Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 10: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:25, 10 October 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 9 October	11 October >

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 delete. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Aldous

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

That was me. I believe Wikipedia has a policy regarding notability. And a kid with some 15k subscribers and less than 5k likes on Facebook at the moment is hardly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This sets a dangerous precedent, because if this kid can have a Wikipedia page, why not create one for every single person with a fashion blog and 15 thousand subscribers on YouTube? And just like that, you'll have hundreds, if not thousands of articles on completely unimportant people, because everyone has 15 thousand subscribers on YouTube - since even channels with 6 figures in the subscriber area are considered small, 15k can be seen as nothing.

The sources are terrible and can't even be taken seriously. A gay person is not notable (meaning to the general public) if he only appeared on sites like "The Gay" or "Pink News", atrocious blogs like "Sugarscape" (who the hell puts these as serious sources...) and some small local news site like "Eastern Daily Press". Are you kidding? You might as well just throw a quick blog together in Wordpress, write an article youself and use it a a source. And if you're going to write about being "known worldwide", you better have some world class sources, and not just "b-b-but his fans are from different parts of the world!" to back you up.

This article has everything a Wikipedia article should NOT have, everything was done wrong, and should go away. This makes me believe the whole thing is an attempt at self-promotion either by the YouTuber himself, or his fans.

84.42.224.20 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrally completes nomination for 84.42.224.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), rationale taken from Talk:Georgie Aldous before cleared by 86.16.65.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Aldous is a worldwide known Blogger, Anti-Bullying Ambassador and YouTuber shown from his YouTube statistics. Sugarscape and ThePinkNews are reliable news sources as they are viewed by thousands monthly. Georgie rose to fame from his VIRAL YouTube Video and highly popular Coming Out Video, if someone gets popular through a Coming Out video no wonder it was written about in the news, the people that want this page taken down must be, homophobic? People must be searching who he is because this page is the top result for 'Georgie Aldous' and it used to be bottom! It has a lot of useful information on it, he's up for 3 YouTube related awards which I didn't know of until reading this article. Being an LGBT YouTuber and Ambassador is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category on here! I say it should stay, it helps people know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, this is too soon. The article does not have any mainstream or major sources. The article lists awards that he has been nominated for in 2015, but has not yet won. He was "newtuber of the week" at one site in June of 2015 - only four months ago. This needs much more time and more reliable source recognition. LaMona (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There really aren't many sources on him and to be quite frank he's not that popular on YouTube. There are many YouTubers with much larger followings and even more press than he does without articles currently. Maybe in a while he will be more notable, but for now he is simply not. Andise1 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (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. Keep--with the caveat that the article should be moved per consensus. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Southern–Georgia State football rivalry

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

This AfD is a forehead slapper, and does not require any in-depth analysis under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, because COMMON SENSE suggests that there can be no meaningful rivalry between two universities or teams after exactly ONE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME between them. DELETE with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ordinarily, I would agree with Dirtlawyer, as, on the surface, it would appear that two teams that have played so few match-ups on the football field couldn't possibly be rivals. But, a closer examination of the situation reveals a different story, as this one really is the proverbial "exception that proves the rule." These two schools, fanbases, and teams absolutely DESPISE each other, going back to 1990, when Georgia Southern College was renamed Georgia Southern University, and immediately came into conflict with Georgia State over which school would have the right to bear the coveted "GSU" moniker, with Georgia State's seniority coming out on top. So why have the two teams hardly ever played each other? Well, primarily because Georgia State didn't field a football team before 2010. Since then, Georgia State has gone FBS, jumping to the Sun Belt Conference in 2013, which then prompted Georgia Southern to move to the Sun Belt in 2014 (I'm not kidding, literally no one at Georgia Southern had any desire to move to FBS at all, they were perfectly happy in FCS, until Georgia State announced that they would be moving up. That lit a huge fire under the folks in Statesboro, that they had to go FBS to keep up with Atlanta). So, this series is now a conference series, at long last, and will be played annually for the foreseeable future. Not to mention that there will now be a trophy up for competition between these two schools, starting with the upcoming season (see here). I would suggest that this situation is something like Giants–Jets rivalry, where the two teams in question have hardly ever played each other (12 all-time meetings in 45 years), yet they are "rivals" primarily for off the field reasons. So, what to do with this article? Well, for starters, I would recommend moving it to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry, which would allow expansion of the article to include other sports besides just football (basketball, baseball, etc.), as these two schools actually have more of an on-field history together in those other sports then they do on the gridiron. But, bottom line, is there a rivalry between these two schools? As someone who actually follows and is familiar with Sun Belt Conference football, I can answer unequivocally, yes, absolutely there is. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: Assuming for the sake of argument everything you say above is 100% true and correct, this "rivalry" still fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If this rivalry is real, as you strongly believe that it is, then it should be incorporated into the Georgia State Panthers football and Georgia Southern Eagles football articles. As a comment on the notability of the more generalized rivalry between these two "GSU" Georgia state universities, I also note that "Modern Day Hate," an article about the rivalry between the two universities, was speedily deleted pursuant to WP:A11 as an obviously newly coined name. None of Georgia State Panthers football, Georgia Southern Eagles nor Georgia Southern Eagles football so much as mentions this "rivalry," and I would suggest that is where present efforts should be focused unless and until this "rivalry" sufficiently matures to satisfy the GNG criteria with significant coverage in multiple outlets of the mainstream media. Wikipedia does not cover topics as stand-alone articles unless they are notable per GNG or other applicable specific notability guideline(s). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this rivalry (if it exists at all) has nothing to do with football. The statement that the students at the two schools hate each other may be notable, but making it about a football game that has been played once and scheduled for a second game does not make it a rivalry. I have no objection to an article about the alleged basketball rivalry or general student discourse that may exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: I assume that you would have no problem with the addition of new "GSU vs. GSU" rivalry content in the existing Georgia State Panthers and Georgia Southern Eagles articles, correct? Notability of the rivalry topic is not required for inclusion of rivalry content in the parent sports program and football team articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, then, instead of simply maintaining, improving, and updating this article, we'll have to create and maintain a similar level of content at two different pages, namely Georgia Southern Eagles football and Georgia State Panthers football, creating twice as much maintenance & updating work as if this page is simply kept, retitled, and expanded. Creating more unnecessary busywork is never a good thing, IMHO. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, every truly notable CFB rivalry should be and usually is covered in the main team articles, regardless of whether there is a stand-alone rivalry article. See, e.g., Florida Gators football#Rivalries and Florida–Georgia football rivalry. More examples provided on request. Efficiency is not the issue here; notability is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Rivalry information could be included there if editors deem it worthy. Right now it's about the notability of this particular article, and it just isn't there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I need to ponder this one a bit further, it's a bit of an odd duck. The lack of history weighs on the 'delete' side. But there is more coverage of this series as a rivalry than we typically see. This includes substantial coverage, focusing on the rivalry, in major media outlets like this and this, both from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (perhaps the most respected media outlet in the Southern United States) and this from the USA Today and Associated Press. Since the rivalry is not limited to football, but is a broader rivalry between the two schools and alumni bases, one possible solution is to move this to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry and expand the coverage to basketball (see this regarding basketball rivalry), volleyball (see this regarding volleyball rivalry), etc. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living in Atlanta for 14 of the past 21 years, we are familiar withe AJC. One of the AJC "articles" linked above is not a news article at all, but an online blog that does not appear in the actual newspaper and is not editorially reviewed by the AJC editorial staff. The content of the actual AJC news article calls into question the entire idea of an instant rivalry in football between State and Southern, including sober commentary from both of the coaches about it possibly becoming a true rivalry in the future. Likewise, the USA Today article quotes one of the coaches as saying "Rivalries are things that are established over years and history. . . . So this is the start of one because it's natural, we're in the same conference and the same state. Hopefully in years to come they'll be talking about what a great rivalry it is." The text of neither article supports the existence of a meaningful rivalry in the present. At present, this is very much another manufactured rivalry for marketing purposes. Rivalries are not simply "declared"; they evolve naturally as a result of geographical proximity, shared traditions, common and opposite characteristics of student bodies, politics, competitive series, and sometimes because of unfortunate events on and off the field. The perspective of the State and Southern coaches in these two articles reflects that reality. FYI, Altanta.Suntimes.com is a national content aggregation site of the Chicago Sun Times; it is not an Atlanta-based news medium, and the source of much its content is either unclear or clearly outsourced. In the case of the volleyball rivalry article, the source is a press release of the Georgia State University athletic department website to which the blurb on Atlanta.Suntimes.com directly links. When we distill it down, we have two legitimate news articles (one each from AJC and USA Today), both of which quote the football coaches as soberly saying that it takes time to build a rivalry. There is a third article, from the AJC, discussing last spring's end-of-season meeting between the two universities men's basketball teams. These are very slender sources with which to create a comprehensive article about a multi-sport rivalry between State and Southern, especially when there is virtually no shared history of actual athletic competition. This is reminiscent of the Civil Conflict rivalry, in which one of the coaches unilaterally declared a "rivalry"; real rivalries evolve from events, they are not delcared. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on the fence, but this article strikes me as presenting an arguably stronger case of rivalry, between the two schools across all sports, than the Civil Conflict. And the AfD in that case (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Conflict (college football game)) garnered substantial "Keep" support (I was neutral in that one) and was not deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't necessarily agree with your contention that the second AJC piece (here) is not reliable. It is published on the AJC web site and written by Doug Roberson, an AJC staff sports reporter (see here. Self-published blogs by individuals with no particular expertise are considered unreliable, but blogs published by those with particularized expertise (e.g., the AJC and its staff reporters) may be considered reliable. See WP:BLOGS. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, make a single game article if there really is lots of backstory to the contest. Cake (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry per schools releases (Georgia St, Georgia Southern) of general sports rivalry and trophy system, with associated follow-on TV and AP coverage of the same. Further supported by Sun Belt Conference and existing AJC articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish this discussion was occurring (revisited) in two months. This year's football game is scheduled for Dec 5 and is the last regular season game for each team (a common scheduling hallmark of rivalry games, though obviously not predictive). The associated, or lack of, media coverage of the presumptive second cycle would be helpful. I do concede the WP:GNG issues including lack of significant independent coverage, whether attributable to "newness" and/or size of fanbases. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry, as per Ejgreen77 suggestion above. There is insufficient history as of yet to have an article focused solely on a one-game "rivalry series". However, there is significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, which includes coverage of an overall rivalry between the two schools. Moving the page and making it broad enough to cover all aspects of the rivalry makes the most sense to me. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Uprising

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

Delete - This phrase wasn't known widely prior to the recent Oregon shooting. There are also no solid sources linked to this page.Abc2VE (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Not notable beyond one incident, and not an actual social phenomenon. At most it should be included into Umpqua Community College shooting Lukys (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention on the BBC site doesn't make a meme a 'thing'. EamonnPKeane (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EamonnPKeane: maybe not, but 5500 mentions on the /r9k/ board in the year before the UCC shooting should merit some attention. --71.179.209.137 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: e.g. this, this and this. --Rubbish computer 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples of "significant coverage" are quite simply just newspapers quoting a phrase used in the ramblings of a deranged madman. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Yes, the ramblings of a deranged madman which have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The meme doesn't come from BBC; I'm not sure if it comes from 4chan but they are known for promoting it. See [1] for another mention (there are a number of articles about this 'threat', though there is no actual mention of violence).

I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not really just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there is a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are always subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for.

