< 16 March 18 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Robert Durst. Kurykh (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McCormack Durst[edit]

Kathleen McCormack Durst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Davidgoodheart Note to closing admin (probably an admin as I don't see snow anywhere this fine March 77º day) page creator made this vote
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 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 WP:A7 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vesselka Mega Star[edit]

Vesselka Mega Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One brief mention in a single source is not sufficient evidence of notability. My own search didn't turn up anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 20 March 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) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Ashik[edit]

Aryan Ashik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally and utterly non-notable "actor" - all roles are minor parts and mostly unverified. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and 4/6 of the movies they claim to be in haven't been released at this point. Most of the sources are unreliable and I can find no real coverage, reliable or otherwise about this person. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also G3: I tried but failed to find any single source to support his role in any of the film listed in the article except self-created IMDb. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:33, 18 March 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) 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sherlock[edit]

Dear Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The band appears to fail the general notability guideline and notability guideline for bands. While the BBC article referenced is legit, the band has not been the subject of any other significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:44, 17 March 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 close - No new rationale has been given in this proposal since the first three nominations. The proposer should become more familiar with AfD before adding more requests. Fuzheado | Talk 12:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cuckservative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be more of a definition of a slang term than an encyclopedic article. Is this really notable enough to warrant an article? TheDracologist (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice how many times this had been nominated before. However, my point still stands. I don't think this is a notable encyclopedic subject. TheDracologist (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to merge it into Republican In Name Only. TheDracologist (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 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) 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtin-larold[edit]

Ashtin-larold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The WP:SPS Genius.com and the YouTube link clearly do not establish notability, certainly not for a WP:BLP. All I can find by Googling Ashtin-larold are just various other self-published sources. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off I would like to say I messed up, I thought the save button would save it for later, not publish it entirely. So, for now, deletion is understandable.

Furthermore, why doesn't the Genius link. That is a link to his artist biography page. And it isn't self-published in any shape or form. Nothing on there is. I can understand why you said that doesn't establish notability for a WP:BLP. But that is where I learned that "he gained 4 thousand fans." Isn't that a citation?

I'm sorry if this isn't where I was supposed to do this, I'm very new and rusty at this.Bigdbigd03 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Bigdbigd03[reply]

P.S This page must be deleted, Ashtin-Larold is incorrect. The hyphen ("-" in Ashtin-Larold) should be an underscore. In links that is a substitute for a space. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Bigdbigd03 (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Bigdbigd03[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:36, 17 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SogoTrade[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SogoTrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The history of this article is baffling. This article was created in 2006 but there is an AfD that says it was speedy deleted twice. Cannot work that out. Anyway, there is only one source here and independent RS with significant discussion have been scant since it was created. If you look at the history it has mostly been edited by blatantly conflicted editors and SPA accounts, which I have identified at the top of the Talk page. Per revision stats top contribuors to this article are all SPA for this company. There are currently insufficient independent sources with significant discussion of Sogo to justify an article. It is not notable and under consistent promotional pressure since it was created. And again how it is here after two speedies, I don't know. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I cannot figure out the history of this article (if it had been speedied twice by 2008, how could it have a history that dates back to 2006?). A formal AfD seemed to be the way to go. Glad you agree, anyway. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog Even the logs show it as deleted [1]. Its even more odd that 2 different admins deleted it 3 times in 3 days. I am certainly stumped. L3X1 (distant write) 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ah, here is what happened. Mystery solved. The redirect at SogoInvest should be deleted when this is. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 18 March 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 per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green massacre[edit]

