Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Proposed by another user, and I agree.
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard_Tan_(entrepreneur)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDBuzz}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDBuzz}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashim Al-Hindi}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashim Al-Hindi}}

Revision as of 17:32, 21 August 2016

< 20 August 22 August >

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. North America1000 23:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Tan (entrepreneur)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Rather self-promoting without significant coverage by independent secondary sources. justexamples 06:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this suggests he may be notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speaking as a local, I agree with the nominator here. I went back to look at the SG Newspaper archives and I'm not convinced that the individual is notable. Firstly, this is a BIO1E - the subject seems to known solely for starting PurpleClick Media - company in Singapore. The references are not convincing and many of them are passing mentions or primary sources or plain not reliable. For example, the NUS Biz alum page tends to solicit suggestions for alumni - and it is pretty easy to get an article up there. The SBR periodically publishes these "10 hottest..." lists and it thrives on suggestions by local companies (I'm also not comfortable using SBR as an independent source due to their close links with companies in Singapore). That leaves the Singaporean/Malaysian media. As far as I could search, I didn't find any mentions in Malaysian media which generally tend to cover notable Singaporean personalities. In Singaporean media, I see that essentially we only have 2 distinct articles in the Straits Times (and their reprints in AsiaOne which makes it appear 4, but it isn't). 2 articles in the same newspaper is pretty weak for someone who claims to be notable. I'm also concerned that this article is essentially being used for promotion by the company. Overall, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With The Straits Times' article since 12 February 2011, it appears that after 5 years there isn't sustained attention WP:SUSTAINED, where "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.". The context with which he was featured in Straits times as a "Serial Entrepreneur" also lacks notability as a subject/topic itself, let alone being only featured in one credible source. Many other serial entrepreneurs would be in the same boat and could be begging for articles. Falsepredictions (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO; this is strictly a vanity page. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A cursory search only gives coverage of someone else with a same name. --Antigng (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HDBuzz

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

There are insufficient independent sources with substantial discussion of the site - just a bunch of promotional refs. This WP article exists to advertise the website. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it stands, I agree the article is too promotional and poorly sourced. But it is widely used - among others, it supplies a news feed to the websites of the UK Huntington's Disease Association, the Huntington's Disease Society of America and the Huntington Society of Canada. These don't meet the requirement for independent coverage but I think amount to endorsements of its significant role in the global HD community as a provider of research news. The problem here for web notability is that it is more used than written about. Similarly, the awards from the HDSA and HDA are important recognition within the HD community but perhaps cannot be considered independent because these organizations fund HDBuzz. However, in terms of more conventional evidence of notability, I found the following:
Award
  • 2014 Communication Awards from the Association of Medical Research Charities. The award was to the Huntington's Disease Association but the citation says it was for "their" HDBuzz website "which explains the latest Huntington's disease research in plain, understandable language. In addition to research articles, the website also publishes information to put sensationalised 'miracle cures' into a realistic context." (In fact, HDA is one of several supporters of HDBuzz so calling it "their" website isn't quite accurate but the intent of the award is clear.) This award and is clearly significant recognition of the project by a respected, independent authority.
Books
  • 'Huntington's Disease' (OUP) is the foremost scientific/clinical text on HD, with 1122 citations according to Google Scholar. Dr Wild authored the chapter on Premanifest and Early HD so that can't chapter be considered independent with respect to HDBuzz. But the website is mentioned in other chapters by independent authors. The chapter on Genetic Testing and Counselling (Macleod and Tibben - no link to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) says: "HDBuzz provides clear, up-to-date information on the latest scientific research. For the many family members who are unable to attend HD conferences or access scientific journals, this provides a new opportunity to watch video links to conference activity and keep abreasy of research developments.". The chapter on Comprehensive Care (authored by Nance - no connection as far as I can tell) says: "Patients and families can be referred to their national HD organization, to HDBuzz for information..." Citation: Google Books
  • HDBuzz is mentioned in the 2nd edition of Neurobiology of Disease (OUP) edited by Johnston, Adams and Fatemi. It's not a lengthy mention but it's a large and authoritative tome (1434 pages). HDBuzz is cited as an additional resource in the HD Chapter, by Albin and Paulson (no link to HDBuzz as far as I can tell). Citation: Google books
  • Another book, The Best Australian Science Writing (NewSouth, 2015) has a whole chapter, authored by Christine Kenneally (no connection to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) on Jeff Carroll which says of HDBuzz: "Carroll also started a website called HDBuzz with a colleague, Huntington's clinician Ed Wild. Both men were concerned about the amount of misinformation and hype about Huntington's in the press, and they were struck too by the fact that while affected families desperately needed up-to-date information about research on the disease, Huntington's also desperately needed affected families to help them with their studies. The site helps the two connect." Citation: Google Books
  • Chorea: causes and management (Springer) edited by Micheli and LeWitt (no connection to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) says: "Fortunately, in recent years, information from reliable sources has become available on the internet about HD and HD research using language and a format that is suitable for lay persons and young people (www.hdbuzz.net...)". Citation: Google books
News
  • La Stampa, an Italian newspaper, in an article about Charles Sabine, says "It is also one of the creators of the site http://it.hdbuzz.net/006 (version in Italian), which aims to spread scientific information about Huntington's disease and is spokesman of various associations of patients." (Google Translate)