I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as "speedy delete", but per a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 3 that closure is undone and the discussion is relisted. See there for additional discussion and also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels. Sandstein 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Enough reliable sources available to make this a notable meme. ABF99 (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) After further consideration, changing my !vote to delete. Not enough for notability on its own; this meme can be mentioned in the Umpqua Community College shooting article. ABF99 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft/incubation: Though the number and quality of sources have improved since the original nomination and deletion, it's still thin gruel. I think there's merit in the argument that some (incl. SV and Viriditas, IIRC) made, that the article would lead coverage/spread rumours. Making the draft less visible would also cut down on the number of vandals dropping by. Darth Viller (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - The limited sourcing stresses this as a phrase used on 4chan. This doesn't seem to warrant a stand alone article but per sources the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a brief section on the 4chan article under the "Threats of violence" section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: See this incident, where "Beta Uprising" is described by the Washington Post to explain a written threat on a bathroom wall that was cited as reason for a shutdown of Eastern Kentucky University. (The relation may be questionable, but that was The Post's decision) Wnt (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeahbut the source provided regarding the Eastern Kentucky University threat scribbled on bathroom stall also mentions "beta uprising" as a thing from 4chan. Every source referenced mentioning phrase "beta uprising" links it to 4chan. The 4chan article already has a "Threats of violence" section [2] and it seems this is where topic currently belongs given the sourcing.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: What do you think of tucking it away as a draft? Darth Viller (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No actual link between a chan and an actual shooting has been verified, and most news outlets have never uttered the term "Beta Uprising" even when talking about the chan post. Most of this article's content is talking about how the beta uprising isn't even real. --TheTruthiness (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have a page for every single 4chan meme, and none of the refs actually focus on it in any depth -- an offhand mention in a few places isn't enough to establish notability or to support an article here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not 'knowyourmeme'. Also it started as a hoax to get the 'reliable sources' to name the wrong person as the shooter before the real name was known. It was successful and the reliable sources have corrected their information on that. It could be considered a hoax in that respect that is now a joke. This article would be more at home on ED than on Wiki. Also why is this 'Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions' when it's merely a group of people having a lark at the expense of you and journalism. FlossumPossum (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. GamerPro64 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article and Incels both cover very similar areas. I believe they should be Merged together if either one of is kept. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am convinced by BoboMeowCat's argument. If the 'pedia deals with this at all, it should be within the 4chan article. Just not enough (and specific/in-depth enough) coverage to justify a separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per BoboMeowCat. I think this article doesn't have enough individual notability beyond one or two sources, and thus deserves to be merged with the 4chan article. --146.203.126.109 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan. This is a hoax created by 4chan users. Note that I voted for relisting this at DRV. sst ✈ 01:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the sources provided here don't provide in-depth significant coverage of the article subject. They simply mention or reference it when discussing its main topic. Notability is not temporary, and I agree that this is indicative of temporary notability and per the discussion held above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a 4chan meme and there is no real evidence it is any kind of actual social event or organization.stufff (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet again I'm brought here because people are linking to this article from off-site and laughing at how idiotic Wikipedia is becoming. That there even has to be a discussion about whether this article should be deleted or not should be a matter of personal embarrassment to some. This "beta uprising" thing is a troll. The fact that mainstream news organizations reported on it should not warrant an article on this; rather, it should cause you to question how reliable these jokers really are. Seriously, go read the citations, it's all stories which use anonymous board posts as some sort of evidence of a greater movement causing violent crimes. If this ever changes, if a "beta uprising" movement ever forms to commit acts of violence against society, then it might warrant an article. Until then, I'd like to remind you of WP:DNFTT. Forcing a discussion for the deletion of this idiocy is going to encourage more trolls to pull similar stunts in the future. Akesgeroth (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT should apply equally to commercial interests, like the various reality-TV families who receive lavish coverage here. Which is to say, it shouldn't apply at all. If we can cover something with reliable sources, we should cover it. If Wikipedia coverage encourages people to go out and be creative online, or frightens them into silence because they see FBI and MIsomething investigating 4chan, either way that's none of our concern. Our concern is just to cover the facts. Wnt (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should note that WP:CANVASS applies here. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, non-sequiturs and threats. Really convincing words there. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rule 1 and 2. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For anyone unaware of the situation, 4chan contributors pride themselves on trolling and contestants get extra points for fooling gullible media into mentioning one of their made-up jokes. It's good that sites like 4chan exist because they help to alert people that you shouldn't believe everything you read, particularly on the internet, however Wikipedia should not participate in that noble aim. There is no evidence of notability, and in a month even the 4chan crowd will have forgotten about this joke. The media have to fill space 24×7 so it is not surprising that they occasionally publish junk, but a couple of mentions do not satisfy WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am almost speechless. Surely this Wikipedia article is intended as a joke. Since when did Wikipedia merge with the Urban Dictionary to include any obscure, bizarre made-up term it can find? The background section alone leaves me stupified beyond reason. The entire thing seems to be based on a 4chan meme and a couple of Reddit posts. And 'Angry pepe'? Really? The Pepe-meme? Really? The fact that the pepe-meme is included in a serious tone makes me suspect the author of this article is a troll, its that bad. Omegastar (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided there is data about them, why shouldn't Wikipedia cover memes? There was a huge argument over Campaign for "santorum" neologism but fortunately we realized it was worth covering. We feature practically every piece of software somebody is selling on the front page with everything but a buy now link, so why should we feel ashamed to describe the oddball ideas that make the news? Does someone have to put out payola to make something new acceptable for us to cover? Wnt (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find 'data' on literally anything. I consider myself an inclusionist, but even then there are many things that should not be included on Wikipedia. The 'Santorum' neologism is notable because it had a large impact - it displaced Santorum's official website and biographies on google. "A phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" (as the lead of the article puts it) is not notable. Your argument about software is not relevant, as that is an entirely different topic. And I am not sure what you are trying to say with your payola reference, though I will add that Wikipedia isn't a news-site, and its actually a good thing not to cover 'new' things as quick as possible, because you're not going to be able to write a balanced article about something until enough time has passed for its impact to become clear. Omegastar (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't know if the post on /r9k/ is really linked to the shooter or not. The Beta Uprising joke is in itself not notable, and is just mentioned as part of the brief news cycle. Right now there is not even enough sources to warrant a mention in the Oregon shooting article, let alone a full article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed some hesitancy to include it in that article myself, because we don't know for sure that the shooter in that case ever posted to 4chan. It might be a coincidence. But the media coverage cited here was of the meme and comments itself. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Omegastar. This is an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary. A terrible article about a non-notable meme, full of dubiously sourced attempts to link it to a recent murder. Wikipedia should not be promoting bilge like this. Reyk _YO! 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete puerile nonsense. Deserves at most a one sentence summary on "List of Internet phenomena" but no more. The existence of parody/satire on the internet, and false threats, means that BBC coverage is pointless. This is the worst of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and poor use of interpolated opinion pieces as "sources" -- Callinus (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of sites out there to track memes. This seems to be not a real thing, and not a notable fake thing. HighInBC 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Same reasoning as Callinus above. samtar ^(msg) 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Men like these are under severe attacks by liberal animals and recently a completely reasonable article on Involuntary Celibacy that was fairly well cited had been removed for purely ideological reasons. One the main forces to keep it removed has been a <personal attack removed> who is now banned called Tarc. But memes like these are really not Wikipedia material and don't deserve to be even merged anywhere. If you want to start addressing these most crucial issues start with something that actually isn't just a meme. Especially given how there is now an article on Cuckservative now. Inclusionism, to a reasonable point. Wikipedia isn't reasonable and had fallen to ideology, it seems. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not knowyourmeme. --David G (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG requires persistent coverage over a period of time. We don't have that and there's no indication we will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Callinus. Should have stayed a speedy delete and sending this back to AFD to get snow deleted is process wonkery imo. shoy (reactions) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a really pointless Wikipeida page that was only based on a joke.--Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete I’m adding WP:NOTNEWS to the long list of reasons to delete this article. Almost all of the news articles that gave the term more than a passing mention were published on or within a couple of days of October 5th, 2015. I’ve only been able to find one news source that published information about the so-called Beta uprising on or after October 10th. Ultimately, I’m seeing this as just another twisted prank from 4chan that got a little bit of media attention but ultimately lacks lasting impact. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there isn't any sort of policy, it might be time to write one: internet memes, even if they cross to the mainstream are not notable for Wikipedia. At most, this should have a 1 line mention at List of Internet phenomena. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Echoing the general consensus that this is basically just another meme article for a meme that at present has no encyclopedic notability. Muldrake (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4chan. This, to me, ought to be redirect to 4chan as an example of the prank that it so obviously is. so that this doesn't occur again! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is not notable and uses the absolute lowest grade of The sky is falling! journalism as sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-On Delete Callinus said it perfectly. Crow^Caw 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an old meme that resurfaced due to recent events, it will be completely forgotten soon enough. BoxofPresents (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possible merge to 4chan. There is coverage of this, but it's not heavy enough at this point in time to warrant an article. Someone here had mentioned merging it somewhere and I think that this could probably warrant a brief mention at 4chan. The shooting page was mentioned, but I'm not entirely sure that this would be good to merge there. Reddit is always a possibility, but the name bandied around more in the news is 4chan. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A 4chan in-joke doesn't need a full article, this isn't knowyourmeme. 82.197.242.162 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 4chan. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to suggest that what needs to happen here is for editors to use this article's sources to build stronger connections (prose, not just see-also) between the articles on the different shootings (Spencer, Roger, etc.), the different websites (4chan, Reddit MRAs, etc.), and relevant phenomena (violence against women). The sources are observing a trend, I'm just not sure a separate article is merited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan. I don't see why we can't redirect to 4chan. It would be trivially easy to add a sourced sentence there about this, if that's an issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article looks like it be more appropriate for something like UrbanDictionary than Wikipedia. The citations are questionable at best. PlantRunner (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cause this is hilarious Weedwacker (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PČ99

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

PC System Design Guide is PC99.

Nothing about PČ99 helmet. Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the PC99 article is entirely unrelated and I've removed it. The MPC-1 article merely refers to PČ99, it doesn't describe it or link it, so it's effectively a violation of the disambiguation page policy on red links. If someone wants to write about PČ99, having a red link there is certainly less confusing than a disambiguation page that isn't one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 10 October 2015 (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. All secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTOCMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maruthi Vidya Kendra

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

Non-notable elementary and middle-school. Was prodded 7 days ago, and the prod tag removed with the following explanation: "A tag has been posted nominating this article for deletion. However I object this as the notability of this article can be proved. This is an institue I have personally studied in and it is an important institute in Tumkur, Karnataka. I shall be improving the article as soon as possible. Thankyou." Since he created the article, they have done very little to improve it. Searches on Google, News, Books, Scholar, and Highbeam returned nothing but a few brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a K–10 school. That is considered a secondary school in many nations' education systems and many editors here. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mention to Tumkuru and redirect likely as is usual with these elementary and middle schools. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. Does actually appear to be a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsbury (band)

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

There's simply nothing to suggest better notabiltiy and improvement with the band seeming to be active from 2008 to 2011 and again since then and my searches finding nothing better than some old news here and here. This is easily speedy and PROD material but as there are a few sources (not they are enough to save this article of course), comments would be good to accompany this nomination. Pinging past user Mattgirling. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Several examples of coverage found. Could do with more. Orlando Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Orlando Weekly, Worcester Magazine, plus a couple of others that may not pass WP:RS: [3], [4]. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – Meets WP:GNG, albeit on the weaker side, as per [5], [6], [7], [8]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (parlez) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Worboyes

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest even minimal improvement with my searches only finding her books at Books and the usual links with browser...aside from that nothing else for this article from August 2008 and this is easily speedy and PROD material. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confide) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anything about her except blurbs from publishers, which are not terribly independent of the subject. /wia /talk 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While prolific, she doesn't appear to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any reviews or biographical sources. She writes young adult books in the UK, which may mean that she is better known there than in the US -- and I mainly check US sources. So I'll check back to see if someone with a more UK YA bent has found more to support her article. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Kaur Sandhu

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

Questionably notable as there's simply not much and my searches (including WP:INDAFD by the way) found absolutely nothing. This is easily speedy and PROD material but given as there are may be hidden sources, comments would be well accompany this nomination. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (blab) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some sources [9], [10], [11], though most are fairly short and have maybe a few sentences or a short paragraph on her each. Couldn't find anything on her not in relation to her team. Other sources: an interview with other athletes from the school she attended [12], the source in the article that was part of a series where other young Indian athletes were featured [13], and her athlete profile [14]. But I don't think these sources are good enough.

The highest competition I found that she's played in was at the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Some sports at WP:NSPORTS mention participation in the Commonwealth Games as a sign of notability but most have placing requirements and field hockey is not talked about there. Her team didn't do too well at that competition anyways. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches didn't turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Holborow

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

Simply nothing to suggest better notability and improvement so unless there are some sources I'm missing, there's nothing to suggest keeping this article from October 2006 and this is easily speedy and PROD material. Pinging past user J04n. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Billboard citation in the article is a passing reference. I found a couple more [15] [16], but they're both perfunctory directory-style listings in industry-specific outlets; not sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and no claim of significance. This should have been put for CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schücke

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

Seemingly open and shut case of non-notability so unless he actually got some good coverage and it's archived, there's nothing to suggest keeping (this is also speedy and PROD material) and this has basically stayed the same since November 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, and the @de Wikipedia article is exactly the same. If there are sources, they will be in German sources, and it seems clear that he doesn't have international acclaim. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torrence Allen

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Will return to evaluate more fully later, but he has received coverage in national media. See this from ESPN.com. Additional coverage includes this from Amarillo Globe-News and this from The Clifton Record. Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (babble) 10:04, 10 October 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Pe Jhalak

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

Non-notable show. No refs, no claim of notability, no in depth coverage obvious in google. PROD removed without the addition of sources. Merge and redirect to That's_So_Raven#Indian_Adaptation possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per no rason. 333 -blue 09:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely because this only started airing recently and other shows such as The Suite Life of Zack & Cody version The Suite Life of Karan & Kabir is existing (even though it apparently only went for two season). SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (state) 10:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to That's_So_Raven#Indian_Adaptation. I doubt it would ever get any "in depth coverage" the nominator wants. And even if it gets some it can be mentioned in the main article. Nothing encyclopedic to merge anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - marginally notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies

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

Virtually all contributions are by WP:SPAs, and the sole source is a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-granting institution per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely if it is a notable and acceptable school. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 10:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A degree awarding institute. Ranked 25th in ET Business school ranking: The Top 50, 2011. Plus many alumni seem to be getting attention in newspapers even if they themselves aren't yet notable enough for a standalone article on WP.[17],[18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. And rave party arrests are certainly notable [23] #SarcasmAlert. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dharmadhyaksha. Yash! 06:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gefährliche Wege

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

I'm not sure if this can be better notable and improved as my best searches were at Books (where I found various results for these two words), although there aren't many details to help searching, and this also has gotten almost no changes since starting in January 2009. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a book written to be used in school to teach the German language to English-speakers, it comes as a kit with the printed book, the whole story (20 episodes) on 7 audio tapes and a teacher's guide. It seems to have been used widely in 10th to 12th grade German lessons, there is a "curriculum review" and there is this. The book was published in 1976, and there's also a Spanish version, both written by Emile de Harven. Kraxler (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the German title translates to "dangerous routes" it's obviously not the easiest subject title to search for. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) 09:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now (still researching this one). Seems to be a border-line notable book. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, article contains zero sources even after two relists. Sandstein 09:52, 18 October 2015 (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. slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bowen

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

This individual is not notable. The article appears to be self promotion. The edit history and users involved suggest a conflict of interest and non neutral point of view re Horison Community College. isfutile:P (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it is certainly true that the user who added Bowen's current affiliation to Horizon Community College, in a couple of five word sentences also edited the college's page, and may indeed be surmised to be have, shall we say, some affiliation, it is not true that the article is non-neutral about his involvement. Indeed the editor concerned added negative news citations to the college page.