Bowling Green massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially an attack page aimed at the Trump administration. It is focussed on a misstatement that generated a lot of media attention at the time. From recent history, it seems clear that the Trump administration will continue to make similar misstatements. We do not need an article for each one. They can be adequately dealt with in passing in other article. In addition, this article is set up in a satirical way, referring to a massacre that didn't happen, which goes against the policy of neutrality Jack Upland (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an internet meme, and nothing more. The article does not even acknowledge Conway's efforts to clarify. Nobs01 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph of the lead: "The day after the Hardball interview, Conway said she misspoke, and had been referring to the arrest of the two Iraqi nationals. She stated that she had mentioned the incident because it led President Barack Obama to tighten immigration procedures for Iraqi citizens." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The inference that a massacre occurred is an extrapolation by critics. Conway never said such a massacre occured. And as defenders of this article claim, an event doesn't have to occur to be an event.Nobs01 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She said a massacre occurred. Nobody extrapolated anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all the article's underlying sources, nowhere did Kellyanne Conway say an incident occured. All discussions were in the context of prevention. Nobs01 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes she did. The quote is in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When she said "Bowling Green massacre", was she talking about an event that happened, or a plot on the drawing board as the indictments and DOJ and FBI press releases indicate? Nobs01 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She said "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre". That's pretty self-explanatory. It's not a "massacre" if nobody died. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are presenting my argument now. It's not a "massacre" if nobody died. Why do we have this article, then? or why is it titled a massacre? Nobs01 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because fictional events can be notable, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an internet meme, it's a "fictitious incident", just as the lead sentence explains. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised when deletion's been discussed on the talk page for a month???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a problem with that. Editors have proposed retitling, clarifications, merges, etc., but have met resistance. It seems there's a desire keep it as an attack page without clearly labeling it as an internet meme for readers. Nobs01 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think, in its current state, "attack page" is an accurate description of this article. A lot of things related to Trump and U.S. politics are going to be drama and POV magnets. We'll just have to muddle through as best we can. As I've stated, I think it's notable, regardless of the article's problems , but that's all I'll say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In it's current state, it was created to make Kellyanne Conway look like an idiot - a violation of BLP. It makes little or no effort to acknowledge human foibles and vulnerabilities, and piles on derision by extrapolating inventions out of a fair reading of context. Nobs01 (talk)
"It makes little or no effort to acknowledge human foibles and vulnerabilities" is one of the most bizarre arguments I've read at Afd in some time. I'm not quite sure what you expect an encyclopedia article to do in cases like this, other than attempt to be neutral. The more I read these objections, they more they seem to me to devolve into WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I see your concerns stated and restated at Talk:Bowling_Green_massacre#This_article_is_little_more_than_an_attack_on_a_living_person but we're not here to absolve Ms. Conway -- or anyone for that matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is pretty clear - to err on the side of caution. This article makes no effort to go into the facts of the Bowling Green terrorists' case and is solely focused on ridicule of one living human being. Nobs01 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is not about protecting a living human being's feelings. It's about ensuring content is well backed up by reliable sources so that there's very little if any chance the Wikipedia would be engaging in libel. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC
BLP is very clear in its intent in protecting reputation from innuendo. And nowhere in Kellyanne Conway's words can anyone prove Kellyanne Conway ever said an event took place. The plot was always on the drawing board. The notion she alleged an event occurred is an extrapolation cut from whole cloth. Conway clarified her statement which has been ignored by a viral meme with no boring on the facts of the case of the Bowling Green terrorists. Nobs01 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you're here to protect a subject, and that's not what we're here for. We should be leaving our politics at the door. Wikipedia only reflects/describes based on RS. We didn't decide to make this notable. It just is. A meme/zeitgeist doesn't care about anyone's reputation, and we are not protectors of reputations. At any rate, if BLP is "very clear", you will show us the specific policy text that underlines your opinion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Ec x3) Nobs01, give it up. There is no way that her words - "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away", "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers" - can be interpreted in any other way but as describing an actual massacre/attack that actually took place. The feeble claim that she wasn't REALLY talking about an actual incident is not credible. She said it; if it made her look stupid that is her fault, not Wikipedia's. We report on what people do (if it is notable enough); we do not censor or explain away the facts to keep from hurting their feelings. And BTW we do report on her followup explanation in the article, as has been pointed out to you more than once, so please stop claiming her clarification was "ignored". --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Melanie: (1) Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers did occur - that's what the Bowling Green terrorists were convicted of - purchase and shipment of contraband to Iraq to be used in terrorist activities against American soldiers. That is an attack. (2) masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers lives refers to a plot, a future event. It is an extrapolation to say it is exclusively past tense, and a violation of BLP where we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt. Nobs01 (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An attack requires an attack. An aborted or failed attempt at an attack is not an attack. "Massacre" means it happened; you can't have an intended massacre that didn't succeed. This is tortured logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CNN calls it an attack; so does Politfact, the Washington Post, and the Department of Justice press release. They were convicted of conspiracy and helping al Qaeda carry out attacks.
Under the tortured logic of those wanting to keep this title, the plot to kill Castro ought to be titled, "The assassination of Castro" rather than "Operation Mongoose". Nobs01 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever claimed the CIA successfully assassinated Castro. CNN says "They were also convicted of helping al Qaeda carry out attacks on American troops in Iraq. In fact, the two men never plotted any attacks inside the United States, according to the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division at the time." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence it is notable. This could be fixed in text, but I do not think this is just a meme. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's like Bill Clinton's haircut and other things that create inordinate press coverage in the USA, but are forgotten by most sentient beings in 10 years. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a garbage disposal unit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know the future. This is notable and therefore deserves a page right now. As about the haircut, I have no idea what you are talking about. How this is relevant to the subject of this page? My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The haircut is relevant. Yes, you don't know about it, and that's my point. It was big news at the time, but now you would wonder why. Wikipedia is not news.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is not a forum to make political points.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is WP:FART. We do not create an article every time Donald Trump has a bad hair day.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice essay! It tells "not every fart is notable". Yes, sure. However, that fart is notable, at least according to the coverage in WP:RS we have today. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 19 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bloxz[edit]

Mohammed Bloxz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by IP without explanation as it still fails GNG and BIO and a Google search shows nothing meaningful to add reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 18 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ealy Brothers[edit]

The Ealy Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Contested prod. One of a number of wrestling articles copied across from Wikia by User:Rickyc123. Schwede66 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 20 March 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 no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement here as to whether this is an appropriate article subject and if enough reference material exists to sustain it. That's the critical question, and a consensus hasn't been reached here. There's also substantial disagreement about the proper scope of the article (pun not intended). If some of that can be discussed, it might be possible to have a future discussion that reaches a clear consensus as to what to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean compound microscope[edit]

