a loose concept sometimes used for a brief period in history (80s and 90s) but it has no meaning now and is no longer used outside the ETA ecosystem (even they barely use it that much), not in politics, not in the media not in the judiciary. The bulk of the members and leaders of what could be defined as this constituency have transitioned to the perfectly legal Abertzale left (basically the same thing yet renouncing violence and not subservient or taking orders from ETA) and all that remain are individuals convicted for serious violent criminal offenses. Others who remain having trouble with the law are for apology of terrorism (not apology of ETA's political cause, but of its violent activities) although this criminal offense does not lead to imprisonment unless in combination with more serious crimes which cross the 3 year conviction threshold. The article creates a false link between a non-existent political persecution and a defunct concept.
The fundamental issue is sourcing. Where are the reliable sources on BNLM prisoners? The sources which link the two ideas together? Nowhere because they don't exist. I don't have a problem with the existence of the article BNLM: That article needs to be there (although completely re-written) because it is something which is complicated to explain and did exist. But what does BNLM mean? Is it a synonym for the legal Abertzale left with which there is an 80% overlap or is it a portmanteau term for individuals committing terrorism-related criminal offenses or actively engaging with ETA? This article is still WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, unverifiable and inherently NPOV. The title is conceptually an attempt to confound the reader and is impossible to fix.
Valenciano, I have left a detailed reply to you because I know you may have your own take on things but you try to tackle these complicated Spanish politics related matters. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Asilah: As you'll see in the links above, the issue of Basque prisoners has been a long running and controversial issue in Spanish politics. That's very notable. You don't seem to dispute the notability of it, which is the issue in this AFD, your issues relate to specific content issues, which should be fixed on the article talkpage.

In terms of verifiability...

Politico: "The unresolved issue of ETA prisoners is among the most contentious"

Irish Times: "For many critics of the Spanish government's lack of initiative [on the Basque issue, the issue of Eta prisoner dispersion is the most obvious area"]

BasqueTribune: "Prisoners: a Critical Issue in the Basque Political Agenda"

FoxNews: "Large separatist protest calls on Spain to repatriate Basque prisoners to jails close to home"

...to list just a few which verify this issue. It's possible that there's a better article title (I'd suggest Basque separatist prisoners) but again, that isn't an AFD issue. Valenciano (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call There are so many ridiculous reasons for deletion put forth in this proposal that it's easy to overlook what may be a valid gripe. There's certainly a lot of WP:SYNTH going on here. This honestly may not be fixable. I'm not comfortable voting "delete" at this point, but I wouldn't say I'm opposed to deletion either. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks to me WP:JDLI, fairly so or not, an attempt at removing all trace and traceability of the Basque conflict and relevant (inconvenient for some) information available to the readers for them to judge. It is just against the spirit of the WP, there is information continually produced on this matter. The article provides fully valid and relevant information, verified, on a key point in Spanish and Basque politics of nowadays and the past, even in Spain's international relations with France (change of policy of extraditions after the GAL) and countries, with a specific policy implemented on these prisoners by the Spanish government, sometimes breaching international treaties, with Spain recently condemned by the Strasbourg Human Rights Tribunal for these irregular, group specific practices. I wont' elaborate further on the proponent editor, since I just come from the ANI involving Asilah1981, now ongoing.