Certainly I have never met Bowen, and am not his alter-ego, as the couple of hundred editors who have met me in the flesh can testify.

Bowen was awarded a significant award, and has a documented history of innovating for enterprise, specifically, but not exclusively, young enterprise.

He easily passes WP:GNG on this basis.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

delete. Of the two refs one is to his own institution, so not a reliable third party one, while the other mentions him only in passing. So no in-depth coverage in a reliable source, never mind the multiple sources required for GNG. Secondary school academics are rarely notable and usually require exceptional evidence, such as winning a national award. The Queen's Awards for Enterprise is award to over a hundred people or organisations every year, and is hardly grounds for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Queens Award for Enterprise Innovation is awarded to about 7 or 8 people per year. Unlike the Queens Award to Industry, which is awarded to organisations, it is awarded to people. Moreover it is an award for "good works" benefiting others, rather than for (possibly enlightened) self interest.
- Please note nominator had eviscerated the references from this article before nominating and removed the main claim to notability from the lead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I had a look at the version immediately before nomination and it makes no difference; the additional references are both first party ones to official coverage of the award, not reliable third party ones. And there are over a hundred awards under the Queen's Award every year. The one third party ref, to a local paper, lists seven alone in this part of the country. And a brief mention in a local paper is not enough for GNG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that, for quite some time now, User:Rich Farmbrough has set himself the task of creating articles for each and every recipient of the Queen's Enterprise Award. For most of them, it is difficult to see how they ever would have gotten articles were it not for the award and, accordingly, the merits of a stand-alone article should be judged under the guidelines for "single-event" notability. This point is a lot clearer if we look at the articles for some of the other 2010 recipients -- Timothy Allan, Simon Denny (professor), Murdoch MacLeod, or Kenneth Nelson (businessman). Mr. Farmbrough, may I make a suggestion? How about creating an article for each year's crop of recipients, such as "Queen's Enterprise Promotion Award 2010"? I doubt that anyone would object to such an article and it would be the perfect place to host a brief biography of each recipient. The individual articles could remain as re-directs to the overall article for the particular year. What do you think? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually an approach I favour for marginally notable subjects, in some cases.
- There are two issues with articles about awardees of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, firstly our coverage of business is terribly lacking, and its worth creating these stubs to see if they can become articles, and secondly many of these people (like most of our article subjects) have more to their biography than simply winning an award (as might be the case with a typical lottery winner). In this case Bowen might equally belong in Horizon Community College or St Benet Biscop Catholic High School.
- Finally there is the risk of someone getting the parent article deleted on spurious grounds, such as naming - this has happened to about 20 QE articles.
- If you wish to expand Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (2010) into a list article, though, I certainly would have no objection.
- Note in this example the number of refs has been increased from 2 to 11 since nomination.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Re "our coverage of business is terribly lacking", our covering of businesspeople like anything else depends on the depths of coverage in reliable sources. There is no shortage of press coverage of modern business and businesspeople; general newspapers produce reams of it daily, while specialist business publications go into more depth and have wider coverage. And it is almost all online; even if paywalled it is indexed and searchable. So no, it’s not lacking by missing people like Nicholas Bowen; by our standards he is not notable, as there are no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage of him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While the coverage of him isn't immense, it appears enough to count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A borderline case, but I believe it's enough to me. Jujutacular (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reliable source are you looking at, that has significant coverage? I could see only trivial coverage, nothing that covers him in any depth among the secondary sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Definitely seems to meet significant coverage criteria, and Rich's arguments about business coverage is absolutely true: these are more than "simple biased awards", the are fairly significant recognitions of the contribution to these business communities, Sadads (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion and hence passes WP:BIO (point 1). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion, because the "Keep" votes don't appear to be grounded in policy Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I probably don't think a relist is necessary as Recipient of Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion#The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2010. I acknowledge that receipt of the Queen's award confers some notability, but WP:BIO is not the only guideline we should be looking to. I have in mind something more like WP:BLP1E or WP:NOPAGE. Consider what this article would look like if we removed mention of the Queen's award. Would there still be a serious debate over the notability of the subject? Perhaps some of the "keep" voters would say "yes", but what exactly would they point to? We are told, for example, that the subject was involved in an enterprise intended to "incubate students' ideas". But in the entire history of humanity, hasn't every educator set him/herself the task of "incubating students' ideas"? We are also told that the subject was involved in getting students to visit local businesses. In the U.S., we used to call these things "field trips". Is there any school administrator today who hasn't organized field trips for their students? All that I see in this article (other than the Queen's award) are locally-sourced statements that a school official has been doing the things that we normally expect school officials to do. And what has become of the subject since receiving the award in 2010? The article tells us that, in 2013, the subject sought to encourage students to become physically fit and acted as the chairman of a series of inter-school games. We also learn that the subject had to reduce staff due to budget cuts. Again, these are routine activities for which WP:Run-of-the-mill can be a useful guide. As I noted above, I think a better target for a redirect would be a new article on the 2010 recipients of the award, but I'll respect Mr. Farmbrough's judgment that such an article is not advisable. But the parent article can also serve as an appropriate target, at which a brief biography of the subject can be placed directly under his name. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is appropriate in this case and I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies. Editors need not be reminded that subject of an article need not pass all the notability criteria to merit an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. For example if an academic passes WP:ACADEMIC#1, they need not pass every other criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list of people awarded the prize put simply, I do not accept the Queen's Award for Enterprise Innovation as a sufficient award for notability. There may often be additional factors, but there does not seem to be any here. Principal of a secondary school is generally non-notable. Though there are several possible targets for a redirect, the list of awardees would seem the best chocie. It will in addition permit easy expansion if there is additional notability forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the article about the award. While the award contributes to notability, if it is the only claim to notability, than I do not believe this person meets our notability criteria. Outside of the award, not much else. WP:ANYBIO only says that if they have won an award they may be notable. Based on that, delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Headteacher receives Queen's enterprise award". News Post Leader. 2010-04-22. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
2. "North East super seven celebrating Queen's Award accolade". The Journal. 2010-04-21. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
3. "Inspirational head wins top award for enterprise". The Journal. 2010-04-23. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
  The article is also stored here^WebCite.
4. "'We want parents to see that there are opportunities for their children'". The Yorkshire Post. 2012-01-21. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
  The article notes:
  It’s billed as Yorkshire’s super school, but can a new building, even one costing £50m, really kick start the regeneration of Barnsley? Sarah Freeman reports.
  Since he was appointed last March, Nick Bowen has spent much of his time on a building site. As the head of Barnsley’s new Horizon Community College, he’s been on first name terms with the workmen who have been transforming a 46-acre site into what will be the biggest school in the country.
  ...
  Bowen stops short of promising HCC will be able to work miracles, but he does have form when it comes to blending the teaching of traditional education with entrepreneurial skills.
  In his last headteacher post at St Benet Biscop in the North East, he won the Queen’s Award for Enterprise, normally reserved for business.
  ...
  Bowen has been in teaching for almost 25 years and while his career choice may have been accidental, his designs on Barnsley’s education are anything but.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nicholas Bowen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of those sources are notable for the schools or the award, but none infer notability onto Nicholas Bowen. If doing a good job as a headteacher was notable, hundreds of thousands of headteachers would have wikipedia pages. Does anyone have any sources which are primarily about Nicholas Bowen? If not, I don't see how this article passes notability in its current form. As it stands there is no significant coverage about Nicholas Bowen. isfutile:P (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here. He's not just "A headteacher", he's the inaugural headteacher of "biggest school in the country" according to the Yorkshire Post. He won a significant award for enterprise innovation. He meets WP:GNG.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If this individual is notable, there should be significant third part coverage about the individual. There isn't in this article. If such sources can be added, I'll change to KEEP, but as it stands I still vote DELETE since notability, on this basis, has not been satisfied.

Let's look at the article sources in turn:

"Headteacher receives Queen's enterprise award". News Post Leader. 22 April 2010. This article makes passing mention of the article subject and is not enough for notability.

"The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion: Recipients list" (PDF). Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source simply replicates source 1.

"Staff Contact Information". Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source is irrelevent to notability.

"Mr Nicholas Bowen". The Queens Award For Enterprise Magazine: 18-19. ISSN 2041-9783. Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source replicates source 1.

"North East super seven celebrating Queen's Award accolade". The Journal. 21 April 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2015. This article is about the school and not the article subject.

"Building is to be demolished and then rebuilt". News Post Leader. 22 May 2006. This source is about the school and not the article subject.

"Alcan boosts high school youth initiative". Morpeth Herald. 5 March 2008. This source is not about the article subject.

Ruth Mitchell (30 July 2008). "UK first puts enterprising kids in the driving seat". B. Daily. This source is not about the article subject.

"Project Launch To Get Kids Fit and Active". 15 January 2013. This source is not about the article subject.

"Horizon hosting repeat of South Yorkshire School Games". 3 July 2013. This source is not about the article subject.

Mike Cotton (27 June 2014). "Secondary school announces shock redundancies". Barnsley Chronicle. This source is not about the article subject.

Therefore, only one source makes passing mention of the article subject. There are insufficient sources and no evidence of significant third party coverage of the subject of the article. isfutile:P (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't seem like a well known award at all, if it was, there would easily be plenty of good sources, right? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Joshi

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

Highly promotional article, with phrases like "Called 'Paolini of the East by those who know him". Don't believe that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. Yes, he wrote a book at the age of 16 but these days thats not a significant new concept (NAUTHOR #2). I would also contend that if this is all he is notable for it could be a case of BLP1E. A number of the sources are not WP:RS, including an interview. Gbawden (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the promotional material has been removed to make it more in conformity with Wikipedia's guidelines. References to substantiate the content of the article are also given and I believe interviews are relevant citations. If there's still some drawback, it should be pointed out. Would be taken care of duly. Already, it has been edited to a great extent. Onlinewarrior425 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)OnlineWarrior425[reply]

Onlinewarrior425, do you have more sources along the lines of the article from the Hindustan Times? That one is usable as a notability giving source, but the one from the author's literary agency cannot. It's a WP:PRIMARY source, which cannot show notability. The MeriNews source cannot show notability since it looks to be a self-published source, as the site identifies the author as a "citizen journalist". Per the site, it looks like citizen journalists can report on anything and these reports are not edited, which means that they do not undergo the type of editorial control that Wikipedia requires from its sources. Now I do need to point out that coverage does not have to be in English so if Joshi has received coverage in Hindi (in a place that Wikipedia would consider reliable) then that could possibly show notability for him and his work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm including all the links I found that might be relevant to the issue at hand. I cannot comment on the reliability because I don't have much experience with reviewing articles, but it might turn out to be helpful. If there's consensus on the reliability of the sources, I'd be grateful if one of the more experienced reviewer could fix the article.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/Classic-Mystery-Stories/2014/12/16/article2572865.ece

http://blog.internshala.com/2014/12/tips-book-published/

http://ipu.ac.in/connectuss/Issue%203/ussnovelist.html

http://www.b00kr3vi3ws.in/2015/01/Equilibrium.html?m=1

http://www.bbpsgr.edu.in/literary_club.html

http://readersclubdelhi.com/equilibrium-by-paras-joshi/

Notice should be brought to fact that 'paolini of the east' is also mentioned in HT Campus, a publication of Hindustan Times that specialises in events happening on school and university campuses in the major cities of India. I cannot include that link because the page has been blacklisted for i don't what reason and I'll add a request to whitelist the same, but the contents can located by running a normal search for 'Paras Joshi Equilibrium HT Campus' I hope this would rest all doubts with respect to the notability of the author and the book.