Galilean compound microscope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to find any reliable reference that states the notability of this device.Was de-prodded.This article was created along with several others in a spate of cataloging whatever Museo Galileo had, by a resident Wikipedian. Winged Blades Godric 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book in the 1st link states that he build the first usable microscope and merely gives a description of the fine observation of bees--all in less than a single page!
  • The book in the 2nd link states that--there is very little documentation for his micro-telescope and that there was a complete lack of public enthusiasm about his microscope.In a book that specifically covers Galileo, if you feel that points to notability, well our definitions of the word vary.
  • The 3rd book states he discovered microscope(the details of the microscope is covered in less than half-a-page!) and in 2-3 pages goes on to describe how the bee's incident influenced the-the Pope.Winged Blades Godric 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got some compelling points, but the counterpoints would be that the sourcing does exist and that I'm not sure I would treat Peyton Manning the same as Galileo. I'm not sure if that satisfactorily addresses your objections, and I'm not going to be overly dogmatic about the result of this AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lepricavark: Sourcing for what though? How do you know the sourcing is referring to this microscope? To continue the analogy, how do you know this football is the one Peyton threw to break the touchdown record, and not just "a" football? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I'm not really buying the Peyton Manning analogy. That being said, upon further review those sources are rather weak. I've downgraded to a weak keep for the time being. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, insert any analogy where there is one of many and we're singling out one without connected sources. If we can't show that these sources (which as you say are weak) are not connected to this particular object, they are worthless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Those are about individual objects with sources directly tied to those objects. We don't have that in this case. In this case, we have a microscope. It's one of many microscopes Galileo had. We don't know what he used this microscope for. In fact, he might have made it and never used it. We've no idea if this particular microscope has any connection to any fame whatsoever. All we have is that this is a microscope owned by Galileo. That's. None of the sources assert anything that supports THIS microscope being famous for any reason whatsoever. Please, dispute this if you can. I'm not seeing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My !vote is for delete not merge, I don't see the need for a redirect and I don't think the material in the article belongs in the Campani article except as a passing mention. I was merely stating a possibility if the article's creator was looking to put their energies into improving wikipedia's coverage of the microscopes used in the Galileo's era. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's covered on the article's talk page

    The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Museo Galileo. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2016062110008037.

The institution is Italian and so I suppose the WiR is too. As they may not have good English, they may have decided that reusing the museum's English translation was an efficient way of starting an entry here and that seems quite legitimate per WP:BOLD and WP:BURO. The article can obviously be improved further and that's done by editing, not deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation (I missed Winged_Blades_of_Godric's initial comment about this, which is in small text). That makes the article a lot more credible, and as Chiswick Chap mentioned it may attract expansion relating to Galilean compound microscopes in general. Changed vote accordingly. --pmj (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like the consensus may be that this article should be about Galilean compound microscopes in general, is that correct? Does anyone have any problem with the reworking of this page with that more general focus, with the museum entry currently discussed as an example? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my !vote above and added a context section to the page. I'm still skeptical that the original article satisfied notability, but I do think that a more general article could, and the material I've added is a suggestion what such an article could say. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can find no secondary sources discussing the specific object which is the subject of this article. -- 120.17.236.252 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR and problematic assumptions. There is absolutely no proof that this specimen is the original microscope. The coverage which exists talk about microscopes in general, not about this particular specimen.
  • The Lying Stones of Marrakech and The Amoeba in the Room are about microscopes in general. They very briefly touch upon Galileo's claim as an inventor. It is obvious that the history of microscopes is what is notable here.
  • Galileo's Muse is about inventions by Galileo. Despite this, the writeup is very brief. None of this is significant coverage. If we go by WP:WHYN, there is clearly not enough sources for us to be able to write a proper article.
  • I am clearly against merging any information as the information in the article is not useful. It leaves a messy attribution redirect behind.
  • Given a choice I will go with either a redirect or a delete. (There can also be multiple targets for the redirect here, so I am not opposed to deletion)
Honestly, just redirect or delete this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we're getting into a tangle here. We don't know if this is Galileo's; it's not clear what he actually did; and the thin source material is already covered. The topic exists but is barely notable; let's redirect. I'm changing my !vote above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. there was some confusion about copyvio possibility, overcome by report of OTRS permission provided by the museum involved
  2. a fairly general sense of dislike for the narrowly focused topic of one example microscope that was once thought to be Galileo's but was more likely built by someone else, and is one artifact in the museum
  3. some consensus that a broader topic article would be fine, and that the specific artifact can obviously be covered as an example. Editor User:Smmurphy developed the article with a "Context" section towards expanding it in that way.

I think it will not be confusing to anyone to follow that the article has just been moved to a broader topic title. It is now possible to settle this by ratifying that an expanded topic is okay by the great majority of participants here. This avoids a needlessly punitive potential outcome of deletion, which would be insulting IMO to the museum/contributors. --doncram 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note: I have written more below) The context which Smmurphy developed is already covered in the history of the microscope. We do not have any content about specific items, unless these items were independently notable. And the idea that deletion is a "needlessly punitive outcome" and an "insulting to the museum/contributors" is something which I very strongly disagree with. If the museum genuinely wants to support open information, they would understand our guidelines. If they do not know our guidelines, it is our duty to explain to them. And more importantly, many of us here are not arguing for a deletion but rather for a redirect or a selective merge. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cacau Colucci[edit]

Cacau Colucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable reality program contestant. Spartaz Humbug! 18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Braddy[edit]

Sammy Braddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy, non notable. Nice use of reputable sources that dont mention to subject at all to make the article look notable when they aren't Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 21 March 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) J947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petals on the Wind (film)[edit]