As for the name, it is not used, because it is inaccurate, it is just Basque prisoners victims of state repression. It may be ETA members, or it may be a journalist, like here, or Arnaldo Otegi, it is basically about Basques the state sees as a threat, for violent actions or not. There are about 400 nowadays in a main group, EPPK (see their web page), they call themselves 'Basque Political Prisoners Collective', but there are others out of the main group. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"it is just Basque prisoners victims of state repression". Beyond WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, just this sentence by Iñaki LL is another reason to delete this article. I'll slowly add to the table the reason for conviction and the individuals murdered by each of these convicts. But that will not be enough to fix this article. The name and WP:SYNTH are the principal problem. Politicized editing is fine (everyone is political). But politicized content-creation is against Wikipedia policy. This article currently is structured as an activist blog. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asilah, you deserve a longer answer on all your points and I'll do that over the weekend as I'm a bit busy now. However, just to say, this canvassing is 110% unacceptable and is behaviour that you've been warned about in the past. Valenciano (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciano will know, he is more veteran than me, but I can only take the removal of Valenciano's intervention by Asilah1981 previous to this one as whitewashing, and I do not think it is even regular in an ongoing discussion thread to remove another editor's intervention, per WP standards. On this, I will follow in the WP:ANI on the editor now open. As I said, the prisoners topic is a central topic in Basque politics anyone can recognize, and present also in Spain, with names ranging from "Basque political prisoners" to "ETA prisoners" with a variety of other options depending on the source, so attempting to remove this article is just breach of WP:CENSOR, and removing very pertinent information to understand Spanish and Basque politics. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe this is a list of political prisoners Iñaki LL? You believe there are credible sources claiming they are political prisoners?Asilah1981 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You living in a bubble or something? I am trying to bring definition to a group that exists. Now what they are called or should be called is another thing. Get over it! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL, "Oppose" is not a valid AfD !vote. Valid AfD !vote choices include "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", Redirect", Userfy", "Draftify". See WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've only just seen this so sorry for the delay in responding.

Going through Asilah1981's points: First of all, it was never a list of people. Check yourself. Not even when I was building the page was it ever just a list. It grew as I wrote the article, and when I submitted it to be accepted the list was there as was the rest of the article.

His second point can be answered by this youtube video (in Spanish) [[10]] in which the ex-president of Spain talks about his talks with the Basque National Liberation movement, and then in another press conference talks about his moving of prisoners, in relation to those talks. Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners is a reality. Everything that Valenciano said relating to this point is true too.

His third point about the tone of the article I respond to by saying if you don't like the tone then change it. Asilah1981 says "the article seems to portray this list of convicts as political prisoners". The fact is that it was Asilah1981 himself who added the words "political prisoner" to the article on 26 March 2016 at 22:10. Before that the article did not include those words. And now he is complaining about them????

In his fourth point he complains that "accusations of torture allegations are taken as fact and given a massive coverage". Before he got involved the section on torture was small compared to what it is now. It was he himself who created the subheadings for that section which now mean that the torture section stands out in the Contents.

I should point out that when I submitted the article to be reviewed I received 2 Writer's Barnstars, and the article was given a B rating on the quality scale. I believe it is even better now than it was back then. Until Asilah1981 came along it had hardly changed since being accepted, but I think that the "interest" that he gave to it has caused several of us to really search for more and better information. I believe that having someone with a critical voice, like Asilah1981's, has been good for the article. Keep it.Adam Cli (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the reasons given by Adam. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets notability. Content issues must be dealt with via consensus and dispute resolution, not via deletion. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Şehzade Sultan[edit]