Rovingedit (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)rovingedit[reply]

Rovingedit There's this one more page http://plusminusnmore.rapo.in/f-pages/f-page-paras-joshi/ which carries his interview. Onlinewarrior425 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)OnlineWarrior425[reply]

Draft and userfy for now as I found no better coverage aside from this so there's not much for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) 09:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy (For Now) without malice, since the article does indeed have one strong citation and there's clearly been a good faith attempt to clean up the language to conform to NPOV. Unfortunately one piece of non-trivial coverage in a secondary source isn't enough, Wikipedia needs two. It looks like some work has gone into finding a second source, and I respect that work, but so far it's not there and this is lingering on. The subject is a young writer who appears to be very active, so I'm sure he'll someday get more coverage. ONCE THAT HAPPENS, this article can be re-created, but in the meantime it should be moved to the article creator's sandbox. -Markeer 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:54, 27 October 2015 (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. Even if the IPs are discounted, we don't really have a clear consensus to delete. Sandstein 11:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenichi Sawai

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

Martial artist with no significant independent coverage. Sources are passing mentions and he's not even mentioned in all of them. Being soundly defeated repeatedly by someone is not grounds for notability nor is creating a minor variation of an existing martial art.Jakejr (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of documentaries (e.g. [24]) and books in his native Japan, author of multiple published books, covered in multiple sources (which of the sources in the article doesn't mention him? I can find his name in every single one), important figure in Japanese and internal martial arts history. Try Googling his name in Japanese... [25] Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep many documentaries in Japan. 173.52.89.236 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please list some of the "many documentaries" you claim are there. Astudent0 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ The article's sources are passing mentions. FWIW my internet search didn't find him in the "Chinese Kung Fu" book. Yunshui does provide a link to a documentary, but I noticed his entry on the Japanese WP only has one source so that's a problem. Are his books considered significant as defined at WP:MANOTE? Astudent0 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in Chinese Kung Fu is under the alternate reading of his name, "Keniqi Takuike". Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that appears to be another passing mention. Astudent0 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes gng2607:FB90:E9A:510D:0:48:EBBF:E701 (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm changing my undecided to weak delete based on the lack of significant independent coverage that has been presented. I'm seeing claims but not enough supporting evidence. Astudent0 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the sources required to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kenichi Sawai was a notable student of Wang Xiangzhai. He was likely the first ever to teach a Chinese Internal martial art in Japan (the art of Yi Quan) and during his time one of very few in Japan who taught Chinese martial arts in general. He was good friends with Mas Oyama and the two cross-influenced each other. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited from teachers or friends. If you have a reliable independent source that says he was the first to teach a Chinese internal martial art in Japan, that's different. Do you have such a source?Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GOOD ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ONLINE2607:FB90:246A:83B:0:24:F72F:A901 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again we have a new IP making the same claims as the other new IPs, but not furnishing any evidence or links. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is not enough significant independent coverage of him to support the claim he meets WP:GNG. Of those advocating the article be kept, only Yunshui has provided any supporting evidence and that was just one source. The fact that the Japanese WP also has just one source doesn't help his case. Searching in Japanese sources I was able to find mentions of his name, but not to determine if the coverage was both significant and from independent and reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I feel that he should be kept but it is hard to come up with a good reason - the coverage isn't great. He is sort of a nexus point which we can see but find difficult to describe.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) 09:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Palms (band)

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

Article (re-)created in violation of WP:COI guideline, likely by label One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete —Kusma (t·c) 13:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Damn (band) and my talk page for some background. —Kusma (t·c) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. The article seems fairly neutral, although it could use a lot of work. Coverage from The Quietus, Clash, The List, The Skinny, Uncut, Q, NME, Mojo, Huffington Post, and The Gazette, among others, could be used to improve the article. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:BAND for noteworthiness. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly not the case. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm simply not seeing as much coverage there could be and the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only found the first page of a Google search? --Michig (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might help if you put the band name and the member name in quotes to cut out irrelevant results. e.g. search for "wild palms" "lou hill". --Michig (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. I'm finding in-depth coverage that could be used to fill out the article. Andreas JN 466 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and weak keep: Actually for whatever reason this article was recreated; the original article was tagged by me as a G12, (copyvio): [26] and an admin deleted it under that same QD reason. An admin who can see these details could verify. I see no reason to delete for a conflict of interest and this version does not seem to have been blatently copied from another's writing. Thanks Fylbecatulous talk 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the article creator has a COI is not sufficient reason in itself to delete. If the previous version of the article was deleted for copyvio, that shouldn't prejudice the current version so long as it contains no text copied from elsewhere. Now, I only looked at the first page of results for the string ["Wild Palms" "Ex Lion Tamers]" but even that yielded three sources (all themselves notable) which support notability:

Murray, Robin (28 January 2011). "Wild Palms Added To Cold War Kids Tour". Clash.
Watkeys, Chris (April 2009). "WILD PALMS: From Ex Lion Tamers to Wild Palms, east London is just the beginning". Loud and Quiet. 3 (5).
"Wild Palms – Until Spring". Music OMH.com. 7 March 2011.

Combined with the other sources Michig mentioned it looks like more than enough to meet the notability standard, even the more specific guideline for bands. I am already working on other articles Trincres17 (another employee of One Little Indian records) created or wished to have created; perhaps Michig and I can work together to help the Wild Palms (band) article better meet Wikipedia standards. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Shain

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

I'm questioning the currency of the first AfD nomination as although my searches found links here, here, here and here, I'm not sure if this can be improved. I'm notifying John Z although it seems he's not very active but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz still is. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No argument presented for deletion. No attempt to refute arguments in initial AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (palaver) 09:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm finding some coverage: Venturebeat, but mostly mentions and quotes (not themselves = notability, but provide some support). The book is held in about 850 WorldCat libraries, which is a moderate showing. I can't find any reviews of the book. If others can find better sources, I'll re-think. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & LaMona - I also cant nothing but mentions, No evidence of notability - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 17 October 2015 (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. Maybe renominate if still deemed problematic after the cleanup by Biscuittin. Sandstein 10:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Application of CFD in Thermal Power Plant

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

The article is completely unreferenced and no links to credible sources in the references. I'm unable to find verification regarding it's the notability or significance of claim. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 07:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would make a great engineering thesis paper but is probably too specific and technical for WP. WP:NOTJOURNAL shoy (reactions) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only specific link I found for this was at Books but nothing else better aside from that. WP:TNT and restart if and when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have tidied up the article and I think it is now acceptable. Biscuittin (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (interview) 09:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets subject specific guideline on multiple accounts. Nomination rationale is fundamentally flawed. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matías Escudero

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

Fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG and neither of them exist in this page in order to pass the above criteria. NextGenSam619^t@lk 09:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject does in fact pass WP:NFOOTY, the football-specific notability guideline, by having played in a fully professional league as listed at WP:FPL. In fact, three fully professional leagues. He is currently playing for the reigning Primera División de Chile champions, and contributed with 13 games as they won that title. Before that, he played 147 times for Nueva Chicago in the Primera B Nacional and the Primera B Metropolitana in Argentina, both of which are listed as fully professional. This information is verified in the Soccerway and BDFA external links already present in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2. Giant Snowman 12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2. The article definitely needs improvement, not deletion. Please remember WP:BEFORE. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2 passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heiðrik á Heygum

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources are not reliable or merely confirm certain facts. The foreign language articles don't establish notability. Gnews only comes up with 3 hits including one youtube LibStar (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Ah I wished I had caught this one in May as aside from links with News, Books and browser, there's simply nothing to suggest better. Thanks LibStar for nominating again, SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - he is one of the most important Faroese film instructor and also well known for his music. He may not be known world wide, but he has won a Nordic film prize in 2007 and several Faroese prizes, including both Faroese filmprizes in 2014, the Geytin and the Audience award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EileenSanda (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 October 2015
Keep - in my opinion, being nominated for and winning multiple film awards should count as 'significant critical attention' (per WP:CREATIVE). Sietse (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's certainly a claim of national notability in the article and in sources. Given it's a small country, I don't consider a small GNEWS count as a reasonable reason, and WP:MUSICBIO certainly allows for local notability once verifiable (which the nominee has acknowledged). -- R45 ^talk! 21:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question @LibStar: please expand on the assertions, (a) which sources are not reliable and why, (b) why "the foreign language articles don't establish notability". -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's notion that coverage of a topic by reliable sources in foreign languages does not establish notability is incorrect. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Foreign .language sources are just as acceptable for establishing notability as English language sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Foreign sources are just as acceptable as English language sources, per WP:RSUE.--Snaevar (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

403 forbidden 寅

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

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. Lacking notability since July 2013. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources to iTunes and last.fm, and no reliable independent sources found in search. Classic zero-source non-notable. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any independent notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. --DAJF (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned above, this album doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss or review it. /wia /talk 12:54, 10 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rexhep Thaqi

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, never played in a fully professional league Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has not played senior international football and currently does not play in a WP:FPL. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on account of subject's extraordinary height (183m) 94.12.160.252 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason to keep the article. It looks like this comment has been added for fun.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the height in the infobox. My !vote still stands. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2015 (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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors of the Counts of Siruela

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

I feel like there might be a topic here, but I don't understand what this article is about. It appears to be something about Spanish counts, but I'm not quite sure. I feel like it would need to be heavily rewritten to be encyclopedic. WP:TNT. Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly userify This is an article that might usefully appear on a genealogical website, but it does not belong in WP; certainly not in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the individuals listed have articles in enwiki, more in eswiki. This article lacks coherence and is a type of content fork. Vrac (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (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. czar 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the Sirens

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

Non-notable rock band. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure because there are at least some reviews and coverage but there may not be much else and the best my searches instantly found was this with a few links. In any case, this could be drafted and userfied (the author is no longer active if it is not obvious). SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading through the article, looking at the sources and what else is out there it seems that someone at Rock Sound (best coverage = [27]) wants to give them a push but that's about it. The others are either blogs or webzines that fail WP:RS or are trivial. In the absence of any charting, awards, releases on major/significant indie labels, etc. it comes down to coverage and it just isn't there. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be notable now nor likely to be in the future, their social media accounts are no longer active so I assume they aren't either. Also appears to have been started by a member of the band. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2015 (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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best Movies Ever Entertainment News

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in independent secondary sources. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

Delete David Condrey ^{log talk} 23:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON - why? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 24 October 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smart File System

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

I can find no reliable, third-party sources that cover this filesystem in any depth. Fails WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a widely-used filesystem on AmigaOS, and the default filesystem in MorphOS. Maybe we can't expect it to be documented by very major computer science books, but nonetheless it has the same standing as the plethora Amiga and non-Amiga filesystems that are documented on this encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LjL: Then please help save if by finding sources that satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. I agree with Qwertyus that notability is not established — the only sources in the article are primary sources and not independent. The article has had a {{Refimprove}} tag since July 2009. -- intgr [talk] 12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now cited a couple of books about some statements in the article. LjL (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in Digital Image Forensics is a single sentence. The coverage in Computer Forensics is a bit better, but still only an entry in an exhaustive listing of file systems (though I guess it hints at real-world use). Is merging to MorphOS an option? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find that makes logical sense. The filesystem wasn't created on or for MorphOS, and it is still in use on AmigaOS (and IIRC AROS, it just so happens to have been chosen as the default filesystem for MorphOS after being made open source. And again, do we need, what, a book written entirely about the topic of SFS for this article to warrant staying? LjL (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a fair point. What we need is significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. Aren't their any Amiga mags or books that cover file systems? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the file systems listed in Comparison of file systems have few independent published sources available. File systems developed in academia or for major commercial computers get written about publicly. Other file systems produced by companies are documented internally. They aren't usually written about in consumer magazines.

File systems are notable as components of notable systems and an important part of a system's historical development. See also Amiga Old File System, Amiga Fast File System, and Professional File System for the Amiga which would also have to be deleted. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD talks a bunch about notability, but the underlying policy behind all this is verifiability; if there are enough third-party sources to be able to verify an article, that should be considered notability enough (and this is pretty much exactly what WP:GNG says!), and if there aren't, you'll never be able to write a verifiable article and thus it should be deleted. Seeing the conversation above made me fear that the article couldn't be verified (a one-sentence mention isn't really enough), but although some of the existing citations are dubious, there seems to be enough valid ones around that it's possible to write a verifiable article (perhaps a shorter one than currently, though). --ais523 06:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same thing as verifiability and the two should not be confused. In short, notability is the requirement for inclusion of a subject. Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion of any content within an article. A non-notable article does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, even if the content in it is verifiable. Swarm ♠ 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Swarm: Although I respect that opinion, I strongly disagree with it. To me, verifiability is the line between what Wikipedia should cover and what it shouldn't. (When I started at Wikipedia, WP:N was just an essay, but enough people agreed with it that it eventually got promoted to a guideline. Then I took a very long wikibreak. When I came back, WP:GNG had been created, which effectively defines notability in terms of verifiability, and I'm fine with that. Something doesn't get covered in multiple unconnected sources without being notable to some extent, and if something is notable, then unconnected sources will start covering it. --ais523 23:15, 14 October 2015 (U T C)