Petals on the Wind (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A made-for-TV movie shown on the Lifetime channel which does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) Edison (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4] The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." Edison (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: These are guidelines from WP:NF, which are alternatives to WP:GNG (which I am referencing here). Variety and The AV Club are Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Plus, production coverage is not limited to TheWrap (which I've seen as acceptable); there is similar coverage from Variety like here, here, and here. There is similar coverage under The Hollywood Reporter here, here, and here. Also found this from TV Guide. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 21 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layali El Bidh[edit]

Layali El Bidh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rozenblatt[edit]

David Rozenblatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. All mentions of this person in reliable, independent sources refer to them as part of a band. There is no coverage about this individual person exclusively - a person is not notable because of the people they work with. Individual band members require coverage that is exclusively about them as an individual, if there is to be an article about them on Wikipedia. The article attempts to inherit notability in a number of ways, but none of them hold up to any scrutiny. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 17 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gab4gab (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Robin Crusoe[edit]

Miss Robin Crusoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film article with no references, external links lead to brief synopsis and less. Imdb had a link to this unreliable source review. Searches lead to lots of books with this film in a list or short mentions naming the star Amanda Blake. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references to the movie. Don't delete it. Savolya (talk) 11:49, 18 March 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarvo Merkällinen[edit]

Tarvo Merkällinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raise Data Recovery[edit]

Raise Data Recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous version was deleted A7/G11. This version is, to the best of my recollection, an identical recreation. Barring Adam9007's removal of the list of different versions, it still is. WP:ADVERT of a non-notable product created by an WP:SPA sock of another SPA. Cabayi (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I previously listed this for speedy deletion with an incorrect code (although it had already been deleted under A7 previously). This is just using Wikipedia for promotion of a non-notable piece of software. There is nothing in the article that even tries to establish WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 14:38, 17 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa de Marco[edit]

Teresa de Marco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious lack of sources to establish notability. I'd almost say it's CSD-worthy. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:59, 18 March 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. Wizardman 13:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Higashio[edit]

Osamu Higashio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP: BLP. Not eligible for WP: BLPROD due to the "External links" section containing a single link (to a one-man website with no editorial oversight); attempted regular WP: PROD which was contested. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 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) 00:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gemini and Flowers Mysteries[edit]

The Gemini and Flowers Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A crime novel series with no indication it is notable. Does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT ~ GB fan 13:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see that this page might be deleted. The series is popular with readers around the world, even if the sales are small. The author uses self-publication through create space and Kindle Direct Publishing as a way to getting his books into the public domain, not out of vanity but because he became frustrated with the almost impossible task of finding an agent and traditional publisher. As do many indie authors. Such people are writers, even if their books struggle to get accepted by mainstream publishers. The readers think they have merit, as they come back, year after year, to buy the next one in the series as and when it is available. Please leave the page up. Gurujonsweden (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden — Gurujonsweden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by the feedback that these books lack merit or haven’t been ‘officially’ reviewed. Is it Wikipedia’s role to assess and judge things that exist or it is to provide information about things that exist? These books exist, are bought by hundreds of people and read by thousands through Kindle’s lending scheme. Purchasers, on the Amazon pages where they are sold, with mainly very positive feedback, have reviewed the books. The books are available for sale through a website, have been nominated for Lambda Literary Awards (In Real Life was a finalist in 2014 in the Gay Mystery Novel section) and are loved by their readers. Just because Wikipedia’s controllers haven’t heard of them is beside the point. As a result of someone uploading this page, now you have! Indie authors have enough trouble trying to get published without the world’s biggest encyclopaedia basically denying their existence through some preordained judgement process. Leave the page up, please. Gurujonsweden (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden[reply]

  • I also have to note that your username is identical to the Twitter handle of the author himself, so I would like to warn you that you do need to disclose any WP:COI that you may have with the article. (I'm concerned that earlier you mentioned "the author" in a way that would suggest that you are not the author.) I've posted a welcome note on your userpage about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79, Thank you for your feedback and information. It was very helpful indeed and I am sorry if my comments might be seen as a conflict of interest, as I am, indeed, the author of the series. However, I did not put up the G&F page and have no idea who did. I was merely responding to the comments of other Wiki editors. If my non-disclosure weakens my arguments then I am sorry. Thank you for help though; very useful.Gurujonsweden (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden[reply]

Thank you for your nice feedback, Tokyogirl79. May I simply add that, after seven books in the series, Wikipedia is hardly being pushed into creating exposure! Your suggestions for 'getting noticed' are fine but, having tried that over the years, it is far easier said than done. As I mentioned before, I don't know who finally put up the page and yes, I was delighted to see it and would be disappointed if it came down again but that is entirely up to all of you at Wikipedia. Of course you must maintain your standards. Gurujonsweden (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden[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 speedily deleted by Oshwah per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Schola[edit]

The Schola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 17 March 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) J947 21:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army[edit]

Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such group called the "Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army". There is, however, an alliance of FSA groups backed by Turkey and is the main Syrian rebel group participating in Euphrates Shield. It is called the Hawar Kilis Operations Room. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: why do you start talking about those 'Hawar Kilis Operations Room'? The whole point here is, that no army called 'Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army' or 'Turkish Free Syrian Army' exists. So it is not allowed for a Wiki editor (or a Wiki project) to invent an army under such name and suggest that it exist.