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

The article lacks inline citations and the material is exactly a copy of another article titled Hafsa Sultan (daughter of Selim I). The subject isn't notable enough to have a stand-alone article and the current article isn't well-sourced and probably contains original research. Keivan.f^Talk 10:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep. Princesses tend to be notable. There does not appear to be OR to my eye; there are sources, albeit not inline. Bottom line is, I think this is verging on an abusive AfD and very poor handling of a straightforward potential merge. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tagishsimon There are a few sources listed and I have seen them, but I really doubt that any of them even mention a princess named Şehzade Sultan. And as User:DrKay said, the name itself is confusing as it's actually a title. I honestly don't think this woman ever existed. Keivan.f^Talk 12:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from being a clear duplicate, this is not her name. "Şehzade Sultan" is Turkish for "Prince Sultan". So, it was used as a title by a vast number of people, and is not generally used for this or any other person's common name. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mentions in the sources given, nor in other sources. Info concerns another person. This article seems to be pure invention.--Phso2 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sannwald[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Photographer and director who does seem to have some notable clients, but who lacks the extensive independent coverage required by WP:GNG and who does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NCREATIVE. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see citations) - his work in Fashion, advertising and music is discussed widely. This article brings together discussion of his work as a whole. Meets multiple criteria of WP:NCREATIVE 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.' - this is evidenced in the linked articles, 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.' evidenced in the quote from i-D Magazine. 'The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.' added in exhibitions that support 4b — Preceding unsigned comment added by B e i n g b o i l e d (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations provide in-depth coverage of him. They credit him for larger works related to other people as a director or photographer. That does not meet WP:GNG's requirement of in-depth coverage. The I-D piece is promotional of its own material, and does not show he has met the requirements of NCREATIVE. This page also seems to be promotional in nature, which is against Wikipedia's policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added in two more citations from reputable sources that provide in-depth coverage of him. Not sure where the line inbetween establishing someone as significant/being promotional is, but definitely not intended to be promotional - the article is purely factual and brings together information from various sources to provide an overview of him B e i n g b o i l e d (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has worked at the peak of his industry in multiple publications, has exhibited internationally, and had a profile in Le Monde. Wikipedia should clearly be covering artists of this level. SFB 19:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources do show significance. CaseeArt ^Talk 03:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 06:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 06:48, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Particular Night in Fun City[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFILM/GNG/NWEB. Lourdes 10:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, nor evidence that the film had been widely distributed or reviewed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. — Sam Sailor 06:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (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 Talpiot College of Education. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midreshet Aviv[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced article about private educational institute (not a high school or post-secondary school, so does not qualify under WP:NSCHOOL). No assertion of notability. Sole source is a dead link to its website. Unable to turn up anything further. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability. Number 5 7 09:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure One WP:RS exist [11]--Shrike (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - I first of all fixed the dead link, for some reason it was pointed to a specific page, so I removed that and it now works. Second I added three WP:RS to the page, however I don't think its got anywhere near enough to qualify even for WP:GNG. This page makes reference to being started in conjunction with Talpiot College of Education, which is also a stub page. I suggest rather than having these two stub pages we merge this content into the other article and redirect this page to that section. - Galatz ^Talk 14:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Talpiot College of Education as a subsidiary not notable by itself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 11 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhrigu Vanshiya Brahmins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources using GBooks, general GSearch, JSTOR and Questia. PROD was removed. Sitush (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An anon has reinstated unsourced rubbish from years ago that mostly concerns the sage Brighu. It is tangential to the article subject. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lack of sources indicates huge verification concerns. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7, no reliable sources found. — Sam Sailor 06:42, 18 February 2017 (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 Withdrawn. Although I am not at all convinced that "systematic bias" means that we should accept some in-passing mentions as indicating notability, I am obviously in the minority here. No use drawing this out any longer, so I withdraw the nom. Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical journal of Zambia[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources covering the journal in depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The journal has been covered by UNESCO here http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/portals-and-platforms/goap/access-by-region/africa/zambia/ and also has an ISSN. WP:NJournals specifically says "In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG." Therefore, I believe this journal meets WP:GNG because it has received significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, that is in this case, both UNESCO (a UN agency) and the ISSN International Centre. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid that you misinterpret NJournals. Having an ISSN is absolutely irrelevant for notability. It is not "significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG." --Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How are UNESCO's two short lines significant coverage? You might want to restudy the definition of WP:SIGCOV. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The UNESCO page specifically lists this under "Major Projects/Initiatives". Thus it "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and " no original research is needed to extract the content". Of course its not the article's main subject, and other journals are also mentioned. I would not be opposed to a more general page covering Open Source Publishing in Zambia as opposed to specific pages on journals, if editors feel that is more appropriate. Nonetheless, I think being cited as a major project by a UN agency is plainly more than a passing mention. With regards to NJournals I have quoted the part of the policy as written from which my interpretation arises. If the community comes to a consensus that disagrees with this, then that's fair, but then the policy ought to be clarified. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those are still two lines about the subject. Being mentioned by UNESCO may be independent coverage in a reliable source, but but there is not much, i.e. significant, coverage. In what world are two lines of information the same as a detailed discussion of the topic? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a peer-reviewed journal. It may be small and appear non-notable, but its status implies otherwise. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many peer-reviewed journals that have been deleted because of a lack of notability. Being peer-reviewed is important when deciding whether something is a reliable source, but we wouldn't have WP:NJournals if being peer-reviewed would be enough to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the well-argued comments above and per WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So "systemic bias" means putting aside all notions of notability? --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability question has been addressed above. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has: an in-passing mention does not establish notability, GEOBIAS or not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the comments above. Qaei ☎ 13:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Those that say that an in-passing mention is not enough to establish notability??? --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder and Andrew Z. Colvin Qaei ☎ 14:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And neither of those have given policy-based arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reiterate that a major project is not merely a passing mention. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The project may be major, but their mention of this journal is absolutely in-passing only. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This journal appears to have an impact within its geographical region, which is important because this region is not as developed as "Northern hemisphere" nations. It also seems to suffer from systematic bias being a sub-Saharan medical journal with systemic impediments in place that decrease visibility it could otherwise have. This becomes obvious when reading the UNESCO page [12] and Thomson Reuters page [13].