Overall I think the award and these mentions amount to notability per WP:GNG. Clearly the article needs updating to make this apparent and I would be happy to do this if it's kept, as well as making it more encyclopedic. Braydonowen (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Braydonowen, NOTABILITY calls for substantial discussion in independent sources. A mention here and there doesn't cut it. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the requirement is for coverage to be "significant", not "substantial" (I think there's an important difference between these two, the emphasis not being on size) and in WP:GNG this is further explained as "more than a trivial mention". The Neurobiology of Disease mention perhaps could be considered 'trivial' but I think the mentions in the Huntington's Disease book, Australian Science Writing book and chorea book are not, especially when you consider that these are scientific textbooks discussing a website. I suggest they be considered together under WP:GNG alongside the AMRC award considered under WP:WEB. Braydonowen (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are splitting hairs. Passing mentions do not cut it. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel I"m splitting hairs when my intent is to stick to the guidelines. The guideline says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." You've made your view clear, and the coverage and award, not listed the article at the time of your nomination, are now listed here for others to judge per the guidelines. Braydonowen (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional: I also found this on Google Scholar - an editorial from the RSM journal Clinical Ethics by Farsides: Courage, compassion and commnunication: young people and Huntington's disease (2011): "The Huntington's Disease Association has joined with other organizations worldwide to help fund HD Buzz (http://hdbuzz.net/), a website devoted to explaining and sharing current research in the field, making it accessible to much wider audiences than scientific journals can ever hope to reach." I think this counts as a suitable independent source. Others are entitled to take their own view... Source Braydonowen (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Huntington's Disease Association, based upon the 2014 Communications Award cited above. I think that the problem with respect to WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT is that almost all of the sourcing is not really independent of the page subject. I do recognize that the Association is just one of several supporting organizations, not the only one, but I think that the award establishes it as a principal supporter in the assessment of secondary sources, and some truly merged content can make it clear that there are multiple organizations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comment after my own made me realize that I said something in an unclear way, so I want to clarify that. When I wrote that the sourcing is not really independent, I should have made clear that I meant the available sourcing, not just the sourcing currently cited on the page. I also looked at the sourcing named in this discussion and did some looking on my own. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain how the sourcing I cited above isn't independent? Thanks. Braydonowen (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to explain the obvious. Aside from some very minor passing mentions, the sourcing is from people affiliated in various ways with the page subject. The WP:BURDEN is on you, to make the case that there is sufficient sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for but didn't find any evidence that the sources I listed are linked to the page subject, except in the very broad sense that several of them are authored by scientists involved in Huntington's disease research. Surely you can't be suggesting that this disqualifies them from being independent about an HD-related communication project? In any event, The 'Best Australian Science Writing' book is by someone not even linked to Huntington's disease as far as I can tell. WP:BURDEN may place the burden on me to provide suitable sources, but it doesn't require the impossible task of proving a negative. I think it's in the spirit of assuming good faith and civilly working towards agreement to provide evidence, when asked, for a claim that sources are not independent. I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Braydonowen (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current form makes no real effort to establish notability using suitable sources and is poorly written. But the topic itself has independent notability per Braydonowen's searches and it would be easy to rewrite. Dubbinu | t | c 08:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dubbin the sources Brady found are all passing mentions. You created this article, right? Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and several years later I recognise it's not a good article in its current form. I too disagree that they are passing mentions - I think you have too rigid a definition not supported by the notability guidelines. Dubbinu | t | c 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for replying! We don't agree on what substantial discussion is, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage isn't required per se - any independent source is acceptable towards establishing notability. I found several independent book sources, an award and a news source, listed above. I will happily rewrite the article around these if it is kept. If my job isn't up to scratch, others can chip in or it can be renominated for deletion. Braydonowen (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as even the Keep or Merge votes themselves are stating there are still in fact concerns with the article, but they are then not actually stating how, where and why this can then be substantially improved, let alone actually convincingly kept; examining this is simply finding PR and unconvincing information and sources; nothing at all actually close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are mentions. The awards are trivial or second hand. Two of the founders received a notable award for their research, but not for founding their work on this society. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the discussion remains open, I edited the page to give an indication of how it might look if improved to focus on suitable sources and establishment of notability. I hope contributors will be so kind as to review it. Braydonowen (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at it, and it seems to me that you essentially stubified it, but I don't think that this really established a rationale for keeping the page. It may perhaps make it easier to merge the small amount of remaining content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the site's editors are pitching for coverage on social media (re below, yes, in response to this discussion). I am leaning keep (and at the least merge to founders) but will think a bit more before/if voting. Blythwood (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
gah i wonder if that is a direct reaction to this deletion discussion. if so, gross. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Al-Hindi