--Corriebertus (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corriebertus, just a suggestion, do a news search (try Thomson Newsroom or factiva... but if you don't have access, try Google news) for "Turkey backed Free Syrian Army" or 'Turkish backed Free Syrian Army' Plenty of articles on it. 'Hawar Kilis Operations Room' seems to be a component of the TFSA but there is very little on it. CheersDeathlibrarian (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFSA or Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army is certainly more used than terms like the "Mare Operations room", and the "Hawar Kilis Operations oom"... these terms aren't generally used, and seem to be specific to certain sub groups. The main term in use by people writing on the conflict for the overall collective of rebels operating in this operation is TFSA, and the media (if you have a look at the articles) uses Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army or something similiar Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways "Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army" is a very strange article name. What about the name "Syrian National Army" as proposed by Turkey?[1][2] Editor abcdef (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article title probably should be "Turkish Free Syrian Army" or "Turkish-Free Syrian Army". Erdogan may have proposed it called "Syrian National Army", but I don't think anyone calls them that?A the moment, most people call them the TFSA, to differentiate from the FSA. If the Turks bring them together, and re-name them all the "Syrian National Army", I guess that's what they should be called at that point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Corriebertus- The problem here is, the media hasn't settled on a name for this force - however....There *is* an army in the Euphrates shield area, it is a distinct rebel army that is aligned, has the same goals, and is supported and takes its orders from Turkey, and it is distinct from the Free Syrian Army. I agree, the media doesn't give it a name, but that fact alone doesn't mean the army doesn't exist. There are articles that refer to its existence. Also, it is commonly referred to as the Turkish Free Syrian Army on the Reddit discussion about the Syrian Civil War (check for yourself here https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/) - however that doesn't qualify as a source for wikipedia which is why I hadn't mentioned it - Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there's no ground (presented) that this TFSA is distinct from the FSA we already have in article Free Syrian Army. The lead of article FSA even explicitly states now that "Turkish intervention in Syria has revived FSA fortunes in Northern Syria, with on-ground support of an organised military backed by Turkish airpower" -- which is not exactly the same but tends towards what article TFSA also seems to assert; we should always allow for different news sources to lay different accents in reporting on the same events. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI'd completely disagree with that. TFSA is very different than the FSA, different aims, motivations - TFSA is fundamentally a Turkish proxy. To include them in the same WIKI article is completely wrong. TFSA is attacking the Kurds, at the behest of Turkey, while the FSA attacks Assad, and has been defending their homelands. There are *many* articles and threads on the Syrian Civil War Reddit that support this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, the page's title is changed into "Turkish Free Syrian Army". This does not change my opinion that the article must be deleted. The existence of an army with this name is total fantasy (thus framing or propaganda) and it is a shame for Wikipedia to promote wishfull thinking/fantasy(/propaganda) into an article. I don't deny that groups (called FSA) are fighting there, but self-proclaiming them as an army with an invented name is very non-wiki. It's quite possible that not all FSA groups have the same motivations, opponents, etc. but we can and should differentiate that in article FSA first. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with you. The fact that people are saying the TFSA article should be combined with the FSA article, is *completely* misrepresentative - they are distinct groups and Wikipedia should reflect that. To gloss over the differences, could arguably see wikipedia promoting a pro Turkish viewpoint - ie that the TFSA is the same as the FSA, whereas in fact, they are largely Turkish proxies, very much aligned with Turkish goals(for instance, attacking the Kurds) rather than FSA goals. As far as I can see, they have been grouped together and are paid and supported by Turkey. I agree the name may be problematical (which I think is half the problem), but the two are distinct groups, and TFSA is what people are using in Reddit. If people can think of a better one, please suggest it. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Death: your army(units) are called 'FSA', yet you claim they are distinct, not part of the 'other' FSA. Can you prove that? It seems to me that you personally perhaps dislike the 'other' (not Turkey-backed) FSA groups and therefore want to dissociate 'your' Turkey-backed groups from the rest of the FSA-titled groups. By the way, what is Reddit? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Corriebertus It's arguable that there actually is *no* FSA, and it's just a loose term assigned as a term of convenience for various militia, and ther is no formal structure which has no concrete existence. In that sense, it's actually hard to dislike or like the FSA, as you could be talking about extreme arab militia, or actual moderates. The moderates in the FSA have long been on the decline, particularly post SAA takeover of Aleppo. Personally, I'm not really a fan of either, I think the group doing the most good in Syria are the Kurdish SDF. The Reddit discusison I posted to w is one of the main areas on the internet where the Syrian civil war is discussed Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, as per people's requests, I have now changed the title to "Turkish Free Syrian Army", which is a lot more appropriate than the old title. Should of done that in the first place in retrospect. Hindsight is always 20/20!. Thanks for the input everyone. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has been noted, there have been moves to call the TFSA the "Syrian National Army" see article:

“6 Factions Constitute the Core of Turkey-Backed Syrian National Army” Asharq Al-Awsat (English Edition) 19 February 2017 Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've just added a number of more articles, I hope this makes the article clearer.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There needs to be some modifier to the not-yet existing "Syrian National Army" so that it won't be confused with the Syrian Army. The former doesn't really exist yet as I said. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree....Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:27, 17 March 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) 00:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pens (game)[edit]

Pens (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be identical to the card game Spoons, but played with pens in place of spoons, perhaps as a house rule. I can't find any sources that refer to the game by this name. McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should specify that the variation I'm referring to here is reducing deck size, not using pens rather than spoons. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:18, 24 March 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) 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Republic Day Parade[edit]