I am convinced the journal is itself is of sufficiently high quality and publishes based on high standards. I think that this journal is selectively listed in the UNESCO Major Projects (and) Initiatives, being the only journal listed here. If this was a low quality happenstance project it would willy nilly list any journals or any number of journals. This is a serious effort by numbers of people in that region - just read the page [14].

Another plus is its partnership with Thompson Reuters, which publishes top tier material and is a highly reputable organization. Thomson Reuters has selected this as one of its few ScholarOne Manuscripts sites, while being designated as a member of the African Journal Partnership Project [15], and this seems to be an important distinction. This is one of those notable journals not covered by our notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note, when we look for a journal on the Thomson Reuters Master List, all that shows up is the name of the journal, its issn, publisher, and the databases it is listed, but only if you click on the "coverage" link [16]. So, if someone wants to be picky, this is also passing mention - there is no description of any listed journals here. At least in the UNESCO page there is a short description of the journal's coverage, editor in chief, and the institution with which the editor in chief is affiliated. --Steve Quinn (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Abeokuta[edit]

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

Listcruft TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's the largest city in southwest Nigeria. Why would this particular list not belong in Category:Lists of hospitals by city? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the absence of a sensible deletion rationale -- and no, managing to type "listcruft" isn't it -- I don't see a reason why this particular list of hospitals by city should be deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of hospitals in Nigeria. The country-wide list is not big enough to necessitate separate lists by city; it can handle this content just fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if it's decided to only include bluelinked hospitals, then delete as the only hospital on that list with an article is already included in the country list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see the point of keeping a Wikipedia list of un-notable hospitals, especially when there is a parent article. I think the creator should write articles of notable hospitals in Abeokuta first, before creating this list. Darreg (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for an stand alone list article. Merge only remaining blue-link entry to List of hospitals in Nigeria. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we need more articles about hospitals and places and a list of hospital in Abeokuta isn't a bad idea.

Enough articles that are suppose to be in blue ink already.ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darreg —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only one list-entry that is already in the countrywide list List of hospitals in Nigeria there is no purpose of keeping this per the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates. — Sam Sailor 06:40, 18 February 2017 (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. I've thought about this further and I'm withdrawing the deletion request--I think as the attempt to indicate the equivalent of Roman capitals in Arabic it's notable, tho I'm not sure if the title should be about the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Letters and Punctuation and Their Placements[edit]