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

Fails WP:BIO. Adam9007 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see four "keep" !votes from established users, and only the nominator arguing for deletion. Consensus is to keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo E. Martinez

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

A previous AfD in 2014 was closed as no consensus. Articles about LDS officials (just like articles about anything else) need independent sources to pass GNG. That means sources not connected with the LDS Church from where he draws his notability (Deseret News doesn't count; it's hand-and-glove with the LDS Church). Some may claim there's an exception that automatically grants notability to all high-ranking church officials. There is not. Similar officials with similarly-poor sourcing have been deleted. pbp 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't buy this statement that a newspaper of the standard of the Deseret News should be discounted as an independent reliable source. There is no evidence that Hugo E. Martinez has any influence over the content of that publication. I'm a pretty militant atheist myself, but that doesn't mean that I think that people with different views shouldn't be covered by an encyclopedia, and very often, whether it's in religion, politics, sport, culture or any academic topic, it's only publications that specialise in a particular field that have coverage of a person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soundly? The discussion was closed as no consensus, and the closing admin went rogue in his closure. pbp 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I decline to vote on LDS matters). Internal publications of a church are likely to be reliable when reporting on matters such as appointment. My impression is that he holds a senior position within LDS organisation, close to that of a bishop in other churches. We have had discussions in the past on LDS officials. It would be useful if WP could provide a definite answer as to how far down the LDS hierarchy people can be presumed to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The template at the top missed the first deletion attempt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (mass nomination), closed 15 July 2014 as no consensus without prejudice to individual renomination. ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Martinez as a General Authority is one of the top leaders of the LDS Church with international leadership standing. In some ways this puts him at a higher grade that a bishop in the Catholic Church, and in many ways closer to the international standing of a Cardinal. The nature of LDS General Conference means that sources such as the BYU Daily Universe not only took note of the fact he was the first to give a talk in this gathering in Spanish, but took note of the subject and message of his talk. This article absolutely should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If being the first to talk to a gathering is so dang important, you should have no problem finding a source that isn't connected with the LDS Church to assert his notability. If he was as important as a Catholic cardinal (which he probably isn't; many Catholic cardinals preside over a number of believers as large as the entire Mormon church), then he'd receive as much non-LDS coverage as Catholic cardinals receive coverage in Catholic publications. pbp 16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the previous comments that have been made. Martinez's position as a General Authority, especially in light of the fact that the Church no longer publicly differentiates between the members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, establishes Martinez as a hierarchically important figure in the LDS Church. Besides, I was under the impression that the Deseret News had been determined to be a reliable source, and I am in the process of working to get all previously deleted articles about those formerly assigned to the Second Quorum of the Seventy restored on these same grounds. I believe that personal prejudice against the LDS Church is motivating these deletion nominations, and I challenge anyone to prove that this is not the case. This article should be kept particularly if this nomination is proven to be based on malicious vituperative dislike of Church topics. What's next? The deletion of all major articles about any LDS leader or topic? Not if you don't want an uprising. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Jgstokes, it's on you to prove prejudice, not on me to prove lack thereof. There have been a number of discussions on WP:RS/N and related noticeboards as to the independence of Deseret News, and these indicate that a fairly substantial number of editors believe DN to not be independent of the LDS Church. LDS leaders and topics MUST pass the notability standards we have on this page, and if they don't, they should be deleted. This one doesn't. If I find more that don't, I will either tag them with a refimprove tag or nominate them for deletion. pbp 16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jgstokes: Please strike your accusations of bad faith. You are in violation of a core Wikipedia behavioral guideline and your accusations and threat of an "uprising" are more damaging to your own credibility than anything anyone else could say. ~Awilley (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this seems a rerun of similar afds. Some editors believe that the Deseret News is a valid source (including me) and others (including pbp) that it isn't. Wasn't there a drv quite recently? How did that go again? (Oh yes: Octaviano Tenorio – "Endorse there is an overwhelming consensus to endorse the closure as proper" by the drv closer.) These afds seem to have become decidedly pointy. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget, the DRV endorsed the close of no consensus. It did not endorse keep. It also is about one article; this is not that article. It did not rewrite SNG or RS guidelines. pbp 00:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think people should be restricted to say 3 contributions per discussion. All these LDS afd discussions are plastered with purple pbp marks, labouring the same point time after time after time. The drv endorsed 'no consensus to delete'. (Pbp makes 41 separate contributions to the afd on Octaviano Tenorio. This is obsessive.) Oculi (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of four people (two keepists and another person who voted delete) with 20 or more contributions to that AfD. And it's hard to keep your mouth shut when people are leveling personal attacks at you and constantly misconstruing everything you say. You've made your point that you think I comment too much. I'm going to ignore it and keep commenting in discussions I want to comment in. pbp 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the DRV did endorse the closing statement that said that the Deseret News can be treated as an independent source for individual Mormons who have no control over its content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, not really, at least not specifically. The closest it comes to doing so is saying, "Arguments provided suggested a lack of consensus." Since Deseret News is not mentioned in the closing comments of the DRV, it would suggest there was a lack of consensus on that issue. Besides, anything the DRV decides is applicable only to that one AfD. pbp 19:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV close had a consensus endorsing the no-consensus AFD close, which said, "the sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part...". No evidence has been provided here that Hugo E. Martinez has any direct connection to the Deseret News, so that consensus applies here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that because one article was closed a certain way means that another article was closed a certain way is an inherent WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Unless you can point me to a policy or guideline that says it's OK to source Mormon officials from a Mormon-controlled paper with an unabashed pro-Mormon church stance, the applicability of that close to this AfD is suspect. There was recently a discussion about this at the reliable source noticeboard (not sure if that's the correct forum anyways, because independence, not reliability is the central issue), and it failed to produce a consensus that the Deseret News is independent of Mormon topics. The fact that you and other people dismiss the bias of Deseret News (which, if you read previous AfDs and RSN discussions, is citeable from its own editorial policies) because it is only indirectly controlled by the Mormon church is also troubling. pbp 20:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said twice, the issue is not that the newspaper is owned by the Mormons, but that Hugo E. Martinez has no influence over its content. Try reading what other editors actually say rather than respond to what you think they might have said. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In focusing only on whether Martinez himself controls the DN, you're missing the major problem with the DN in the first place. The problem is that DN is indirectly owned/controlled by the LDS church and that its mission is in part to promote the influence of Hugo Martinez and other people like him (I'd even argue perhaps exaggerate their influence). You're kind of taking it backwards in that your assessment of DN starts with Martinez when it should start with DN. pbp 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In focusing only on whether Martinez himself controls the DN I'm following the close of the deletion discussion which was resoundingly endorsed by the deletion review linked above. You are entitled to hold a different point of view, but please don't pretend that it has had any consensus support. And it doesn't make any difference what order you take things in. Starting with Hugo. E. Martinez and seeing what he controls doesn't lead to the Deseret News, and starting from the Deseret News and seeing who controls it, and recursing, doesn't lead to Hugo. E. Martinez. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz talk 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jann (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Google Street View in Asia#.C2.A0Jordan. MBisanz talk 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View in Jordan

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

I don't see any encyclopaedic value in keeping this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). We are not a directory to store the updates of Google Street View. What next? Google Earth In Jordan? Streetdirectory in Jordan? Areas covered by "x mobile service" in Jordan? This is seriously not required. Delete this for the same reason we don't keep article about software logs. We are not a directory. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why Jordan specifically? If you think this type of information is not suitable then nominate all similar articles for deletion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What similar articles? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google Street View in the United States ?? Makeandtoss (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think any of them are notable, but I have been advised previously to only nominate one by one. So we see how this goes first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic. There is no reason to keep this, nor should there be any similar articles of this nature. All that being said, we need to review the rationale for Category:Google Street View. Every single article is exactly like this one - it's a list of what the service covers, which, as far as I'm concerned, is discernable by using the service. MSJapan (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a need to open a unified discussion for similar articles. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Downs syndrome. Amended to delete per policy considerations. MBisanz talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dollie Grissam

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

Questionable notability. A person who is "possibly the oldest person with x" does not warrant an article for that reason unless it's picked up on by medical academics or more serious publications than those cited in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Gillett

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

Questionable notability. A person who "possibly the oldest person with x in country y" does not warrant an article unless they're picked up on by medical academics or more serious publications than those cited in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The longest lived person with Downs Syndrome was a bad enough article idea. The longest lived person in the United Kingdom with Downs Syndrome is just taking it too far. What next, longest lived hemophilac before developments of various medical technologies? In this day and age, no one under age 80 is notable for how old they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and John Pack Lambert , every country will be having longest living patient of a particular disease unless it is significantly covered by medical journals ,mere mention that one is the oldest surviving patient of a disease in a country is not notable.Yes if the subject achieved something in sports ,professional career etc it may be notable but there is nothing of that kind in this case.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiner Pinball