Comment. I'm seeing a lot of keep votes and very few sources. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article should probably be redirected or merged somewhere. You don't inherit notability from your parent operating system. Otherwise, we'd have an entire encyclopedia full of Linux kernel miscellany. Or, at least, it would be even worse than what we do have. The problem is that the Amiga has been dead for 20 years. I'm not even sure where to start looking for sources, but there may be something useful on Google Books. My searches didn't really turn up much there. This could probably be redirected to list of file systems if no in-depth sources are found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is notability based on how long something has been 'dead'? Even the article about ext2 (the Linux filesystem) doesn't have this plethora of non-primary sources, while now the article about Amiga's OFS has been tagged as one-source by the editor who proposed this AfD. The article about the MINIX file system also has only one third-party source, while funnily enough, the other two sources are Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds. Am I proposing that all these filesystems be considered for turning into oblivion from Wikipedia? Hell no. They are all pretty relevant, even if lengthy features in magazines or whatnot have not been pinpointed. But if nothing else, I will try to go for consistency on this encyclopedia if it is decided that only some roughly-equally-as-documented filesystems are not worthy of articles. LjL (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check; I just added some secondary sources to MINIX file system (and removed Torvalds's autobiography). Regarding Amiga Old File System: that article has only one source, and I'd like to see more, but I'm not suggesting it be deleted because if what the article states can be corroborated, this should be a perfectly notable file system. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general guidelines, I would agree that notability isn't inherited from a parent entity. But part of an enterprise like Wikipedia is a certain level of completeness. If I can find out every release date of Amiga and a changelog on that page, but not get any detail about a file system that ran on it, something is wrong. I would agree to a proposal to cut back some of the needlessly gory detail on the Amiga page and merge things like this article in, but the content on this page is worth keeping around and is in keeping with the other topics in this area.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While my vote is also to keep, I disagree that it would be practical to merge this with Amiga, as if we put every relevant filesystem there, that article would become quite a mess. Independent article is right in my opinion. LjL (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass notability criteria, and searches turned up nothing to suggest it does. Arguments to keep above, while passionate and well-thought out, are not policy based. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The requirement for policy-based arguments merely represents the greater community consensus. A local consensus that is not rooted in community consensus cannot be interpreted as a valid consensus. So, while a clear majority are in favor of keeping, I don't see policy-based arguments in response to the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Those in favor of keeping need to make a better argument or their comments may be discarded. Swarm ♠ 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that since "a clear majority is in favor of keeping", and the current state of thing is that the article exists, there is no consensus to delete. Given that, I think at this point you're twisting process, and it's interesting that other filesystem-related articles that were AfD'd were hastily deleted (even though they were receiving sources and improvements), this one is being hastily... relisted. --LjL (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL: I agree. Attempting to parse what Swarm is saying, I think he may be mistaking guidelines (of which there are many) for policy (of which there are few) and substituting personal judgement for clear consensus. But the best any of us can do is employ our judgement, guided by guidelines and experience. The only statement I found on WP on the matter of local versus community consensus is this: "The term local consensus should also be avoided. Consensus is always understood to refer to those editors who take part in a discussion, whether current or historical. All consensus is local..." It's unfortunate so many areas of Wikipedia are being eaten away at in this fashion, but given the current system, everyone must use their own judgement and try to act in good faith.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because AmigaOS is notable does not mean that all its components are. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any convincing evidence at all that this article meets WP:NSOFTWARE. All mentions in books are brief one-liners. The mentions I found elsewhere on the web were from obscure and likely non-reliable sources. This certainly does not satisfy the requirement that the software be the subject (not merely mentioned) in multiple manuals, reviews, instruction books, etc. --Biblioworm 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to keep. --Biblioworm 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful that WP:NSOFTWARE is an essay -- not a guideline, policy, or rule. It has been rejected as a policy in the past as it lacks community consensus, which (as its header pointedly mentions) makes it not terribly applicable in these discussions.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe it only lacks local consensus but it has global consensus... </sarcasm> LjL (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biblio's statement applies just as well for WP:GNG, so the argument still stands. (I think people should stop using subject-specific guidelines entirely. All subject-specific guidelines are largely a restatement of WP:GNG along with arbitrary shortcuts, that some people assumed would only include clearly notable instances) -- intgr [talk] 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added another two sources, one to an article on the Total Amiga magazine elaborating on how to make the best use of hard drives, and including some information about SFS previously not on our article (deleted files directory), and another to a mention on Ars Technica claiming that (as of 2008, when the article was written) the filesystem was still in active use among "Amiga fans". --LjL (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ars Technica magazine is just a brief one-line mention. The Total Amiga entry has some substance, but it's still not really enough to establish notability. It's the only (somewhat) good source on the article, and GNG says that multiple in-depth sources are expected. Think about it: if this subject was really notable, why must we press really hard through obscure fans-only magazines to find even a single one-paragraph mention? --Biblioworm 15:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Uhm, because it's a computer file system, making it not exactly everyone's favorite conversation topic, but if this intrinsic paucity of secondary sources is not accounted for, then many legitimate technical topics will never have the amount of coverage some editors want for everything. I must also mention I find it a slight symptom of bias when I comment about adding sources and people consistently counter-comment "but it's still not enough". LjL (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should software be the exception to GNG? Note that I'm not somehow opposed to software; I'm very interested in it and in fact know some coding myself. But if a certain piece of software is actually notable and deserves coverage in Wikipedia, it shouldn't be especially difficult to find somewhat in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It should meet this criteria if it is actually "legitimate"; in fact, the standard of "legitimate" on Wikipedia is defined by the policy. There is always WP:IAR, but invoking it for only one file system would set a bad precedent. ("Upset that your article doesn't meet the notability guidelines? No problem! Just cite WP:IAR!") --Biblioworm 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't invoke WP:IAR, if anything I just invoke common sense in applying WP:Notability (which, as a guideline and not a policy, "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"), and in particular I ask that the requirements of notability "proof" are weighed against the conceivably possible "proof" that you could obtain for this sort of topic. If you, for example, set the bar as high as the amount of references you can find to establish notability for the Physics article, then you would exclude pretty much everything else. Instead, I think notability requirement should be toned down common-sensically (not waived) for topics that are quite technical and narrow, and as such, while still useful information to have, may not be on every book and magazine on Earth. LjL (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @LjL: The notability requirements are like that for good reasons, see WP:WHYN. Without good substantial sources, it's really not possible to write a neutral and verifiable article. Common sense tells me this applies regardless of what kind of subject it is. -- intgr [talk] 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that section states "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that [...]" (emphasis mine); so the strict insistence on having multiple secondary sources available may be a bit over the top, and given 1) we have at least one or two secondary sources establishing we aren't making things up and 2) we have some primary sources telling us the details about this filesystem, I think that can be enough. And so does the section you linked, in my reading. LjL (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL: Ok, that's starting to make sense to me. But please do other editors a favor and provide external links, page numbers, etc along with your sources, so it's easier to verify. If you make it easy for other editors to figure out what you're talking about, then more people are encouraged to do so. For example, with most books you can create links to a Google Books preview directly to the right page, see WP:BOOKLINKS. Also, is the cited "Smart Filesystem documentation" available on the Internet somewhere? If you do that, I'll have a look at the sources and vote here. -- intgr [talk] 10:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I usually go to great lengths to make "proper" citations whenever I'm able. I see I've added two books by ISBN+title only, I must have been in a hurry. There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate the entire citation each time (or we change the article to Harvard referencing, which I don't even like). As to official documentation, there is the original AmigaGuide documented as an external link already, and I will add a description of the block format (the "developer's manual" if you like), though both refer to the original version, not the "modern" versions in MorphOS/AROS/etc. LjL (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now hopefully improved the citations a bit (and added a cited fact about UEFI support). LjL (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Four independent published sources are cited in the article, but with limited coverage; substantial coverage exists in primary sources. This article does not strictly satisfy WP:GNG, but I think it's fair to relax GNG requirements somewhat, as some of the reasons in WP:WHYN do not apply — SFS is now mostly a fact of history, there is no risk of it being an advertisement or a hoax. Due to WP:Recentism, it's naturally more difficult to locate sources for this subject, but they probably exist in archives somewhere (e.g. old magazines). As evidenced by the amount of discussion and edits since the AfD begun, there are interested editors around to keep the article maintained. -- intgr [talk] 13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is only fair to give this AfD one more run through, if only to give the editors who have commented "this is notable, but sources are hard to find" one more chance. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this going to be relisted ad libitum until the somewhat overwhelming "keep"s somehow start turning into overwhelming "delete"s? LjL (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a very difficult decision, but I think, after examining the new sources added to the article, that it does satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. (There are a couple of linked manuals exclusively about the file system.) Therefore, I am changing my opinion to "keep". --Biblioworm 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Biblioworm, the manuals show SFS passes WP:NSOFTWARE. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lists of Hindus. Consensus is that at this level of generality only a "list of lists" makes sense. Sandstein 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindus

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous nomination noted that there were over 970 million Hindus. Currently we claim there are over a billion. The only reason why this list isn't bogglingly huge is that (a) nobody is bothering to maintain it, and/or (b) it's difficult to ascertain which of the thousands of Indians we have bios for can be claimed to be Hindus. It's not quite as bad as "List of medieval European Christians" would be, but it's close enough: it's very nearly a "list of all Indians not proven to be not Hindu". Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to List of famous Hindus. 333 -blue 14:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That still has the problem of nearly being "list of famous Indians". It's still nearly indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's already limited to notable Hindus, i.e., those who have articles. It's simply a matter of style preference that we don't include such self-referential criteria as "notable" in the list title. See WP:LISTNAME: "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs." Confusion on this point seems to be at the heart of many list AFDs, as people mistakenly think titling an article "list of Xs" somehow magically compels us to include every X that exists, and then they say we must delete that straw man. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. This is absolute listcruft and is essentially indiscriminate. A list of people notable for their practice of Hinduism might be narrow enough of a topic. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The potential size of a list is not a reason to delete because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so there's no practical limit to the amount of information we can hold. See also List of Christians; List of Muslims; List of Jews; List of Buddhists, &c. It would be absurd to delete one of the world's major religions while keeping the others. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lists that you've cited are in fact lists of lists (the exception being the Buddhism list which is a list of Buddhists notable within Buddhism). The article in question is a single list of names which, if properly populated, has the potential to be thousands of names long. I could accept an argument for keeping the article and turning it into a list of list like your examples but keeping it in its current form would be nonsensical and a fairly useless resource. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big lists are naturally split across many pages. But we're not here to discuss the exact format or structure; that's ordinary editing. We're to decide whether to delete this list topic in its entirety, i.e. make it a red link. That has not been done in those other cases and so it should not be done in this one either. Andrew D. (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problems of their own. You can talk about making a composite of lists (which I personally think is a clumsy thing that we shouldn't be doing) and there is maybe one of interest already (List of converts to Hinduism) but that's really something for a WP:TNT approach: unless someone is going to step up to do that rewrite, now, the list will remain an indiscriminate collection of Indians with bios indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 October 2015

They aren't even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEVENEXIST. Andrew linked us to non-existent lists that redirect to lists of lists. We aren't talking about a list of lists here, we're talking about a list. The deletion of this list does not preclude the creation of lists with narrower scope. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a big article is not a reason for deletion. This is a list with a clear inclusion criteria of a notable attribute. The issue of there being more than one billion is mis-leading, as the list on WP will be tailored to include only notable individuals (IE those with articles). If the list becomes too large, it can be split, per WP:SIZE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a list of lists, e.g. List of Hindu gurus and saints, List of Hindu soldiers, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc. It's absurd to try to put every notable Hindu on a single list. Plus we're not losing much with this miserably inadequate list. It's missing Mahatma Gandhi for gods' sake.Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is incomplete garbage. I've converted Lists of Hindus from a redirect here to a list of lists, though there are surprising few lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current list, and then Redirect to Lists of Hindus. The current list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The criteria here, notable people who are or were Hindus are not supported by reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. As to the list of lists mentioned by Non-Dropframe and Clarityfiend, that would be fine, but it is not this list. WP:TNT. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to list of lists per Lugnuts and Andrew D. I honestly don't understand most of the criticism above, which seems to ignore that we almost always limit lists of people to only those who have or merit articles, so the number of Hindus in the world is irrelevant. It's also not credible that who qualifies as "Hindu" is unverifiable, and for this list (and any appropriate sublists) that's all that reliable sources need to support. So keep per WP:LISTPURP and as complementary to Category:Hindus per WP:CLN. Everything else is editing; there are no valid deletion arguments here. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: It is fine to keep the title for a "list of lists", but you will have to wipe the existing content to do so. The reason that this list is "indescriminate information" is the same reason that a list of "notable people" would be indescriminate. There are not enough criteria to use to discriminate in any 'meaningful way. A "list of lists" would be just that, each linked list would have to justify itself according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and the policy at WP:NOT. But aside from the title, there is nothing to save here, hence WP:TNT. Articles may be improved during Afd, so if you wanted to wipe the page and do a "list of lists", each having selection criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as well as narrow enough to meet the challenge of being called indescriminate, then that would be bold. --Bejnar (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment about what you think is "indiscriminate" here; it seems to just represent a point that has already been responded to (including by me) but I don't see anything in this latest comment that reflects that. Beyond that, I don't think TNT is a constructive approach in most cases. postdlf (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough criteria currently in use for the list to discriminate in any meaningful way. That is why a list of lists would work, since there would be additional criteria that would give each list meaning, and greater utlility. That's the difference between indescriminate info and meaningful info. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only understand that as you thinking the "list of [notable people who are verifiably] Hindus" is too broad. But given that you think subdivided lists would not be too broad, and there is substantively no difference between subheaders (as the list currently has) and sublists, you do not have a deletion argument, because no matter what we have a viable topic that can be improved through further editing. Which only leaves you with your TNT opinion, for which there is clearly not consensus. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get a list of list, you will have to remove all the existing content, and its edit history will not be relevent to the resulting article. That's what I am saying. Normally that is called WP:TNT, if you want to call it something else, be my guest. --Bejnar (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. To convert this to a list of lists, you would split off the existing content into sublists following WP:SPLIT, thus retaining the history, and then develop each sublist by expanding it. Not every subdivision would merit a separate list, however, and so it would probably make sense to expand first this master list until it got developed to the point where WP:SIZE merited splitting off particular subgroups, to then be replaced within this title by links to those lists, while retaining those subdivisions for which there were few entries. Many of the subcategories in Category:Hindus by nationality have few entries, and so it would not make sense to make separate lists for all of them. Bottom line, deleting this title first helps no one and accomplishes nothing (nor does this discussion for that matter). postdlf (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is frustrating, and I empathise. Which means I am not going to convince you that the better way is to put in the existing lists, such as List of Hindu gurus and saints, List of Hindu soldiers, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of converts to Hinduism, etc. and then as new lists are developed add them in. --Bejnar (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG CONVERT to a "list of list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list of lists. Changing my previous "delete" !vote. Still standing by my previous point that the list as it stands is useless. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a list of lists. A complete list of notable Hindus would be impractical. Bharatiya29 (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - Clearly not an appropriate topic for a list. By "convert", it seems people mean "get rid of this article and create a totally new one on a different topic (lists of Hindus rather than Hindus), then redirect this title to that new article". That's not a sensible outcome for AfD. It's the equivalent of "Redirect to a page that will be created later". If you're using neither the content nor even the title of the article we're discussing, the outcome is delete. If there's a redirect target, we could redirect, but it doesn't make sense to close an afd as "create a redirect target and redirect to it". Deletion doesn't preclude the creation of other articles, lists, or lists or lists, and doesn't preclude redirecting this when an appropriate target emerges. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I didn't notice that List of Christians actually redirects to Lists of Christians, etc. So, I'm changing my lvote and will convert the redirect Lists of Hindus into a real list. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the list of lists. Updated my !vote to redirect there like the others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 12 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsely Abaza

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

Overly promotional lovefest for non notable individual. Mix of cruft and hoax.
Some examples of the lies and misrepresentations peppering this article:

Article states "He was signed to the Egyptian record label Mazzika in March 2011, selling in Egypt 290,000 copies of his EP Practic Fast." Sounds impressive. 290,000!! The source used to verify? [28]. An article on another band. No mention of 290,000. No mention of Abaza. No mention of Mazzika.