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

there seems to be no evidence that this is a significant topic, let alone notable. (But this may just be my lack of knowledge in the subject field.) DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jewish. I know that dots, called NeKuDot/NeKuDos in Hebrew, can drastically change the meanings of words, even to the level of a Talmudic description of a life-and-death decision made incorrectly because of the lack of being corrected, as a child, by his teacher. Why doesn't "somebody" from the anybody-everybody committee check for this topic in an appropriate encyclopedia. Pi314m (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on: So two years ago, Dec. 2014, it was noted
"This article is an orphan" - now a bit past age 2 it's time to kill it?
The article points to a book/PDF - did anyone qualified to read it do so, or even thumb through it? Pi314m (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same as the dots and other markers used to indicate vowels in Hebrew (and in Arabic). Nor are they diacritical marks of any sort, which are widely used in Arabic script. Rather, its a proposal for the indication of capital letters as used by modern Roman scripts for the writing of arabic script, They have apparently never really been adopted. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 15 February 2017 (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. For now. A merge or redirect can be discussed on the talk. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic seaboard[edit]

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

Can't tell if this is an actual, recognized geographic region. Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND.[17][18][19][20] Lourdes 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is certainly in use, so it should not be deleted. Does WP:GEOLAND really apply here? One problem is, that the term seems to be vaguely defined, or be used with slightly different meanings depending on context. I notice nom added a ((Merge)) in June 2015 suggesting Atlantic seaboard as the target for a merge, but Atlantic seaboard has been a redirect since 2010. A better target is East Coast of the United States. — Sam Sailor 06:24, 18 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Kontorovich[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Being a writer for the Washington Post does not make the writer notable. Article lacks discussion of the subject proper in reliable independent secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep (I created the article). There are plenty of sources solely about the subject, so he meets the GNG. I wasn't sure how to use those sources all that well, so I just had them on the talk page. But yes, he's notable.
- [21]
- [22]
- [23]
He's also a writer for the largest English paper in Israel, the Washington Post and many other papers including the National Review [24]. Other sources include [25]. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that things like being a writer for a national newspaper does not make the writer himself notable unless someoneelse writes something in such a newspaper about the subject— it looks like he was the subject of the article on the Ynetnews.com website, but I was not able to assess the the significance of the site as a source of reliable, independent news coverage of broad public interest. Also, it looks like he is referenced several times in various publications (such as this one and this one and this one, among many others), and while I agree that he appears to be of some professional and legal interest, these references appear to be to his work, not to discussion of him. Being a professor of law at Northwestern does not qualify him as notable either. We need evidence of his being the subject of multiple reliable independent secondary sources that discuss him non-trivially, and to the extent that those sources are things like newspapers, the paper needs to be of broad public interest and either national or regional circulation. Web sites are difficult to use as references because their breadth of readership can be difficult to assess— on the other hand, if he is in fact notable, finding sources other than Internet-only publications should not be difficult. If it is difficult, then perhaps he is not (yet) notable. KDS4444 (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Is Ynetnews Reliable here? is that Ynetnews is a reliable source. Ynetnews is the online website for Yedioth Ahronoth, the most widely read newspaper in Israel (according to the Wikipedia article). Cunard (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this day-and-age many notable things and people are only found on the Internet--paper isn't dead, but it's not the end-all-be-all either. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?. GS h-index at bare minimum for field. Does WP:Gng help? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as, in this case, he's not showing any signs of being significant in his field or as a professor, GS shows only few numbers, simply not enough overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you disagree with him meeting the GNG? He is a professor, but that's not what he is known for per se. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subjects can qualify for an article by meeting WP:GNG while not meeting secondary, subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:PROF. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.Keep. Substantial coverage of his views/positions shown by a GNews search, and coverage of their views, not their personal life, is the key test for someone whose notability rests on their scholarship. GScholar certainly shows a significant presence, and GBooks hits are not trivial. Article calls for expansion, not deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I'd think the subject's notability rather marginal (so I wouldn't !vote). However for a person who is politically controvertial for their ideas I am nervous of deletion without a strong reason. In this case I am not seeing a strong reason. Thincat (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the strength of the evidence presented here for having an article, and the weakness of the evidence and argument against, I now think the subject clearly meets our notability guidelines. For me in this case the presumption for having an article leads on rather strongly to me thinking we ought to have an article. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the current sources, two are his own journalist profiles, the next is his university one, and the last 2 are mere news stories. As a scientist or professor, we've never considered 276 a significant number, regardless if it was Harvard Law Journal, because it's not showing it was a major paper or an otherwise significantly known achievement; next, because the next one is a mere 110 quickly followed by 92, it shows there's no otherwise consistent convincing; if he was a major figure in his field, there would've been at least one significant paper. WP:GNG is not policy and the first paragraph of it states as such and the article in fact states otherwise of "significant major news" as notability cannot be inherited from anything or anyone. If we were to analyze this as WP:GNG, a search here found nothing but mere announcements, profiles and mentions, none of which substantiate notability. Now, seeing his CV, I see 1 named visiting professorship for 1 season, but that's it, his listed papers are a mere contributor or associate. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you addressing the audience or replying to me? If the latter is this a "strong reason"? Thincat (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough citation to pass the notability requirements for a legal scholar, no other show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you identify why you feel he doesn't meet the GNG? Sources (list above) include: [26] [27] [28]. Hobit (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also bothered by the idea of relying on a raw citation count for a legal authority who's cited in dozens of court cases, where impact looks to be more direct and substantial. One cite on a key point in a major court decision should count for more than two dozen mentions in routine academics' papers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ping @Johnpacklambert: Note that additional sources have been presented in the discussion below after your !vote was posted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Duek, Nechama (2015-09-07). "Lawfare bulwark: Israel has become a convenient target". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
  The article notes:
  