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

Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. The subject is a pinball simulator for an obscure gaming console and, so far as I have been able to determine, was insignificant even in the context of that console's library of exclusive games. There are three sources in the article, but none of them establish notability. Specifically: The first one is just the instruction manual. The second... I can't read the language, but skimming over the article, it looks like Ruiner Pinball is only mentioned in a simple list of games coming out for the Atari Jaguar. The third is a review in Next Generation, which is useful, but since Next Generation reviewed every single game that was released in North America at the time (and many that weren't!), it does little to show notability. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Added two four more reviews and a meta score for now. --Tochni (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Video Game Critic is considered an unreliable source, since the site is by a lone author with no editorial oversight. GamePro, like Next Generation, reviewed virtually every game released at the time, and having a copy of the actual issue in which Ruiner Pinball is reviewed, I can confirm they only gave it one of their "Quick Hits" reviews consisting of three sentences or less. Atari HQ runs into a similar problem; an Atari game being reviewed on an Atari fan site is hardly a sign of it being notable. As seen here, Atari HQ has reviews of nearly every Atari Jaguar game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about Electric Playground and the other reviews at mobygames? --Tochni (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See our list of vetted sources. Also we need to verify that those reviews actually exist instead of using the aggregator... czar 03:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response here, but I feel I should emphasize that my opinion that this article should be deleted isn't just motivated by lack of sourcing. My belief is that for every article on Wikipedia, we should have an answer to the question, "What makes this important?" (I realize this is not a popular belief, but I do think it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy.) With Ruiner Pinball I just don't see any possible answer to that question.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Latoya Jackson of video pinball games so it should be important. It may not important for you but the article may important for others for example for me especially since I am very dedicated in Pinball related Wikipedia articles. --Tochni (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about importance to individuals, essentially "I like this game" vs. "I don't like this game". I'm talking about importance in the larger sense laid out in WP: Notability, and more specifically WP: NGAMES, which is what counts for keeping or not keeping an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The scant material in the article needs TNT, but here's the deal. We have a review in Next Gen, and Mobygames lists reviews in Electric Playground, GamePro, and VG&CE (all vetted review sites). Four reviews in major publications is sufficient for notability, but only if anyone actually pulls the publications and can show that the reviews exist (we can't trust Mobygames's user-submitted content). To Martin's statement, with which I tend to agree, I'd put this game on par at least with the shovelware of today, which gets reviews but is ultimately fated for obscurity. We tend to keep these topics if only to be the only source on the Internet that provides a bibliography for games of even small notability. I think Wikipedia will focus less on these in time and focus more on good writing than simply bibliographies, but right now it's the only Internet site in the game. czar 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though it obviously doesn't help my case for deletion, in the interest of being completely honest I must say that I have a copy of the GamePro issue in which Ruiner Pinball is reviewed, so that one at least does exist.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Wrong forum.. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:S. Dallas Dance White House cropped.jpg

File:S. Dallas Dance White House cropped.jpg (edit | [[Talk:File:S. Dallas Dance White House cropped.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an official White House photo - doing a simple Google search for S. Dallas Dance images bring up the original version of this photo that came from a leadership conference. The White House borrowed and then cropped the image. It is not an original WH photo, therefore, the copyright does not belong to the U.S. Government and is ineligible to be classified in that manner for free use in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for this. To nominate an image for deletion, use WP: Files for discussion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Godby

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable runner who promotes "natural medicine" by running across the country. There are a few mentions in small, local newspapers from 2011. The current article has a very promotional tone that is derived mostly from self-published sources close to the subject. At best, notability is due to one event. Delta13C (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11, with no prejudice to recreation from the current draft. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is some notability for this gallery, but in it's current form it looks like an advertisement for a business with almost not references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:TNT. The article is quite promotional, but I'm also concerned about it having been copied from the frwiki article, fr:Galerie Brame & Lorenceau, which was created as a copyvio, blanked, recreated, and modified, but still looks to retain a good amount of the same text, in addition to being poorly sourced and promotional. That said, it seems notable, so I created Draft:Brame & Lorenceau Gallery, very much a stub, starting from scratch (i.e. used none of the existing content). If this is kept, we can delete the draft of course, but the draft exists as a substitute if the content here is unusable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete all Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Creeps

Peppermint Creeps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cover Up (Peppermint Creeps album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We Are the Weirdos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Animatron X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial overtones, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and entirely unsourced articles about three of their albums with no claim whatosever to passing WP:NALBUMS. The writing here is very much more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article, and basically documents their existence without ever actually stating anything that would make their existence notable -- the closest it gets is the number of albums they're said to have released, but NMUSIC #5 requires the albums to be on a major or prominent indie label, and as near as I can tell all or almost all of this band's albums were self-released. And the only references cited here at all are primary sources, with not even the first shred of reliable source coverage in real media shown. The closest thing to a reliable source anywhere in the entire batch is an AllMusic profile for one of the albums, which fails to review it and just provides the track listing — and it is not evidence of notability if AllMusic, of all places, fails to deem it worthy of a written review. As always, a band is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed; RS coverage, verifying one or more accomplishments that objectively pass NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE.No need to remove, I have added links to. (I'm from Ukraine, I'm interested to know about the group. Сергій Козачок (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you added consists entirely of blogs and user-generated content sites, not a single one of which counts as a reliable source. Proper referencing for a Wikipedia article is published coverage in real media, not blogs or last.fm or a band's own self-published website about itself or an album's sales page on amazon.com. Your personal interest in knowing more about a group does not hand them a special exemption from Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules — a band gets an article if reliable sources are covering them in a context that satisfies NMUSIC, and does not get to blog or press release or iTunes themselves into self-published "notability because we exist". Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (the band). There are bits and pieces of coverage around, some news items about the drummer's death (would the death of a drummer from a non-notable band get that much coverage?), but not all: [2], [3], [4] (seems a legit print magazine but the page appears to be missing a stylesheet), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The albums can be merged/redirected to the band. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PayU India