2017 Republic Day Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think a separate article is required for RD Parade this year. Already there is an article titled Republic Day (India) that has all the information about how it is done. The infobox used is also same. My point is that there is no separate distinction for this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case. Republic Day is generalized over years, not an article for specific year is required. Because most of the information presented is part of the original. Just a section about 2017 in the parent article would do. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:26, 17 March 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman W. Chohan[edit]

Usman W. Chohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(1) The Parliament of Canada is a secondary source that has cited the subject in national law
(2) The University of New South Wales piece detailing impact of the subject is written by a secondary source, Myles Gough.
(3) The International Political Science Association's World Congress is a secondary source. Please also note that doing a PhD does not make a notable subject less notable.
(4) A Melbourne University Press published book of 50 Top Thinkers that includes the subject as one of its 50 thinkers is evidently a secondary source.
Therefore, the argument that the subject is not evidenced by secondary sources is demonstrably incorrect. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see his name there. Do you have any connection with the subject of the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes you can see his name right there. It is cited twice in the reading list on that page. Please be more attentive to the details before you declare sources such as a country's legislature "implausible", this is the parliament of Canada. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 09:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
Even so -- it is indeed a WP:PRIMARY source -- as are virtually all the others. Sources written by you do nothing to support a claim to notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY guidelines require "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" - such as this analysis of impact on Australian laws by the subject from a WP:SECONDARY source. Nomoskedasticity is advised to look up in the "Find Sources" at the top of this page: (1) News, (2) Books, and (3) Scholar to get an idea of the subject's notability. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan


1A - Citation by the PARLIAMENT OF CANADA subject has been cited in a legislative motion in the Parliament of Canada.

1B - World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum is an international, notable body that provides a biography of the subject

2A - International Journal of Public Administration - Article The IJPA is a peer-reviewed, leading journal in the field of Public Administration. Impartial + external representation of the subject's notability.

2B - Parliamentary Affairs Journal Parliamentary Affairs is a peer-reviewed, leading journal in the field of Legislative Studies. Impartial representation of the subject's notability.

3 - Australia's 50 Top Thinkers, the Conversation Yearbook Book is published by Melbourne University Press. This is a published book that recognises 50 Australian Thinkers including the subject. (see also: [5] )

4 - International Conference: World Congress of Political Science The conference has several thousand attendees and is the most important venue for political science in academia. The subject is clearly notable when their work is cited in a large international venue.

5 - Tax and Transfer Policy Institute: Think Tank Profile in respected Fiscal Policy Think Tank is an external indication of the notability of the subject.

Other examples are also easily available, but these examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate the following point. The subject is notable, the referencing of their notability is extensive and externally authenticable (Parliament of Canada, leading peer-reviewed journals, international conferences, The World Economic Forum, a book published by Melbourne University Press, international think-tanks). Therefore, article is not a reasonable candidate for deletion. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then where are the WP:SECONDARY sources? A !vote that simply disagrees with the notability policies won't carry much (if any) weight... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: Please take the time to look at the sources listed above. Just two examples will suffice: The Parliament of Canada can not possibly be a primary source; and nor can the International Political Science Association's World Congress of Political Science possibly be a primary source --عثمان وقاص چوہان 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
But in fact they are WP:PRIMARY sources. Please review the definitions in the linked policies before commenting further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: (1) User:Nomoskedasticity seems to be insisting on just one criteria of notability, but as User:Andrewa correctly points out, there are several criteria of WP:Notability and the subject conforms with these criteria; and (2) Secondary sources include, in line with WP:SECONDARY guidelines, "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" - this analysis is but one example of the subject discussing information along precisely those guidelines. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
Do you have any connection with the subjecyt of the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
You seem to be conceding that the Canadian Parliament site and the WCPS do not meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement -- good. The source from your own university might work -- but it doesn't help that it's a source from your own university. Anyway, if that's all you've got... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#The more general question that seems very relevant to this. Comments there very welcome. Andrewa (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those organisations -- Hyperpolyglots, Taqanu, and Sitarico -- are all things he created. He hasn't been selected for honours by someone else -- he's creating organisations (and thus leads them, by default), and there's no way the organisations are notable. I really don't see the case for GNG (okay, I wouldn't, given that I nominated it -- but still...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's actually a co-founder of Taqanu ([9] is the founder, and I agree is fairly not notable (at least yet), but it isn't a 1 man show). I agree he's engaged in self-promotion and is trying to make "noise" to be notable. He does however write extensively in a number of news outlets, has regular radio spots (in various languages), and a few TV appearances. I think the whole ensemble is a very weak keep (to a large part due to him being a journalist effectively (also!)). And if he is deleted - then it should be with no prejudice for recreation if better sources come up (hard to find due to his own writing - which flood search results) and/or he crosses notability thresholds for other activities - he might be a NOTYET, but he's "close".Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've said he meets WP:Notability (journalists) -- but that of course was a failed proposal, it's not a viable notability standard (and anyway he doesn't meet the criteria specified there). The basic truth here is that virtually nothing has been written about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - my bad on journalist (was searching to see if there was criteria for journo- and didn't notice the fail). At the very least, he is attempting (with some success - according to google and google-news hits on his rather unique name) to be a high-profile individual with regular media as an "expert" etc.. All these self-created organizations serve a broader function than just his wiki entry (which it seems is also used as part of his self-promotion)... Regarding virtually nothing about him - I'm not so sure - with this guy he's written so much out there, that finding stuff about him within all the results of stuff he's written - is difficult. He might have 5-10 secondary coverage sources - and it would be drowned out in the search results.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 20 March 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PyMC3[edit]