  About two months ago, Professor Eugene Kontorovich stood before a special US congressional committee and laid out what he sees as the irrationality of boycotting Israel.
  Kontorovich, 40, is considered a world-class expert in constitutional and international law, and deals mainly with the issue of international boycotts. Kontorovich said the committee members sought deeper understanding of boycotts against Israel and so invited him to speak.
  ...
  He was born in Kiev, Ukraine, and moved to the US with his parents at the age of three. His father is an economics professor, so the academic career path was a given for him. He studied law at the University of Chicago and began teaching there at 26. He then clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. “He was a teacher for life,” he says.
  Kontorovich decided to move to Israel with his wife and four children four years ago. His family was immediately taken in as olim, but later the professor was asked to present Ukrainian documents to prove his eligibility for the law of return. “This is what’s asked of Jews born in the Commonwealth of Independent States,” he explains.
  ...
  Kantorovich follows events online. He has no television, and during his scant free time, he studies Hebrew and reads the works of American poet T. S. Eliot and Jewish-Russian poet Joseph Brodsky. When asked how he defines himself, he has a complex answer. “I am Israeli, a man of the world, Jewish, American,” he says.
2. Marcus, Lori Lowentha (2013-02-18). "Frum Law Prof's Charming Legal Case for Israel". The Jewish Press. Archived from the original on 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Eugene Kontorovich is an unlikely media darling, at least on paper. He is a legal scholar whose specialties include international law, maritime piracy and law and economics, and he has a slight Russian accent.
  But Kontorovich is one of the most entertaining legal scholars one is likely to come across. This is true both because of his youth, his charming accent, his sense of humor and his lively delivery. And readers of The Jewish Press will be interested to know that he is also a frum family man and knowledgeable Torah student.
  ...
  Kontorovich was born in Kiev and moved with his family to the United States when he was a young boy. He attended the University of Chicago for both undergraduate school and law school, and he is currently an associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law which is just outside of Chicago.
  Last academic year Kontorovich was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Albert Einstein and others of the greatest scholars in the United States have been members of the famed Institute. Kontorovich used his time there to complete his latest book, one on maritime law called, “Justice at Sea,” which is being published by Harvard University Press.
3. Weiss, Philip (2015-12-18). "'NYT' and 'Washington Post' run professor's articles defending settlements without stating he is a settler". Mondoweiss. Archived from the original on 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
  The article notes:
  