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

Company without any claim or evidence of notability. Twice nominated for Speedy Deletion, (not sure if it was). Few anon and inactive contributors whose only edits are with this article and others related to it. Dmol (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quick Google search displays articles with PayU India as the subject with several as recent as last week. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and here's the analysis of the listed sources and claims: PR, all of it, because it honestly contains only information clients and investors want to know, which is the company's services, funding and financing, and everything a company wants the public to know about itself. None of that amounts to actual substance, especially if if's handed PR by the company. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the coverage offered above is all PR or PR-like, for example:
  • PayU India has made seven top-level hires from companies including Airtel, Human Factors International and FabFurnish even as it looks to launch products in nonpayment verticals including lending and investments for small and midsize businesses and consumers in the next three months. (link #1 from above)
  • ""Striking partnerships is critical to our growth," said Nitin Gupta, CEO, PayU India, adding that ... (Link #2 EconomicTimes)
  • "PayU India aims at doubling its payment gateway business in the coming year" (Link #3 Business Insider)
  • "PayU India on a hiring spree, ropes in seven top level executives with plans enter new segments" (Link#4 TheTechPortal.com), etc.
The coverage is rather WP:ROUTINE (hiring news and expansion plans) and does not rise to the level of COPRDEPTH. Using such sources would result in an article that would not contain any information that could not be found on the company's website.
The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Paritosh31 with a likely COI. The COI situation is likely to persist as often with articles on up and coming companies looking for customers and investors.
Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I advocate deletion until such time that the company would be considered notable based on truly independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this is still PR or PR-driven, such as
  • A passing mention: "Meanwhile payment gateway service, PayUBiz said they are holding on the money and will only release the money, once the products are dispatched. “As a leading payment solution company, we are cognizant of both our merchants and buyers. (...).” PayUBiz said in a statement.
  • Discussion of the company's advertising campaign: "A voice over comes into play explaining the many options for using PayUmoney. The film ends with a super and voice over: PayUmoney. The habit of benefit. Nitin Gupta, CEO and co-founder, PayUmoney, said, “One among a series of campaigns that we wish to unleash, with #FaydeKiAadat we uphold the use of our online payment solution, as a safe, easy and rewarding habit..." Read more at: Campaign India
  • A reposted press release: "MUMBAI: Payments company PayUmoney on Wednesday launched a new POS terminal which can allow even the small merchants..." @EconomicTimes http://ecoti.in/c7u7Gb
This is unconvincing. The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Paritosh31, so there's a potential of on-going COI, so WP:PROMO applies.
Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 keep !votes and 4 deletes - relisting for clearer consensus Nordic Nightfury 12:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Didn't trouble myself with Googling the subject. Editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces here that make a good case of subject's ineligibility to reach the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Whatsoever I saw, I found 8 out of 10 sources, PR, rest, WP:ROUTINE. Subject at best meets WP:BASIC and make a borderline claim for WP:GNG. To end, if there has to be an article, it should be about PayU and there within PayU India can be covered. Anup [Talk] 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excellent analysis by K.e.coffman. This is far form satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The massive number of sources are essentially a smokescreen but closer examination shows many of them are unreliable or essentially primary quotes. This seems to be a non-notable company which receives a bit of coverage through PR. The COI editing is also troubling and I would additionally advocate a delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, to me it seems some voters haven't even bothered to read anything if they think "editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces". Who else has pointed out articles here other than me? Have you taken a look at what I've voted? And I also pointed out the numerous pieces criticizing the company for their mistakes but I guess no one bothers to read any of that or this... Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the facts alone this was started despite it being deleted as advertising, it gets restarted as yet again advertisement; this suggests no one actually cares to state and understand why their article was actually deleted. There's simply nothing here that is not PR, let alone actual substance; there's actually even basis for A7 if not for the thin "flagship company" claims. The article contains no actual information whatsoever aside from to state the basic information of the company. I suggest the users use their time to stick with advertisements elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since it was alleged that additional sources will be coming out in the next month, I will userfy the article if requested, so that the additional sources can be added to it. If significant reliable coverage develops, the article can then be considered for reinstatement. MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Tick Day

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

This doesn't quite seem to fit any speedy deletion categories, but it is clearly promotion of a non-notable subject. Some guy invents Galactic Tick Day, writes a blog, wants to get a campaign going, and thinks Wikipedia will be good publicity. I can't find any significant coverage of this. Lithopsian (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ardaji

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of RS sources. Few RS sources mention him briefly. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC) striking sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original nomination stems from a sock with an inaccurate reasoning. Ardaji easily passes both WP:GNG (3 different NYT articles, LAT, TIME on page). Via Factiva: "Local Looks For Knockout With 'Ali'. Sourcing usage as is is iffy at best, but there's plenty to pull from articles on databases about his background pre-2001. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Below are some non-digital newspaper articles I did not include in the initial references. I'm confused because the reason was crossed out — here are those reliable sources. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7TAmmons1974 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the dual Keep assertions that have no opposition, re-listing for more eyes. Lourdes 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NYTimes reference quotes him - it is more about the company. The other references I see mention him in brief. The sources from Greenwich or business journals are unfortunately not reliable enough for GNG purposes due to the fact that they easily publish promotional material. If the subject is well known for the movie, it essentially makes this a WP:BIO1E. I don't see any other compelling reason to see that the subject is notable and neither do I see enough coverage. Accordingly delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1984 New York Times both quotes subject and refers to throughout as it details a background on him and the company. A 1979 New York Times article is a feature story solely about the subject. With the ad agency information, this is not WP:BIO1E. I also don't see any evidence that Greenwich Time is not reliable / easily published promotional material. It's a legitimate newspaper with an author byline. Proposals calling for the mentions to be scaled down, I concur that it's excessive — references 12-25 need a further look. News Team Assemble![talk?] 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1979 New York Times is not a profile article entirely on the subject. It is just a small mention among a collection of 6 other news. The 1984 NYTimes article as I told you is mostly quotes - hardly any coverage about the subject. None of this is useful for notability per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we started excluding newspapers "prone to publishing promotional material," then we might as well cut out basically all of them, and every music review site on the planet as well :) What matters is that the source isn't a blog or a tabloid, and has an editor/journalist who can arguably be considered neutral. So most trade publications pass fine in that regard, if they have at least some non-local repute. So I agree with the sourcing found by News Team in this case. Yvarta (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, only normal business activities. There is not even an article on his business and only has a brief mention in the Masaharu Morimoto article. A WP:BIO1E, at best. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm amazed at the NYTimes coverage , which includes the paragraph "The American Aisociation of Advertising Agencies has on a number of occasions recommended MEAMCO to member agencies and reports complete satisfaction. "his is writing suitable for an advertorial, not objective reporting. It does not matter where published, surch sourcing is not reliable for notability of for anything else. It bears out the general principle, that there is no source at all that is always reliable for everything. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Given the lack of opposition to the final Keep assertions, and added discounting of the ip comment.... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me or my son ever again