PyMC3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. The only reference covering it in any depth was written by the creators of the software. No evidence that any third party has taken such an interest in it. Anyone can upload some math routines to Github and write about them. It needs much more than this for a software package to be notable. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I can add more references, if that is needed. Some of them could be:

There is a similar page for a similar software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(software) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WHATABOUTX, what other articles there are is irrelevant. It is always the case there are other similar articles, given the size and scope of WP. Each article is to be considered on its own merits, to stop discussions being sidetracked by arguments over other articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also other software based on PyMC3.

Bambi: BAyesian Model-Building Interface (BAMBI) in Python. NiPyMC: Bayesian mixed-effects modeling of fMRI data in Python. gelato: Bayesian Neural Networks with PyMC3 and Lasagne. beat: Bayesian Earthquake Analysis Tool. Edward: A library for probabilistic modeling, inference, and criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

> No evidence that any third party has taken such an interest in it.

Speaking as s statistician who did not write pymc3 and yet uses it, this particular assertion seems questionable - there are many blog posts using it, more than 200 stackoverflow questions about it, hundreds of academic articles written using it, heavy and sustained source code contribution and so on. If it were a university professor, its publication record would be likely above-the-median.

It is, however, used for machine-learning and statistics, which might contribute to the perception that it is obscure amongst people outside those fields. --Livingthingdan (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sources to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:23, 17 March 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chopstars[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Chopstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Non-notable organization. Trivial mention of "Chopstars" in sources cited. Unable to find reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue with these pages? If you google The Chopstars or Chopstars and click news you will find ANY CREDIBLE sources where they are mentioned or the article is about them. They are official South by Southwest artist, OVO Sound DJs and have worked with the director Barry Jenkins on his Moonlight soundtrack does meet wiki standards? Here is some info [3][4] And DJ Hollygrove was a producer on a Viceland show[5] User:Ocean03 16:54 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/02/turkey-erdogan-promising-a-national-or-a-ghost-army.html
  2. ^ http://english.aawsat.com/2017/02/article55367710/6-factions-constitute-core-turkey-backed-syrian-national-army
  3. ^ "Moonlight Directs Boost a Chopped and Screwed version Of Its Soundtrack".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017
  4. ^ ""Moonlight" Director Barry Jenkins Teams Up With The Chopstars For "Purple Moonlight" Mixtape".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017
  5. ^ ""The Black Market With Michael K Williams" The Lean Scene (TV Episode 2016)". Retrieved 22 December 2016.
Comment - Regarding each of the three sources listed above, it's difficult to see how they could contribute to the notability of "The Chopstars".
  • The first source has one sentence: "'Chopped and screwed' is the name given to the fogged, narcotized sound created by Houston's DJ Screw." That's all. There is nothing to support the notability of an organization called "The Chopstars". Remember, the genre chopped and screwed already has an article.
  • The second source says four words about The Chopsters: "Houston collective, The Chopstar".
  • The third source does not even mention "Chopstar". Magnolia677 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Could you please add a link here to the articles you mentioned which could support the notability of an organization called "The Chopstars"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you should have done this yourself before nominating, or else withdrawn the nomination if you were unwilling to put in the effort. But, hey, I'm generally willing to help another editor out, so here you go: NPR, Houston Press, Los Angeles Times, and Yahoo Movies. That's just in the first page of 2410 Google News results. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding each of the sources you have listed above:
  • The first is the same source listed far above by User:Ocean03. This source has one sentence: "'Chopped and screwed' is the name given to the fogged, narcotized sound created by Houston's DJ Screw." That's all. There is nothing to support the notability of an organization called "The Chopsters". Remember, the genre chopped and screwed already has an article.
  • The second source mentions "The Chopstars" a few times, without saying who or what they are. This source does little to support the notability of something called "The Chopstars".
  • The third source is a dead link.
  • The fourth source states "to create the mix, the filmmaker worked with OG Ron C and the Chopstars, who gave the tracks their chopped-and-screwed treatment." A one-word mention in one sentence. These sources hardly contribute to the establishment of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be the most picayune and excessively-literal attempt to minimize WP:RS I've seen in AfD for a long time. You dismiss the NPR review because another editor already linked to it, which implies you didn't read it thoroughly the first time. There is literally five paragraphs about this music group and their collaboration with an Oscar-winning filmmaker in the first source alone. I trust the closing admin to read these sources themselves, so I don't feel I need to further dispute your assessments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eggishorn - Your insults and reference to "WP:BEFORE" are an inappropriate smokescreen to hide your shoddy sources, and any capable closing admin will see this. Please locate some reliable secondary sources to support notability, and stop your incivility and drama. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you have a valid user behavior complaint, you know where to go. If you can identify where I talked about you as an editor and not your posts, you know where to find my talk page.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 20 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Helal Uddin[edit]

Muhammad Helal Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG no indepth independent coverage, relies on the same press release. Theroadislong (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 17 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCDcenter.com[edit]

NCDcenter.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims to be the first online Bengali medical encyclopedia, sources don't support this. No indepth coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kempirve[edit]