  A month ago the New York Times ran an op-ed deploring the European initiative to label settlement goods, written by Eugene Kontorovich. The article was titled, “Europe mislabels Israel,” and described the occupied territories in the most benign manner: “areas that came under [Israel’s] control in 1967.”
  Kontorovich was identified in the article as a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
  Middle East Monitor says that he is also a settler.
4. "President Obama's U.S./Israel Policy: An Interview with Eugene Kontorovich". Archived from the original on 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
  The article notes:
  
  I recently attended a reception and dinner in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) in which Professor Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of International Law at Northwestern University and Member of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University, gave a compelling lecture regarding President Obama and the US/Israel relationship. His central thesis is that while it is somewhat subtle (because it takes place in the diplomatic arena, where words are minced and friendships simulated) the US/Israel partnership is demonstrably worse than it was under the George W. Bush administration. According to Professor Kontorovich’s analysis, he sees four basic problems with Obama’s management of the US/Israel alliance. The Professor and I recently had a conversation about his presentation as well as his overall thoughts on Middle East policy under President Obama. My summary follows:
  ...
5. Bob, Yonah Jeremy (2016-10-17). "How US States Are Countering the BDS Movement Against Israel". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
  The article notes:
  
  However, [Alan] Clemmons recalls that a real breakthrough came “later on that trip when we had the opportunity to meet Prof. [Eugene] Kontorovich during a dinner at a winery.
  “Here was one of the bright minds in the world... on addressing BDS under the US Constitution,” he explained.
  ...
  Where did the idea for such legislation come from? Kontorovich teaches at Northwestern University Law School and works for the Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel. The articulate and confident professor explained that prior to the legislative efforts countering BDS, he was mostly “just an academic” dabbling in foreign policy issues.
  Clemmons and Sabag contacted Kontorovich, asking him if he had ideas for combating BDS, a symptom of what they all viewed as underlying antisemitism.
  Kontorovich was impressed that the initial groundswell of support was from South Carolina’s non-Jewish legislators.
6. Bob, Yonah Jeremy (2015-01-01). "New Study of UN Resolution 242 Could Alter Views of Israeli-Arab Conflict". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2017-02-12. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
  The article notes:
  
  As the UN Security Council and International Criminal Court return to focusing on Israel, an about-to-be-published study reveals new sides to Council Resolution 242, recognized as the key resolution relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict, that could alter perceptions of issues in dispute, especially regarding borders.
  According to an article by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University, to be published soon in the Chicago Journal of International Law, a new side has emerged in the unending debate over the meaning of UNSC Resolution 242, which establishes principles for setting Israeli borders and withdrawal from territories conquered in 1967.
  Kontorovich’s study compares Resolution 242 to all 18 other Security Council resolutions dealing with territorial withdrawals and finds that the resolution was unique in its ambiguity as to how much territory Israel needs to withdraw from, with other resolutions being explicit about a full withdrawal.
  In the article, Kontorovich writes that there has always been a debate as to whether the phrase in UN Resolution 242 “withdrawal from territories” obligates Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank and Golan Heights, or merely some portion of them as agreed upon in negotiations.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eugene Kontorovich to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - Any article that begins paragraphs with His life story.... Kontorovich decided....Kantorovich follows events online. He has no television, and during his scant free time, he studies Hebrew and reads the works of American poet.... is clearly not independent and our simplest standards state this, regardless of publication, because it's still the contents that matter in examination. Therefore such a personal profile as this, would not satisfy WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" since he's only his own words. After all, we've long established WP:GNG is not a policy, but a mere suggestive guideline for potential notability and WP:GNG states it itself.
Source 2 is simply an interview where "he explain[s]) about someone else": "Where did the idea for such legislation come from? Kontorovich was impressed...." That's not significant nor sufficiently independent.
Source 3 is a mere few paragraphs because the article, as a whole entirely, is simply about a political subject, not about the man himself. As such, this still wouldn't help for WP:PROF, since that's not establishing he's a major figure in his field, and he's simply a faculty professor. We're not a faculty listing and that would apply in policy WP:NOTWEBHOST. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kontorovich was a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies.[29] If that doesn't meet WP:PROF#2 it's time to scrap the guideline.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was a "member." I'd agree that being a faculty member of IAS[30] meets WP:Prof#2, but not being an ordinary member by itself.--Jahaza (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is significant coverage in independent sources as demonstrated above. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Subjects can qualify for an article by meeting GNG, part of Wikipedia's core notability guideline page at WP:N, while not meeting secondary, subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:PROF. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Northamerica1000. Passes WP:GNG. — Yash^talk stalk 15:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- best known for his controversial views; GNG is met in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Married Woman Diaries[edit]