Don't talk to me or my son ever again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails the notability criteria set for web content per WP:WEBCRIT. There are hundreds of memes created each year so it being the "meme of the summer" per several sources is not enough. Catlemur (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In my view it complies with the criteria in WP:WEBCRIT. It complies with the first part in that there are multiple sources listed of which the meme is the subject (these sources are not exactly brief either, they go in to some good detail), and it complies with the second part – as stated, multiple identifications as the "meme of the summer 2016". Multiple publications, 3 of which are in the Alexa world top 1000, writing detailed coverage of web content makes it notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --User:Kris159 (talk – legacy) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely un-notable and a random meme at best with an article probably written by the meme's creator Torqueing (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not allyourmemes.com. 118.15.95.75 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment *Sighs" not this crap again. I won't bother making a keep or deletion vote here, but I can rest assure to you, Torqueing, that I created the article but did NOT form the meme, and no valid argument has been given here to delete the article. Kris159 says it best here: I made the article because the meme ACTUALLY HAS SOURCES FROM INDEPENDENT PUBLICATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY COVER THE MEME, and that should always be it. I also have no regrets in creating the Tea Lizard article for this same reason alone. The rationale for deleting an article about a meme because "There are hundreds of memes created each year" is pretty much the same thing as deleting an article about a musical album because hundreds of albums are released every year; there's no proper consideration of the notability or the amount of coverage here. This other argument the nominator made on the article's talk page renders to nothing more than WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and only shows he wants the article to be deleted only because of how he THINKS the article is important to have on the encyclopedia without taking into consideration the amount of coverage in reliable sources, as previously mentioned. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia, as far as coverage of Internet topics go, now consists mostly of users that base the notability of a subject on how only THEY THINK the subject is important, not how much reliable coverage a subject has actually received. Not a good sign for the future of the online encyclopedia. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm gonna say do something other than Delete for the reasons I gave above. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every time EditorE leaves a comment it follows the same pattern, he claims that " no valid argument has been given here to delete the article", and then proceeds to use CAPS LOCK to virtually shriek at people who disagree with him. The accusation regarding my talkpage comment is not only baseless but irrelevant since I did not use the comment here. You are in no position to know what I intended by it. The so called "Independent Publications" are on the same level of Buzzfeed, playing on short term popularity and trends that last for a month or so to attract attention. Just as in the case of Tea Lizard this meme does not have what it takes to have a lasting impact as in the case of Unexpected John Cena. Claiming that this meme will become popular enough to be included here is WP:CRYSTAL while retaining it for any other reason is WP:RECENT.--Catlemur (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before I respond here, I'd like to clarify that when I used CAP LOCKS here, I'm wasn't yelling, I was only using the CAP LOCKS as highlighting the most crucial parts of my comment. Then again, I could've used bolding to do the same thing, but still, it's funny how I have "no position to know what" you intended by your statement on the talk page, but it's OK for you to "know" what I meant to do by using caplocks. Congratulations, you deserve the 2016 world medal of Best Hypocrite of the Year. :D I would be using exclamation points if I was yelling.
      • Now that that's out of the way, the popularity of the meme has gone on long past March 2016, as a big enough indication by the independent The Verge source, and even so, assuming that the meme will have "short term popularity" that would "last for a month or so" would be a WP:CRYSTALBALL statement in the first place as well. It's also OK for you to assume that actual independent sources significantly covering the meme, keyword being "significantly", like Paper magazine, The Daily Dot and New York magazine "are on the same level of Buzzfeed" and that the meme "does not have what it takes to have a lasting impact as in the case of Unexpected John Cena", but I can't assume anything? Not only are you giving me more evidence that you're a hypocrite, but you're also giving me more evidence that your judgment of notability is only based on your non-notability-based assumptions. I know not every meme gets covered in reliable sources, however, when a meme does get covered and analyzed by a lot of sources, I'm going to make an article about it whether you think it's crucial to do so or not. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't know which part of WP:RECENT or WP:WEBCRIT you're reading that's leading to your reason for deleting the article, but I hope that those parts of the policy are removed immediately. Nonsense like starting this nomination only accomplishes disrupting and ruining the coverage of Internet culture on Wikipedia. Hope you're feeling proud of yourself, :) editorEهեইдအ😎 16:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that you read the following guideline before proceeding: WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Instead of WP:REHASHing your rage laden, Tea Lizard tirade.--Catlemur (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm well aware I'm being "WP:UNCIVIL" in your eyes, and it's fine for you to judge behaviors of users. However, that doesn't mean I can't do the same thing, and I have no shame in doing this "uncivil" commenting that really isn't raging in this discussion and only sharing how ridiculous you're acting in the first place. Really, the only way to get the point across is by being this harsh, there really is no other way I'm gonna convince you. If I was gonna be WP:CIVIL, you'd probably continue to start invalidly counter-arguing, but that's just assumption. I also don't how you wouldn't also find arguments in the Tea Lizard deletion discussion like "shame on DYK for running this" and "It is embarrassing that this made it through the DYK process." as WP:UNCIVIL based on this same logic. I know I may be "uncivil" here, but again, I have no shame in doing so and being judged by others is a golden expectation when you're on the Internet.. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the meantime, I'm gonna stop making comments here and go play the Ninja Gaiden NES games instead. Enjoy the discussion, participants. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Kris159, this article's notability is established by several of its sources which discuss various aspect of the article's subject in detail. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, there's no reason to subject coverage of memes to harsher treatment than we would other subjects of equal novelty. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Nuru

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes the musician guidelines just by having two albums released by a major label. I'm not entirely sure why you referenced the Entertainer guidelines, which is not really what she's known for.

https://itun.es/us/TMibeb https://itun.es/us/3bFeeb Iknowallsecrets (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that Itunes is not considered an independent, reliable source that helps to establish notability. GABgab 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only added the above links to show that the albums were released by a major label. Iknowallsecrets (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the recent Delete assertions, re-listing for more eyes... Lourdes 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a single mention in any reliable independent sources. This is far from satisfying GNG. None of the singles released by the subject are notable. I don't see any evidence that the subject is notable and I would like the keep voters to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While having multiple releases from a major record label would allow her to pass musician guidelines, the subject seems to fall more under the lyricists/producer role. Her work in the careers of highly notable musicians, holding an executive position at a Sony owned label, and her professional association with Clive Davis seems more than notable. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? I have voted in multiple AFD discussions. You seem to be rather hostile regarding the subject and going as far as to question other voters. I'm pretty sure that being bias is not within our guidelines. Other delete voters cast their opinions and went on without going after others. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayleigh McEnany

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

I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD, there:s no inherited notability and frankly nothing at all actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (and ideally, redirect to a new list, surrogates for Donald Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election.) There are so many mediocre sources about her that it's hard to tell if strong sources exist; I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if there are in fact good, complete sources that provide the background for a reasonable bio. However, it would be worthwhile for a Wikipedia reader to be able to find a basic answer to the question "who is Kayleigh Mcenany?" A list could address that neatly (for her and for others). -Pete (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment after reviewing prior AFD: That was 4 years ago. As a prominent (daily?) Trump surrogate on CNN, her notability has surely increased in the last year. I don't know that she's had the kind of coverage that would merit a WP bio, but she's certainly closer now than she was when the previous AFD took place. -Pete (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Face it. However much you may dislike the fact, she clearly meets the notability criteria. She is prominently mentioned in a Washington post article [61]. Clearly a very strong source. The notability standard also states that many less strong sources can make up for the lack of stronger sources. She also appears in well over a hundred sources in all. I got 563 hits on Google Books. She appears often on a major network. You may not like, and you may not like her, but that is not the standard. She is notable. Tesint (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She's in the news a lot. I added some sources and took out the unsourced (and biased) material and moved it to the talk page. Hopefully that will help anyone trying to make a decision about her. I'm on the fence, myself, about her notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have several more articles that talk about McEnany:
http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/10/dana-loesch-torches-trump-mouth-piece-kayleigh-mcenany-n2160652
http://www.law.miami.edu/news/2014/july/classroom-newsroom-rising-2l-kayleigh-mcenany-appears-tv-guest-political-commentator
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/kayleigh-mcenany-trump-tailored-message-to-blacks-white-rally/
Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article to demonstrate notability. As it sits, she's not terribly notable other than for her employer, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. That said, if the article is actually improved, I'm willing to consider changing my vote. Montanabw(talk) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Megalibrarygirl's and Yoshiman's sources should probably be discussed, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another pundit who shows up on TV, but who isn't significant enough to have received decent coverage and in-depth discussion. From the cited articles one could construct a three-page biography, at the best; the additionally listed sources here don't do much better. The Townhall.com article is nothing but a brief comment on a video placed on a conservative website, the MiamiLaw article has content but is not a newspaper (it's an alumni magazine, basically), and the Raw Story article is nothing but commentary on a TV appearance by the subject. Plus, it's Raw Story. So, no--this doesn't help. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to latest "Delete"