Kempirve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable Indian film: at present, it has not been covered in any reliable English or Kannada sources. All I could find were the film's Facebook page and a few hits in unreliable sites. Note that, apart from one of the film's actors, none of the film's staff or cast (including the director) have Wikipedia articles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:33, 17 March 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) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal House of Grace International Church[edit]

Royal House of Grace International Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Stanleytux (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm usually lineal in my application of notability parameters for some Nigerian organizations such as schools and churches because of variation in the structure of our digital penetration. That being said, a church established in 1992, that has hosted two Governors of Rivers State, Rotimi Ameachi and Governor Wike; associates with the Governor of Bayelsa State; tries to solve societal crisis; and has branches in Port harcourt passes some of the criteria of WP:CHURCH, even though its a failed proposal. The church is also noted to have 500 members in 1993 (the number is in its thousands in 2017), hosts radio and television programs on national television, heads the Rivers State chapter of Christian Association of Nigeria, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria and ICIC 1. The pastor was also listed in 2003 as one of the most powerful religious figures in Nigeria by Newswatch Magazine. This is tending towards a keep for me. Darreg (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 20 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Prefontaine[edit]

Brad Prefontaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 20 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Sicinski[edit]

John Sicinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 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) 00:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Mayor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
American Mayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally non-notable minor documentary. Previous AfD closed in 2008 with no consensus; much of the opinion was "well let's wait and see". Well, we have waited, and we have seen nothing to indicate notability. The majority of sources in the article are deadlinks. Those that aren't are largely about the filmmaker's previous film. There are no reviews of this film from reliable sources like NYT or similar. The film is not even listed at Rotten Tomatoes to assist in finding any notable reviews. There is some extremely sparse local-only coverage of his unsuccessful run for mayor, but even that fails to nudge the film over the WP:GNG line, as it is routine local coverage of him, not his movie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 20 March 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Lake (Canada)[edit]

Stormy Lake (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Set index article with just one blue link. The red links are not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia. The article was recently deprodded by DGG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason DGG stated when he removed the PROD: "All of them are potential articles, all probably notable". -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 17 March 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) 00:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Ward[edit]

Diego Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, significant support. Minor actor. reddogsix (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 20 March 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 no consensus. Article should be considerably revised as well. (non-admin closure) J947 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels For Wishes[edit]

Wheels For Wishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-profit with no meaningful press coverage other than in connection with the Make-A-Wish Foundation (fails WP:INHERITORG). Notably, the only press coverage not listed in the article appears to be a series of reports alleging that the foundation misled consumers. E.g., [10], which makes me very suspicious about the origins of this article. But even adding those sources would not add up to WP:ORG as once-off reports that a charity is not kosher don't make the charity inherently notable. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 03:05, 17 March 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) 00:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Beard[edit]

Miles Beard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. VP of artists and repertoire (A&R) at a music label does not make him notable. This also reads like a resume. -- Dane talk 00:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As VP of A&R at Artist Publishing Group, Miles Beard has worked with artists and created singles that meet #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 on the criteria for musicians and ensembles. His A&R work also qualifies him for #5 in the composers and lyricists criteria. Charlie Puth's "See You Again" which Beard worked on was nominated for both a Grammy and a Golden Globe. The single also won the Critics' choice movie award for best song, as well as two Billboard Music Awards. Music Business WorldWide named Miles Beard one of the winners of the MBW Young Executive Award by Google Play Music, in 2015. These are a few of Beard's accolades, which I believe qualify him for a verified Wikipedia page.Fairfax17 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 March 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) 00:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Jaffer[edit]

Hassan Jaffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although there are claims in the article of notability, a good faith Google search isn't turning up independent, reliable sources showing the notability of Hassan Jaffer, Hassan Jaffer Ali, or Horleony. Prod was contested by article author without adding sources addressing notability issues, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You added the tag to a previous version of the article, which I deleted. The page's creator then recreated the article, complete with your deletion tag, which Adam contested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 21 March 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) 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran House of Volleyball[edit]

Tehran House of Volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Try also: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I cannot find evidence to suggest this building exists. All other links about this location are Wikipedia-based. Therefore, this may be a hoax and needs deletion. GammaRadiator (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Google translate for "Tehran House of Volleyball" yields "خانه تهران والیبال". Googling on that brings up Iran volleyball sites and photos like this one which has posters of Iranian leaders looking down on the volleyball court. The topic does not seem to be a hoax. Premise of AFD is incorrect -> Keep. And a 1500-seat (if that is what it is) stadium purpose-built for volleyball seems significant to me; I don't know of any larger (or smaller, either). --doncram 07:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. The photos and a google map location for it make it seem pretty real. Photos of the women playing with hijab outfits are pretty striking to me, a different kind of normal. It is eye-opening to see the stadium itself, that's not the kind of scene and kind of investment in Tehran that Americans hear about. I expect there's coverage in Persian language of the building's construction and more. This seems comparable or more important than, say, 1200-seat Quinn Coliseum, found within Category:Volleyball venues in the United States though it doesn't seem like it is volleyball-focused. We have many articles about hockey stadiums. There are tons of articles in Category:Indoor arenas in the United States. Attacking this one in Iran seems U.S.-centric, and projection of a hoax somewhat seems to fit in with anti-immigration executive orders directed at Iran and the like going on in the U.S., so I say avoid this. --doncram 07:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:53, 17 March 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.
More