Article claims "He gained critical acclaim[1] in Egypt following audio-visual multimedia performances in 2011 and 2012." Source used to verify this is a source from 2002, a decade before the claimed concerts. An article about someone else entirely.

Article states "In the same program the presenter stated that the composer's work has "a strange style but [which] is easy to love... [and has] beautiful melodies."". Those qoutes do not appear in the source. Makes no mantion of anyone being a composer.

The section titled "Writing and political views" is pure cruft. It's a personal essay collecting together cherry picked quotes from his work and put together with original research to try give the impression tha Abaza and his writing is significant. There is no independent reporting or analysis of his work anywhere here.
That section is much like the last love letter on him that I know of, Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza. Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza it too was a promo piece built up around qoutes from his work, not around independent coverage.
Another earlier article on him Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza was also deleted at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza
There is a lack of coverage ABOUT HIM in independent reliable sources.
This bloated mess needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you mention is cited wrong. It's from the TV program not the 'Talk like an Egyptian' article. It's at the start of the show. I fixed that. Will check the rest later.Chunkyjunkie1987 (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about Mazzika. Kelsely Abaza's own website says that he does not work with them. Also I am fairly sure 'Practic Fast' is not an EP, or was abandoned, not released, or changed title. There is only a remix of it online. I heard it live in Christchurch but it's a song not an EP. (But this is really confusing as he played a song under that title but numbered '8' in his Auckland gig. I know it well as he plays it almost every single gig and it's been renamed 'Sojourn' and has its own music video). The citation about acclaim for the concert in 2011 is about Halim El-Dabh, it's pretty random/clumsy to place it there (I reckon whoever placed it doesn't know Arabic!). Halim El-Dabh did actually make the remarks about Kelsely Abaza. The only mention of this and of the concerts I know of is in the same program cited just before. I messaged Kelsely Abaza's Facebook page asking about this. I'll see how it goes. Problem with writing is that most of it was in the Christchurch Press and Dominion Post, his website only links to two online articles. Chunkyjunkie1987 (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. But I LOVE his music. Graceaudio (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I go to every gig he does in town.[reply]

Also; his official website states clearly that he is going to play in NEW ZEALAND in 2016. No word about Egypt. The TV show is confused/confusing! Chunkyjunkie1987 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noting that Chunkyjunkie1987 and Graceaudio (above), have been blocked as sock puppets of another user -- all centered around Kelsely Abaza. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable showing up in NZ media. Has one mention of a concert but that was promotional. NealeFamily (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not look to be notable (WP:GNG), but at best this is a WP:TNT scenario, with too much questionable or promotional content and almost all of it contributed by sock puppets. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, nothing showing up on searches. Plagued by self-promotional socks, it's verging on hoax. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech–Tennessee football rivalry

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

Poorly-sourced and probably insignificant rivalry. Most of the "coverage" seems to be hyping up the fact that the game will be played for the first time in 30 years come 2017. p b p 04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that this was a notable rivalry in the past--and once notability is achieved it cannot be taken away. The NBC article does reference it as a "rivalry" also. Beef it up, don't delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: The NBC Sports "article" is obviously a minimally rewritten canned press release from the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game committee. It mentions the word "rivalry," but the coverage hardly rises to the level of "significant coverage" under the general notability guidelines. Have you found any significant coverage of this series as a traditional college rivalry in the past? Perhaps including a discussion of the "rivalry" history, traditions, and significance to the respective teams, universities, student bodies and alumni? In the absence of significant coverage sufficient for a stand-alone article, nothing prevents coverage of this "rivalry" in the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and Tennessee Volunteers football articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Surely if there is a rivalry given the listing of games it deals with Bobby Dodd. However, I can find nothing in newspapers, and in my experience with southern football and the SEC (a pretty firm grasp from before 1933 and after 1989), it is not one of which I have ever heard. Cake (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: You may want to give this one another look. I initially thought it was a "delete" but have changed my mind after looking more closely. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn. Yes, I already planned to change my vote to something more ambivalent, thanks for the reminder. It takes some digging to find things about it, but there do seem multiple notable games, and there are sources which call it a "rivalry". Still surprised I've found little mention of Dodd as part of the rivalry as cited above. Cake (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~~~. This one is not clearcut, but I lean to the "delete" side based on the limited coverage I've seen so far. Will reconsider if more coverage is found.~~ Since the two teams haven't played in almost 30 years, it is certainly not an active rivalry. In considering whether it constituted a rivalry historically, we need to dig deeper. In considering some of the intangible measures of a rivalry, I note the following: (1) trophy: No; (2) identifiable name associated with series: No; (3) length and frequency of play: Medium (series began in 1902, 43 games played in the 85 years thereafter, 35-year gap from 1911-1946, peak in 1950s-1960s, no games since 1987 but plans to renew in 2017); (4) prominence of the programs: High (two of the great powers in Southern football history - 4 national titles for Tech, 6 for Tennessee); (5) geographical proximity: Close (bordering states and only 214 miles from Knoxville to Atlanta); and (6) competitiveness - Good (series has been relatively close with Tennessee holding a 24-17 edge). Both pros and cons on intangibles; this one probably has to rise or fall based on the extent of the historical coverage. In addition to the NBC blurb found in the article, a quick search of newspapers.com turns up the following: (1) this from 1957 calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status" in 1956 (more like this would sway me to vote "keep"); and (2) this AP game account from 1962 referring to the two programs as rivals but having no depth regarding rivalry. If this were a true rivalry, I would expect to see more coverage of the game as a significant rivalry in the 1950s and 1960s. Cbl62 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the one about '56. It was between AP #2 and AP #3 and the underdog won. Will dig about for info pertaining to that one. Here is a similar source. Here is video. Cake (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cake. The 1957 UP article is a good one. This raises a broader point. Where two schools have a long history of play, and have had at least a couple great, classic games between them, does this elevate the series to the level of a traditional rivalry? Typically not. Should such series nevertheless be covered in Wikipedia as a notable series (e.g., "Georgia Tech - Tennessee football series")? Under existing precedent, the answer has been no. The existing practice may or may not be correct, and this may be a broader discussion worth having at some point. For example, in the case of Michigan (the team with which I am most familiar), we do not have stand-alone articles concerning Michigan's series with Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, or Northwestern. These series are not "rivalries", but in each case there have been a number of historical games where the two teams met in classic games when both were among the top teams in the country. I'm not advocating a change in policy at this time, but "Georgia Tech - Tennessee" might qualify, if at all, as a notable "series" rather than as a true "rivalry". Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm . . . The focus in these AfDs has always been on whether a series qualifies as traditional "rivalry". This may not be the correct analysis in all cases. There are likely some long-standing "series" that are notable under WP:GNG even though they are not "rivalries". It may be that we are struggling to fit square pegs into round holes. Some of these square pegs may be notable even though they don't fit into the "rivalry" hole. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In my own area of research, I have wondered whether I should add a bit about Michigan and Texas to the Vandy article. I trust you know about the Michigan series, and for 7 out of 8 seasons before the Red River rivalry gets played regularly between OU-UT at the state fair, it was Vandy-UT. Perhaps it can be done like how the Florida Gators article deals with Alabama. Georgia-Yale, and other regularly scheduled intersectional contests, are worth consideration for mention somewhere, even if perhaps an article on the rivalry is overkill. Maybe a game article for the Tech-Tennessee '56 matchup? Cake (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created Illinois–Michigan football series concerning a notable, non-rivalry, series. A square peg that meets WP:GNG on its own merit. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded 1922 Michigan vs. Vanderbilt football game to include the prior games even though there's one more meeting, perhaps a similar case. Cake (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having looked more deeply at this series, I am changing my vote to "Keep". Whether or not it qualifies as a "traditional rivalry", this qualifies as a notable, historical football series. The series dates back to 1902, will soon be revived, and reached a peak of competitiveness from 1946 to 1970 when both teams were football powerhouses. During that time, there were a number of classic games in which both teams were highly ranked or in which unranked Tennessee squads (four times, actually) upset highly-ranked Georgia Tech teams. The games drew national press coverage and, in some cases, national television coverage in an era when national TV coverage was not common. With coverage like this calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status", it could be considered a notable rivalry, though I think a move to Georgia Tech–Tennessee football series might be more apt. Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, perhaps the content could be added to the various single-season articles about the Tennessee Volunteers from 1946 to 1970, the overwhelming majority of which presently exist as two and three-sentence stubs that do not even mention Georgia Tech . . . and form the core of new Georgia Tech single-season articles that have yet to be created. Those single-game descriptions already have a home without creating an entirely new class of articles. Robbing content from one class of articles (single-season articles) to create a new class ("football series") . . . . is what exactly? Not including this core content in the single-season articles makes the single-season articles redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Robbing content" -- seriously? Single-season articles have a horizontal and tree-level focus on one team in a particular year, whereas rivalry/series articles have a vertical and forest-level focus, examining the interaction between two programs against a historical, multi-year perspective. I think the multi-year, historical perspective is very useful and in no way takes away from, or renders "redundant", single-season articles. I would typically expect the season articles to have more detailed accounts of each game, and a rivalry/series article to have a more forest-level approach to the historical interaction. No reason both classes of article can't co-exist, and indeed, they already do. Of course, there are WP:GNG limits on both classes of article. I am in no way suggesting that every series warrants this type of historical treatment in a separate article, only those which are truly notable. Happy to discuss the parameters/limits for such articles in another forum if you'd like. Cbl62 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already summarize individual games in multiple articles. For example, the November 1887 Michigan-Notre Dame game is discussed in at least three places: (1) 1887 ND, (2) 1887 Mich, and (3) Mich-ND rivalry. Each article serves a different, valid purpose. Cbl62 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Focus on the problem, not the metaphor. In your newly created Illinois vs. Michigan "series" article, almost every one of the game summaries is a duplicate of content that should exist in the non-existent Illinois single-game articles. Instead of building the single-season articles you have advocated in the past, you now have proposed the creation of a competitor class. Stripped of the individual game summaries, the one to three-paragraph "forest-level" summary of the series properly belongs in the parent articles about the two teams. Creating a new class of articles for notable, non-rivalry series is poorly conceived and the content in most instances will be redundant to single-season articles and parent team articles. We are already unable to police rivalry articles in a meaningful way, largely because of the fragmented and often shallow views on what constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG; expanding the field to so-called "notable series" loosens an already ill-defined standard, and the expansion will not be restricted to a few "meaningful" series. It will be the exception that swallows the rule, as every series will become a separate article -- the only difference being that we will call it a "series" rather than a "rivalry". Most of our rivalry articles exist as a series record table with minimal introductory text, and this will be exactly the pattern for your proposed new class of "series" articles. Stop and think before you go down this path; the consequences are obvious. It is not an accident that no other sports WikiProject has conceived of a comparable class of articles as you are now proposing. What we will have is a confusing mess of team articles, season articles, rivalry articles, and series articles, where it is unclear where content is supposed to go, and where the content of articles will duplicate, and in some cases contradict, each other. The creation of an entirely new class of articles really needs to be a carefully considered decision of WikiProject College football, and not as an aside of an AfD, and not decided in a moment of "enthusiasm". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consequence I foresee, if appropriately limited to truly notable series, is the enrichment of the encyclopedia with historical perspective on notable series. The merits of Illinois–Michigan football series (or Chicago–Purdue football rivalry, as another recently-created example) is not the subject of this AfD, but I'm happy to discuss the merits of that article on its talk page if you would like. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to DL, Cbl62, this situation was discussed before, back in July 2012. So, there is a certain amount of prior consensus here, as far as "series" articles go. As for this article, in particular, I'm not going to vote here, one way or the other, simply because I'm not familiar enough with SEC football to be able to contribute intelligently on this particular subject. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that we neither need or want any "Boston College–Iowa State football series" type articles (not that people haven't tried), but in order to prevent them we probably do need to draw the line, somewhere. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Ej, I did say in 2012 that non-rivalry "series" articles should be discouraged (as in the case of Ole Miss-Notre Dame that you linked). I still hold that position for the most part, but my view has softened a bit since then, and there are some series that are so clearly notable (I submit that Illinois–Michigan football series fits that bill) that we ought to have coverage. Of course, the tricky part is where to draw the line, and we'll have to work through that issue, though that discussion is probably better handled outside the context of this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate to see two of the best editors in these parts so often go at it. Hopefully it is sometimes fruitful. I must say I see more of cbl62's side, and see nothing wrong with covering a team's games for a notable season as well as for a notable opponent to bridge the gap and build the web between single games and all of conference, conference seasons, and teams. Guided by the assessment section, here is my imperfect, Titian-inspired rendition of our knowledge tree at WPCFB: 1. The vertical dimension represents importance and the lines of interaction as a set to its members, and thus should go both ways. Cake (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a rivalry before Georgia Tech left the SEC. Even when Tech left the SEC they still meet annually. When they announced that Tech-UT to play in 2017 in Atlanta, it mentions “This will be the renewing of a long and beloved rivalry that’s been off the board for far too long,” said Percy Vaughn, Peach Bowl, Inc. chairman in a released statement. “And it’s a great addition to the long-standing ACC vs. SEC rivalry games we have been able to put together.”^[1]CollegeRivalry (talk), 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honorata De Guzman-Manalo