Wikipedia Notability Standard:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

Nothing that Drmies writes refutes any of the sources provided by Yoshiman. The notability standard says nothing against a brief comment - that does not make it trivial. There is no requirement that a source be a newspaper. There nothing against "Raw Story". So, by the standard, it does help, however unnecessary it might be, because she would be notable anyway.Tesint (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the deletion criteria: "When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." OK. We have gone way longer than seven days. There is clearly no consensus for deletion. It is time for this discussion to be closed and for the "nominated for speedy deletion banner to be removed." Tesint (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, from the speedy deletion criteria: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation."Tesint (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The coverage is very minor. The notability standard certainly says something about a brief comment: it requires "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail " Before making claims about what WP:N says, it helps to actually read it. In detail. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Home page. MBisanz talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start page

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

non notable concept. The references given do not distinguish between home page or "start page". Google searches show very little actual hits despite a large initial number the hits disappear after around 400. noq (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The concepts as described are different: "start page" is the page shown when opening a browser, and "home page" is the page shown when visiting a particular website. At least per the articles. The question seems to be whether the "start page" concept is notable, about which I have no opinion.  Sandstein  07:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for not reading that article thoroughly, but when I searched for "home page," the first result was Google suggesting me to make Google my home page. The second result was our article. The third result was Mozilla instructing on how to set your home page. The next results seemed to be the kind of home pages our article refers to but without a mention of the term. In the news it seemed to always describe a browser's starting page: [62], [63], [64] and [65]. I had trouble with "Home Page Media Group," however. I think a merge of the terms is in order because they're used so indistinguishably. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Internet Explorer describes the initial page as a home page, as do Firefox and Safari. Chrome describes it as a starting page. None of those browsers call it the Start page. noq (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - The only instance I know of homes pages being referred to as 'Start page' is in German where a 'Home' page is called "Startseite'. Maybe a redirect is the answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to home page: It's very simlar of those named as "Start pages". KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 11:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a clear difference between home page and start (or startup) page in a browser; starting up the browser takes you to the start page and pressing the browser home button gets you to the home page.[66] Both of those are different in concept from a home page of a web site. In principle, I would be OK with a merge, but merging all three into one article is likely to cause confusion, unless these different concepts are carefully explained. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure it is that clear. Most modern browsers support multiple tabs and the initial page(s) can be set to re-open the last pages displayed before the browser was last shut. And the start page concept described here is not the same but is more a web portal. Expanding the concept of the home page article to show this is probably a good thing but having additional articles for each possible use is overkill.noq (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source you linked to was Chrome's guide. noq wrote before that Chrome is the sole one to call it starting page. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to home page per above. It's not synonymous, no, but there's no reason it couldn't just be a line at web browser. The separate concept of a service/site intended to act as one's start page is just web portal, but given that "start page" has multiple meanings, home page seems the likeliest redirect target. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Home page after delete. Concept not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. More recent discussion has brought evidence of notability. Whether this can be done by hand does not bear relevance to notability, as pointed out by others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tree baler

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

It exists, but I can find no sign it is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Merge to Christmas tree. Cursory source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, this is a valid search term, so redirection is appropriate, and the merge target article presently has no mention of this aspect of the topic. North America1000 11:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That sounds like a sensible solution. Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my !vote above to "undecided". North America1000 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will not take a stand on merge, or keep, today. But I will note that merging to Christmas tree would be a mistake, since arborists routinely bale live trees they plan to transport, then transplant. Christmas tree balers are a special case.

    Note also that while most of the ghits from a google scholar search are to patents on tree balers the search does show that there are technical journals, Transactions of the ASAE, published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, where one can find technical articles that talk about tree balers. This one is behind a pay-wall, but it seems reliable sources do address this topic. Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm able to comment on the notability of the processes, but there are articles (probably many) on various specific kinds of machines, for example one for sticking letters into envelopes – Folding machine (and the specific section: Folding machine#Folder inserters. Uanfala (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't get the point that "it is just a machine that mechanizes a process that can be done by hand". WP is full of articles that are about even more mundane machines or tools (e.g. loom, broom, hammer). Isn't the question one of notability. There are secondary sources that describe tree balers (I provided links to three above) which are more than sufficient to establish notability. MB 04:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A machine that does something significant is an appropriate subject for a WP article. Harvesting machines in their various types are suitable subjects. As MB says, it is wholly irrelevant if something can be done by hand also. Do we remove articles on word processing and typewriters because writing can be done by hand also? DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varun shrivastava

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

Some notability exists, but in it's current form the article is highly promotional and looks like PR work. Also, many links are PR articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Going by the words of nominator, the article needs a NPOV template at most. No reason to delete it. Pratyush 09:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unicole Unicron

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

Fails basic WP:GNG. Not enough WP:RS sources. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I would like to know what I can do to make this page stronger so that it will not be deleted. Unicole has been recognized by several news sources including Vice and MTV, which are linked in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.143.141 (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to know what can be altered, modified or updated so that this page will not be deleted as Unicole has been widely recognized with clear public presence and this article has been well sourced with accurate and significant news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.130.205 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Over the top promotion flooded with linkspam and primary sources. Only sources worth thinking about are MTV and Vice. MTV has her as part of a reality show so are not exactly independent. That leaves Vice, more accurately Motherboard, one individual source. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the "pophatesflops" interview source that has just been added as well as a link to Christine Teigan's tweet about Unicole (Christine also being a celebrity with 2.61million followers tweeting about Unicole is further evidence of Unicole's worldwide relevance), and I don't see how the fact that MTV was a reality show (which again reached thousands of people around the world) causes it to not be a reputable or counted source? If it is not permitted to link to any personal sites for any sources of information I can understand that and will happily take those citations down but all of the information for this page is accurately compiled and relevant. Her online presence is constantly growing with more citations forthcoming and she is presently widely known by thousands of fans across the globe which is evident by the citations already included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmagician (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "pophatesflops". Subject talking about herself, not independent, not a reliable source. Re a trivial tweet. No more need be said. Re MTV. People employed by MTV are not independent of MTV. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only 1 reliable and (somewhat independent) source available for the subject (Vice). The MTV source is trivial mention. This is WP:TOOSOON. The amount of link spam in the article shows that it is there to promote a currently non-notable youtube artist so I am also advocating a delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abimanyu Nallamuthu