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

The youtube "references" notwithstanding, the only reference given here is to what reads like a press release and has no identified author. The Times of India is usually considered a reliable source, but I am not convinced that this is a real "news" story given its tone and brevity (and its lack of a named author). KDS4444 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 2 sources are from YouTube (1 of which is just an episode of the show itself); ToI source confirms the information in the article, but does not provide evidence of notability, and might not count as significant coverage. (And, as mentioned above, may not be entirely reliable.) Delete as subject of article has enough credibility to pass CSD A7, but not enough to pass WP:N. If the article is deemed unreliable for the stated reasons, then it can also be deleted for WP:V. MereTechnicality ⚙ 02:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2017 (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. Between the promotional tone/motive and the lack of an assertion of significance, this article qualifies for speedy deletion under criteria A7 or G11. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus McTavish.[edit]

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

I find no coverage suggesting notability. Largoplazo (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a promotional blurb rather than a full-fledged Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Connecticut Soccer Field[edit]

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

Field is not of historic significance, and its existence does not give it notability. Evidence of non-trivial discussion of it in reliable independent secondary sources is lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references in article and no claim of notability. A 1000 seat stadium is unlikely to garner sufficient coverage. MB 04:25, 17 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Acoustic Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:CONCERT and WP:EVENT, could not find non-routine coverage other than general announcement. WP:NOTINHERITED just because this involves a notable artist, that does not mean every concert tour should have an article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RSes found. I did find one promotional site here. Fails WP:NTOUR. Might in the future be notable or merge with or redirect to Natalie Imbruglia but for now it's all promotional and too soon. Gab4gab (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there are independent RS, but they are just announcements and nothing out of the ordinary [31][32][33][34]. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:04, 11 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azamara Club Cruises[edit]

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

Deleted by PROD, but then restored, so full AfD needed now. Just like when it failed the PROD, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not even asserted. Obviously, the parent article, Royal Caribbean Cruises, is notable but there's no reason this needs to be a separate article. --Yamla (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, re-create as a redirect to Royal Caribbean Cruises. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised to see all revisions of this being WP:UNDELETED including the apparent copyright violations. At this point I think it's best to delete. A redirect to Royal Caribbean Cruises is appropriate, but a quick search for sources - only God knows how much of it is churnalism - could suggest that the company is notable for a stand-alone article. — Sam Sailor 05:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:30, 18 February 2017 (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. Closing a debate with a clear keep outcome, and absent any contentious debate among participants per WP:NAC#1. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 05:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NightCry[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability Several other videos from the same source have been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a spiritual sequel to the Clock Tower series from Hifumi Kono, one of the godfathers of the horror genre. There are reliable sources out there: 1 2 3, and some print sources from Hardcore Gaming 101 I have as well. I plan on working on this article after I play through the game. It is both notable and can be written up with proper reliable sources with sufficient quality.TarkusAB 02:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered in multiple reliable sources.[35][36][37] - hahnch e n 21:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. I don't see how the game lacks notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the coverage in reliable, secondary sources easily meets the general notability guideline.--IDV^talk 09:39, 13 February 2017 (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 Mind matrix 17:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniels Erin Mills[edit]

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

Unremarkable condominum development, no coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G11 blatant advert on behalf of Daniels Corporation to sell apartments. Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advert. I have speedied several others created by the same contributor. Deb (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2017 (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.