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

Only references on Google were to her family. Is she independently notable? I dream of horses (C) @ 04:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references that I can find about her. Her family has been discussed but that doesn't make her notable ipso facto. /wia /talk 13:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article must not be deleted. It shows significance to the sect Iglesia ni Cristo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.24 (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the connection between Iglesia ni Cristo and the proposed deletion, out of curiosity? There's a connection with a family member (her husband), but what about Honorata's role in the church makes her notable? /wia /talk 14:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything here either but fanaticism from members of the sect.--RioHondo (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shall not be deleted.--Dave07jeje (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.192 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Brock

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

WP:ONEEVENT and ~~WP:NOTMEMORIAL~~. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Updated rationale in light of an early "Keep" comment: WP:ONEEVENT and, arguably but not definitively, WP:NOTMEMORIAL (it is not written as a memorial, but it is in the context of noting a person's death). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is overly critical. You guys are assuming things that I'm not even doing. Such as, why is it that it seems like I am using the Alden Brock page as a "memorial page"? It's not like I put "RIP Alden Brock, -gravestone here-" or any of that nonsense. Jokes aside, I remained neutral, I didn't use opinion words, and you guys think this is a memorial page. This actually angers me. You guys are dismissing my hard work like crazy, acting like it's all a piece of junk that is to be thrown away. Linking to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is immature. Assuming I am attacking people is even more immature. Do you guys understand what I'm saying? If you're going to label pages for deletion, at least give better, non-assumed reasons for it. I bet the person who marked Alden Brock never even took the time to read the entire page, am I not correct? Could you at least try that hard, to save yourself the ignorance? Philmonte101 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken. Perhaps I was a bit strong in citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. However, I stand by WP:ONEEVENT. I have updated the rationale accordingly. I have also replied to a similar comment on your talk page. Note to other editors reading this: The editor's frustration is understandable given some interaction between him and myself (and a third editor) on topics not directly related to this deletion discussion. Please see through the frustration and look at the merits of his claims. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ The only significance of Brock is within the context of a single event. The event is not notable: it is not mentioned at the Philmont Scout Ranch article. Further, all of the sources about Brock are within the context of either the flood or his death. As a recently-dead person, he is still within the scope of the biographies of living persons policy, including WP:BLP1E. There are three conditions listed within BLP1E where notable for a single event a person should not have an article, and Brock meets all three. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be mentioned on Philmont's article, there are enough references to support it. For instance, on the Danish Wikipedia article, Alden Brock's death and the flood is mentioned briefly. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - How often do deaths happen at Philmont? If it's a relatively infrequent thing, it probably does warrant a small mention in the Philmont article. (Probably just a sentence, no more than a paragraph.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) To prevent giving undue weight, it might be better to have a single paragraph or section that discussed all Scout/Scouter/Chaperone deaths at Philmont in the article about Philmont that have reliable sources to back them up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Update: I have added possible sources for such an expansion at User talk:Philmonte101#Philmont camper deaths. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - A list is probably a good approach, with entry like "Alden Brock (2015): swept away by a flash flood. Three other scouts swept away by the same flood were rescued, but Brock drowned." Obviously, source at the end of the entry. As long as deaths are relatively infrequent, the list makes sense. If it averages out to a death a year or more, the list would get so long that it would overwhelm the rest of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, keep: I don't see why we shouldn't have this Philmont article if we have unsourced articles about Philmont like Rich Cabins. If you don't like this article, nominate that one for deletion too. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a duplicate !vote. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists: "If X can't have an article, then Y shouldn't either" is an argument that is strongly to be avoided in deletion discussions. This discussion is about a person who was a camper at a camp; deletion discussion of a location at the camp is an entirely separate subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge: preserve history, merging content to Philmont Scout Ranch, and leaving this page as a redirect. There is no doubt in my mind that Brock does not warrant a stand-alone article. I do think we can justify a mention of him in the Philmont Scout Ranch article, as part of a list of scouts who have died at the camp (unless it becomes extensive in length, per my prior comment). I do think the article would be useful as a redirect pointing to that section of the article. The question then becomes, should the history of the article be kept? Short as the article is, it's better from an attribution standpoint to have it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I want this article kept as it is. I agree, it should at least be somewhere on Wikipedia if not in its own article if we absolutely must. But keep in mind that though it's a bad idea to make this argument, there are much less notable articles on people that are somehow still kept here. Philmonte101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: other stuff exists: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you see articles that don't clearly demonstrate notability and you've tried the things listed in WP:BEFORE and are still convinced the topic is not notable, I would encourage you to bag-em-and-tag-em. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He drowned in a flash flood at Philmont. I see nothing that makes him notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argument #1: I don't think any of you guys are paying attention to the fact that I included all details about Alden, and the fact that many people would want to search for him. As proof of this, see Alden (name); someone had already added his name to this disambiguation page with a link before I even got to it. See? People want to see an article about him, if you guys are so overly focused on what people want, well, people do want this article. It is you guys who are being deconstructive by trying to delete this perfectly okay article. Argument #2: I gave plenty of citations. 9 citations is more than enough even to take off the "additional citations for verification" tag. We all know this incident happened. Argument #3: I think he deserves a Wikipedia article anyway. As you can see, this may have only happened at Philmont, but it has uniquely been announced on news channels nationwide. It was a very important event that changed the lives of many staff members and many Scouts that come to Philmont, as well as the lives that knew him. Argument #4: (which kind of goes along with #3) I think you guys don't even have any idea how many people actually come to Philmont, and work at Philmont. It's a hell of a lot of people, I don't think you guys are really getting this. Because this incident left a mark on so many lives and was announced nationwide, he is a notable person at Philmont. This argument in a nutshell: We should have an article for this boy whose death affected the lives of thousands of people in and outside of Philmont. You have to keep in mind that his life affected thousands of people, which is a huge significance, and any person who becomes even semi-famous, has more than 3 external references from different publishers, and effected the lives of 1,000+ people in different areas of the world, should have an article, without even questions asked. If I were the person running this site, that's what I'd do. Furthermore: I would be incredibly disappointed if this article were to just be "mentioned briefly on Philmont Scout Ranch's article. Any further responses, might I suggest, be in response to all of these four arguments, in chronological order, like "1. reason you disagree with argument 1, 2. reason you disagree with argument 2, 3. reason you disagree with argument 3, 4. reason you disagree with argument 4." rather than just suggesting a merge or saying basically "not notable"? I'm not trying to be mean here but it's getting a bit annoying to read the same deconstructive point over and over again after I worked really hard on this article and wanted him to stay. Please don't even waste your time to mention WP:NOTMEMORIAL because that will make me even more upset. Just because my intentions were to make an article about a boy who I think's life should have an article, I also think that he has enough sources to have an article. At this point I highly doubt this article will stay, unfortunately, because I'm highly outvoted, but I really hope you guys at least listen to me and take my points through your head rather than ignore them. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood or redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch (with the history preserved under the redirect) per WP:ONEEVENT:
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. ...
The subject, Alden Brock, is significant for his role in a single event, drowning during a flash flood at Philmont Scout Ranch. He has received significant coverage for his death only. He has not received significant coverage outside his death. Therefore, WP:ONEVENT applies and there should not be an article about him.
Another possibility is to write an article about the event, which would be titled 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood. Alden Brock's death could be covered in the context of that article. Here are several articles that discuss particular flash floods: Kopuawhara flash flood of 1938, 1971 Canberra flood, Jacobs Creek Flood, and 2015 Utah floods. There is a list of flash floods.
Any article about the Philmont flash flood must meet Wikipedia:Notability (events) or it could be nominated for deletion and deleted. There is coverage of the flood from national sources like USA Today and NBC News, as well as regional and local sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/28/boy-scout-dies-flooding/29420383/, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scout-dies-flash-flood-new-mexicos-philmont-scout-ranch-n383261, http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/details-of-deadly-flash-flood-that-killed-boy-scout-raise/article_ba4cd170-af60-5eb7-a7af-22f77c9a41b8.html, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/boy-scout-dies-in-flash-flood-while-camping-in-new-mexico/2235373, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article25770799.html, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article25933819.html, and http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_720d9ef2-1dc7-11e5-b31c-178d9f1f83dd.html. These sources ensure that the flash flood event fulfills WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. The two other main considerations are WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It is unclear if the flash flood fulfills them.
For now, since there is no article about the flood, I recommend redirecting to Philmont Scout Ranch (with the history preserved under the redirect) so that the content can be reframed to discuss the event if desired.
Cunard (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator reply As nominator, I find both of these options (keep-history-and-redirect and write-article-about-flood-but-only-if-WP:Notability-is-met) are as good as if not better than outright deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch, as per the excellent analysis of Cunard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 1 November 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Drapeau

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

Author/academic with no apparent claim of notability. Tagged for notability since early 2010 without improvement, no better sources found. Article creator shares a name with the publishing house of a couple of subject's books. --Finngall ^talk 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Enough news sources cover him in both a positive and negative light that I think he's... just barely deserving. Note that in the Huffpost article by Raymond L. Flynn, Flynn is noted as an advisor to Drapeau's company, while in other articles like this one in the Boston Herald, he is not. This article appears in the Le Devoir, although it is a bit promotional in tone. Perhaps more interesting in terms of balance are articles like this one calling his work a "load of bollocks". I think it would be good for there to be a balanced source on his notable yet controversial 'work', rather than no source at all.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much to convince to even weak keep as I found hardly much aside from passing mentions at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. If this can be better improved, feel free but I'm not seeing much to convince me at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from more participants. sst ✈ 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author of books with very little significance -- most have only 5 or so holdings in worldcat. His stem cell book has 37 holdings, which for a popular science work on this topics is insignificant also. Google Scholar shows some early papers on algae if it's the same person, and it might be because of a previous fad in the use of algae in human nutrition. Doesn't raise to the level of notability here either. No academic position that I can trace. Not just delete for now, but delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-P

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not WP:MUSIC. Overly promotional article on rapper lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. No good charting, gold, rotation, major awards. Charting mention are bad charts and are not verified. Award mentioned is minor and not verified. Like last time the article is bombarded with sources but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. The source claimed as CNN is from CNN ireport where users can post articles and is not by CNN and is not veted by them. The MTV source is not by them, it's "content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form." In this case Jay-P's official biography. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better sourcing for this. Pinging past users Huon and Bishonen. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollybush, Stockton Brook

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

I notice a lot of articles for British pubs but I'm not seeing anything to suggest better notability and improvement to this with my best search results here, here and here so unless this is locally significant and notable, their website seems to have changed to something Chinese and the pub still seems to be open albeit several changes (such as becoming an Italian place) the past few years. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything to distinguish this from thousands of other pub/restaurants in the UK. In most cases, pubs have articles because the building is historic, listed or otherwise notable. I can't find any evidence that this is the case here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in searches shows how this particular pub is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CrazY JulieT

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

I actually speedied a few other music articles I encountered as they contained almost nothing but the fact this one has some Ukraine and Russian news links (at Germa Wiki), I'm questioning whether this is notable or can be improved and the best my searches found was this and this has not changed since October 2010. Inviting Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any thing. Their website doesn't work and "Crazy Juliet" is a song by a German singer. The name is in English so it doesn't appear to be a language/alphabet thing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can even verify it exists. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything to suggest it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Åke Raask

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

Questionably notable and my searches found nothing better than this so unless archived sources can be found and are enough, there's nothing to suggest obvious improvement for this article existing since March and April 2005 (Ake Raask would also have to be deleted). SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFICT and WP:GNG: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything on the subject which meets the notability criteria for either WP:NFICT or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave (Lula and Bela B. song)

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed Richhoncho (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no move target and nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to be anything to show notability for this song. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Around the World

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

fails GNG. also NOTADVERT / PROMO. Widefox; talk 01:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 08:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can actually be improved as all I found was some links at Books, News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet notability criteria. Some hits, but not enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group Therapy Radio

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

fails GNG Widefox; talk 02:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy if anyone wants as although I found some links at Books, News and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I also can not find reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gaertner

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

This person has had minor acting roles, don't believe he meets WP:NACTOR. Has his own company but don't believe that makes him notable. Fails GNG as well IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's this interview on one of the two English newspapers in Hong Kong, but otherwise it's mostly passing interviews and routine mentions of his work in mainstream media. Der yck C. 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial roles. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Larned Mercy Pendleton

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

It's difficult to find information about this painter, and it looks like he just wasn't/isn't historically notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a search without his middle names and came up with some refs that confirm his existence as apainter, and a few images: a) page with a bio that matches the wiki article, b) a google book mention that has him copying a painting for the city of Philadelphia, c) A google books ref that looks like a record of painting in the State of Virginia's inventory, likely the painting hanging in the Virginia State Supreme court mentioned in the previous ref, and d) another google books ref calling him a painter and describing his work. That's enough to swing it to Keep for me. If I can find four mentions in digitized sources for someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago, there have to be a lot more in print sources. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I was patrolling articles and came across this one and would have added a speedy deletion tag if it had not already been tagged by the great editor before me. There is no indication as to why this living person is notable. ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Olowe2011, you missed an important fact in your analysis: he is dead. Birth date was 1865. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Response: New Media Theorist The article says was so I assumed they had pasted away. But thanks for teaching me the value of not assuming things. ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "for someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago"? Well, he was born 150 years ago, he died in 1934. Bolding whole trivial comments? Please read WP:AFDFORMAT. The middle names are misspelled, the painter was named after his grandfather William Learned Marcy. Kraxler (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Cycling Network

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

Article was created 4 days ago, and has not been improved or edited in 3 days, it cites no sources and doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Kethrus |talk to me 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply nothing but YouTube videos for this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Kethrus |talk to me 06:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability. Quis separabit? 15:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey DeLorenzo

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

At worst, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Main coverage is [29][30] and apart from that, just passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. At best, he's still a WP:BLP1E and his press coverage is limited exclusively to his Wii exercise experiment. He is not known outside this one event. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best I found for him was one Books link. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wii Fit: The two sources presented by nom should be enough to make a mention of the real-life benefits of the game in the article. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the articles covered him in depth enough to warrant a redirect. It's not going to be a common search term for the Wii Fit and I don't see how info about him (by name) could be added without being trivia. czar 03:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This post on a Philadelphia newspaper blog seems good since the author is a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, another article from a community newspaper there, and Fox all talk about him in-depth. There are also smaller mentions in The Washington Post, Time Magazine, IGN, and a number of others. In other words, there are good articles out there, they just weren't actually in our article.

As far as a merge goes, I think with as well-documented as this is, it wouldn't be crufty to mention it in passing. I'm not sure it's enough for a full article like Jared Fogle has, but notable nonetheless. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 15:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination / not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Orlando Health. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P. Phillips Hospital

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

no evidence for notability of this relatively small hospital. Already included in the article on the system. Possible a redirect would be justified. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orlando Health ad although I found several links at Books, News and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am looking at WP:OUTCOMES which leads to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals#Notability. I see that it meets all the requirements except I am not sure about the indepth source. Here is a link to many books where it is talked about [31] but I do not have access to determine the depth of coverage within. Thoughts?? --CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorially redirect without prejudice to undoing the redirect and without prejudice to a fast re-nomination. It's simply better off as a redirect than as a stub. If it is reverted-and-expanded tomorrow and the editor does NOT provide sufficient references to demonstrate that the topic is notable, it can be brought back to AFD for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predikto

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. None of the claimed 'awards and recognition' are notable. The bulk of sources available are press releases, reprints of press releases or common reporting on funding or contract awards. Jbh ^Talk 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing anything obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 17 October 2015 (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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOMAG

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

The age makes me think it would've at least gotten better coverage than the best I found here, here and here (there are a few sources at the German Wiki as well) but I'm not seeing much to suggest convincingly better and the current article is speedy & PROD material (the article has existed with almost no change since December 2010 and the author may spell as "PR expert" (prexpert)). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though if I got out of bed the other side today, it could easily be 'weak delete'. The current article is indeed very 'adverty' but could be sourced using the very long and comprehensive article in Allgemeine Bauzeitung (already identified above). There is also a large amount of coverage in other landscape and construction news sources, for example many articles in Fachzeitschrift für den Garten und Landschaftsbau. It's giant products are mentioned in a Huffington Post book review too. Considering the company's age there may be pre-internet coverage. If this was a British or American company I may well have gone 'weak delete' based on the increased ease of finding sources in the English language. Though there's scant evidence at the moment of general widely-read media coverage, I think there's enough to make a short, neutral article about the company. Sionk (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In general, I accept the notability of substantial long-established German companies listed in the deWP. (As for promotionalism,. the deWP used to be exemplary, but currently does not have our restrictions on paid editing). The slight promotionalism in the enWP article can be (and has been) removed, and the deWP article has additional acceptable material and substantial referencing. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Sionk's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 24 October 2015 (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. Overall consensus is for deletion, as per the subject not meeting WP:NCYCLING nor WP:GNG, although the latter was only stated by two participants herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torkil Veyhe

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

Although created in good faith, this cyclist does not meet WP:NCYCLING. Winning the Island Games is not considered top international level and has been discussed here. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#international_games LibStar (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find him notable. He has won the Faroese Championship and the Kring Føroyar several time, and has won the Island Games. EileenSanda (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the page you refer to [32] says that: Cyclists are presumed notable if they ... Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); I would say that the Island Games are an international multi-sport event, even if all of the islands are not countries. Some of the islands or island groups who have participated are are countries (i.e. Iceland), some even independent countries. The participants come from Europe, North America, South America, Saint Helena is in the South Atlantic Ocean. Several of the islands are British overseas territory or British crown dependency, there are Swedish counties, Spanish island, Province of Canada, Greek island, Estonian island, Scottish council area, council area of Wales and autonomous countries of the Kingdom of Denmark. EileenSanda (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks far from a high level competition , an American state cycling event would be of a higher quality especially the big states of California or Texas. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning at the Island Games doesn't qualify him under WP:NCYCLING according to the link provided by LibStar. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like he pretty clearly fails WP:NCYCLING and doesn't meet WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:CYCLING, could find some little coverage but not enough to pass the general notability criteria. And, four relists? Seriously? —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:16, 9 November 2015 (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. czar 23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Los Angeles (Scott Weiland album)

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

Non notable album that was never released. Koala15 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would say Redirect to artist article per WP:AFDP#Music until the notability guideline for recordings is met and an article can be written, but looking into sources it appears to be correct that the album was planned but never released. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as above Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to group theory. There's no reason not to keep the redirect around. This will keep the current URL valid, so existing bookmarks, links from external sites, and search result caches won't go 404-ing on people. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group theory terminology

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

Wikipedia is not a textbook reference. This article should be transwikied to Wikibooks. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with group theory: It's possible that the merger results in an effective deletion of the article. If so, so be it. -- Taku (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is inappropriate, see below. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect, as an unnecessary and less encyclopedic version of existing articles. This article has been around since June 2003; it was initiated by editor Wshun who ceased editing Wikipedia in 2013. In the 12 years since creation it has received less than 100 edits. According to WP traffic at http://stats.grok.se/ prior to 8 October 2015 the article averaged under 35 hits a day this year. This article was formerly called Glossary of group theory, it was moved on 8 October 2015‎ to the current title by The Transhumanist. The article has five sections, each of which is covered elsewhere. The "Basic definitions" section is covered in Group (mathematics)#Definition. The section on "Finiteness conditions" seems to be covered at Finite set. "Abelian groups" is covered at Abelian group. "Normal series" is covered at Subgroup series. The section "Other notions" has two entries whch are covered at General linear group and Group representation, respectively. All of these topics are mentioned in the two articles Group theory and Group (mathematics) at their appropriate places. I see no justification for an additional site for terminological pointers, nor defintions. The definitions are an unnecessary WP:Content split. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Considerable work will need to be done as there are about forty articles that point to this one; however, all of the ones that I looked at could be changed to pointing to Group (mathematics), to one of the specific articles listed above, or just removed without loss. If there is a reason that these policies should not apply, please let us non-mathematicians know what it is. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to wherever appropriate. In answer to your request, WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not apply, since glossaries and terminology articles are exceptions to that policy, and each term is covered as a subject rather than as a word. Any facts that are included in this article that are not covered elsewhere should be integrated into the encyclopedia in the appropriate places. The Transhumanist 05:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have List of group theory topics for a distribution point, we don't need two such points. --Bejnar (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the horrible nomination rationale, but with no precedent for deleting other glossary/terminology articles. There are some features of textbooks that we don't want to duplicate in Wikipedia, but explanations of the technical vocabulary needed to understand certain important but specialized topics can be perfectly encyclopedic. This particular article, on the other hand, is a disorganized and rambling discourse on a random selection of topics in group theory, better covered already by our other articles in group theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bejnar and David Eppstein. Choor monster (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page that existed until 2008 looks more like a glossary, and defines some of the terms (which the list of topics doesn't) - would that version be more suitable? Peter James (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the germ of a good idea. Check out Category:Glossaries of mathematics for numerous examples. Choor monster (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to group theory - per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep due to the Emmy win. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evyen Klean

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

Music producer/supervisor with one major work resulting in a Primetime Emmy award. Don't think he meets WP:GNG Samir 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ANYBIO which says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." A primetime Emmy is a "major award". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as these articles for people winning a behind the scenes award are usually kept simply for that. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2015 (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'. Unfortunately for the one keep voter, their argument is a variation on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Miss–Tennessee football rivalry

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

The Ole Miss-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found on fan sites, blogs and other non-reliable or non-independent sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. The independence and reliability of sources mentioning this series as a "rivalry" will be a key aspect in this discussion: if sources are not independent (no athletic department releases, yearbooks, school newspapers, etc.) and reliable (no blogs, fansites, etc.), they cannot be used to sustain the subject's notability. Any mentions of this series as a rivalry in mainstream news sources should be substantial, i.e., not trivial mentions of a "rivalry," but substantial discussions of the series' history, traditions, and significance as a "rivalry". This article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD on October 2nd, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation on October 5th. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevant key word searches:

"Ole Miss-Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [33] 11 hits for quoted phrase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
"Ole Miss Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [34] 10 hits for quoted phase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
"Ole Miss-Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase;
"Ole Miss Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase.

These are are good places for AfD discussion participants' to begin their WP:BEFORE due diligence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantive, much less significant, coverage in independent reliable sources, hence failling WP:GNG. No special claim of notability is made. All of the sources are blogs, non-reliable or non-independent sources. Doubtless sources could be added to verify the scores and dates of the games, but those would not add toward notability of the rivalry. Old newspapers via Google and via Newspaper Archives Online don't seem to regard this as a "rivalry". Unlike the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry or the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, which, by the way, is sorely lacking in citation to independent, reliable sources, for which newspaper articles detailing the rivalry can be found. --Bejnar (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: The Auburn-Tennessee rivalry article is on my list of rivalry articles to review for notability. As a threshold matter, however, Auburn-Tennessee was recognized by southeastern sports commentators of as one of the better SEC annual home-and-away series that got dumped when the SEC expanded and went to divisional play in 1992. (The other was Auburn-Florida, which ceased to be annual in 2002). I have seen numerous mentions of the Auburn-Tennessee series as a traditional "rivalry," certainly more so than this one, but it remains to be seen if it would survive GNG scrutiny. Some of these old CFB series, including this one, require a considerable amount of WP:BEFORE background research in Newspapers.com, Google News Archive, Google Books, etc., before nominating one for AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In doing my due diligence for this Afd, the rivalries that came up most often were the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry and the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry. I agree that sometimes background research is tedious, the more so as it tends towards comprehensiveness. I would suggest to CollegeRivalry that he or she obtain a subscription to Newspaper Archives Online, often free at larger public libraries, or physically visit the morgues (newspaper archives at the newspaper) of relevant newspapers, and find citations to independent sources prior to writing new articles. Magazines such as Time and Newsweek used to have an occasional story on college football rivalries in their sports section. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wouldn't dream of starting a new CFB rivalry article without sourcing it in depth. Of course, all of the established rivalries I would want to work on already have articles. If you want to see examples of properly sourced CFB rivalry articles, take a look at Auburn–Florida football rivalry and Florida–Georgia football rivalry and their footnotes; for unquestionably notable rivalries, there are usually multiple feature articles in newspapers and sports magazines, as well as stand-alone books about the specific rivalry. These rivalry AfDs drive me nuts because people will find a 1935 newspaper article that mentions an "annual rivalry" and then argue that as the basis for something meaningful. Part of the problem is many AfD participants don't agree on what constitutes "significant coverage." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winsipedia is not a reliable source, and the only other source is an ESPN article that does not contain the word "rivalry" at all. This looks like original research to me, but if it's not it still doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition to Dirtlawyer's research, I conducted a number of searches on newspapers.com and found nothing treating the Tennessee - Ole Miss series as a rivalry, and certainly nothing with any depth. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weren't these two teams part of the 1969 "Mule Game"? I that could be the rivalry that has since faded. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MurderByDeadcopy is referring to the November 15, 1969 game in which Mississippi trounced Tennessee 38 to 0. There was a lot of excitment before that game because Tennessee was ranked #3 in the nation. --Bejnar (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The background is that coach Johnny Vaught trolled his own players (to motivate them) by having a plane drop leaflets over the Ole Miss practice field that said "Archie Who?" and quoted the UT player who compared Ole Miss to a "bunch of mules" when asked by a reporter if Ole Miss had "a bunch of horses?" Classic bulletin board game, fun SEC history game, mention belongs in the 1969 season articles. Still not a classic traditional rivalry though. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say many "classic" rivalries come and go. Is wiki getting rid of history because it cannot be found online? Good info on a subject such as this may be more difficult to discover. Florida at one time always played Miami as their first game of the year which gave that game a sense of rivalry. Then it was changed in 1987 and gone was that intense conflict between those two (oddly enough that rivalry is on wiki[35]). I genuinely laugh (and also am a bit sad) when articles end up in AFD without being given some time to grow. Sure, if an article's a commercial or completely laughable (even those sometimes don't get deleted[36]), but this article is neither. I, also, strongly believe that before anyone ever creates an article, they should spend time in AFD. It's given me a very cynical viewpoint on the subject. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree rivalries come and go, and assume we are fine with rivalries of a more historical than contemporary significance. e. g. 1, 2, 3. The problem is whether said historical rivalry meets the notability criteria, and whether every regular, conference opponent constitutes a "rivalry." I have mixed feelings about this rivalry too, and thus have left myself out of the voting part. Cake (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After finding the Miami vs Florida rivalry on wiki[37] (which really surprised me), I strongly believe that this article is just as notable! Yep, I'm going against the grain on this one (even though I realize which way this will go seeing as whom I'm up against), but I'm sticking my neck out on this one anyway. Wikipedia is so fickle when it comes to applying its own rules! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:18, 13 October 2015 (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.

^ http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/20/georgia-tech-tennessee-confirmed-for-2017-chick-fil-a-kickoff-game/

[1] ttp://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/20/georgia-tech-tennessee-confirmed-for-2017-chick-fil-a-kickoff-game/

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgie_Aldous}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Southern–Georgia State football rivalry}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Uprising}}<!--Relisted-->