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

Article about an actor with no reliable sources. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U. Diane Buckingham

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

Not notable: her award are mostly student awards for residents, including the Presidential Scholar award which "recognizes excellence among child and adolescent psychiatry residents." [70] Not head of major national association , only chair of one section. Her inclusion in " "Changing the Face of Medicine " is good evidence for the uselessness of inclusion in that project as a criterion of notable . Google scholar search in several different forms of the name shows no published papers. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BASIC; an individual with notable accomplishments is not in need of passing NPROF also. Here we have multiple independent reliable sources. Publishing papers is not the only thing that makes a person notable, particularly when they are a field worker out in the trenches. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is basically that Buckingham is notable because she's in private practice and because the article has, as sources, 3 websites, one of which at NLM solicits the general public and publishes their stories of their favorite female physicians. Are you kidding? Agricola44 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two independent sources discuss in detail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on account of GNG which remains valid even for academics/professionals. I'm concerned by the proposed rejection of "Changing the Face of Medicine" on the possibly circular argument that a putatively non-notable individual has been included there. Our notability guidelines do not suggest investigating why an individual has been discussed significantly in multiple, reliable, independent sources – it is sufficient that there is coverage. BTW: a couple of publications by the subject have been added since the nomination and I have found a third[71] but, to my my mind, these are merely by way of formality. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes on general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where are these sources which people are talking about? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WoS search "AUTHOR: (buckingham d*) Refined by: RESEARCH AREAS:(PSYCHOLOGY OR RADIOLOGY NUCLEAR MEDICINE MEDICAL IMAGING OR PSYCHIATRY) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI." shows 3 papers having the following citation counts: 19, 3, 0. Article is full of OR. I agree with Lemongirl942: there do not seem to be any solid sources. All-in-all the subject has a low citation history in a field in which even average profs are relatively highly cited. Agricola44 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. The Black Enterprise source looks pretty spammy, and I don't see accomplishments that would pass WP:PROF: her citations are too low for #C1, and head of the psychiatry section of the National Medical Association doesn't seem enough given our article on that organization's admission of its "rather marginal size". But the NLM profile goes a long way towards WP:GNG: we don't have to agree with their selection criteria to recognize that it is reliably and prominently published, independent, and in-depth. This book provides another source (not as high quality, but enough to satisfy the part about having multiple sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page suggests that the individuals profiled at the NLM are chosen, at least partly, by the general public: The National Library of Medicine invites visitors to this Web site to help celebrate the achievements of women physicians. Please contribute a story about a women physician who has had an important impact on your life. Fill out the information fields below...Your story will become a part of this Web site and will be placed in the National Library of Medicine's archive. I was unable to find any other information as to how these NLM profiles are chosen, but given the fact that Buckingham is a private practitioner with a quite mediocre record of advancing the field, it is possible that untrained public opinion led to selection. Philosophically, I think we do have to be concerned about how sources arise. Indeed, this issue has been at the very heart of the Jacob Barnett debate: most sources on him are likewise prominently published, independent, and in-depth – they're just wrong, and we have succeeded in keeping them from the WP article, so far. Agricola44 (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar al-Haddouchi

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

Non-notable scholar. Very few mention in WP:RS sources John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know how it could be claimed that the individual isn't notable; consistent, sustained coverage can be found in mainstream news websites on this individual for much of the 2010s, both on his statements, perceived extremism and previous legal problems. In literally only twenty seconds of searching, I've found multiple articles on this person from:
Al Monitor
El Pais
The Washington Institute
Morocco World News
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to state that finding multiple articles (just in English) spanning three years of coverage on various issues doesn't even constitute this editor even trying to search hard; more substantial hunts for reliable sources would likely yield even more, especially if French and Spanish language sources are sought. This seems like an easy pass of WP:BIO. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::Reply to MezzoMezzo You saw those sources from the page. Did you check inside those sources that you linked above. The name "Omar al-Haddouchi" is not mentioned in those pages. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is, although in different spellings: Umar/Omar (al-)Had(d)ouchi. That is something you'll see often when dealing with matters related to the Arabic world. There are various ways to romanise the Arabic script, each leading to slightly different results, but in the end, they convey the same words. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JJJ I didn't see those sources from the page; I told the truth when I said I ran a mere twenty-second search. Please clarify with other users before you start to accuse people of lying.
As for a closer or anyone else, I think this is an open and shut case - the nominator appears unaware of the problems with the Romanization of Arabic names and the fact that searching for the article subject via different spellings (Umar, Hadouchi, Haddoushi, Hadoushi, Hadushi, Haddushi, etc.) would yield vastly different results. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamas & Papas

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

Check of notability only showed up articles of recalled products and standard retail links. Rayman60 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me this is a well-known UK shop/brand for baby stuff, and newspaper articles about it surely get it past GNG, even though the article desperately needs attention. For example, [72], [73], [74], [75], [76],[77],[78],[79] Lelijg (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Leljig has provided some pretty good independent sources in that selection, the best ones coming from the Telegraph, Independent and Daily Express. These three sources should be just enough for the article to establish notability. Minima© (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now tidied up with added refs. Lelijg (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emsworth & District

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 17:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I Am (Kristin Chenoweth album)

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

This was for a while a redirect to artist, which I felt was a good idea. This doesn't seem to gave charted or attracted many reviews - everything is on Allmusic and the other source given, the obscure crosswalk.com doesn't convince me it tips into notability. Boleyn (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A person just added a couple of reviews, from a Buffalo paper and a Florida paper; they're not online but let's assume they're a paragraph long. Then there's the Crosswalk and AllMusic reviews -- longer, but in a more specialized venue. This is probably enough to meet WP:NALBUMS #1, I think. Then Billboard has a notice that it opened at #50 on the album charts (whether it went higher I don't know), so that's maybe WP:NALBUMS #2 (I don't know if "appeared on any country's national music chart" means as low as #50, but for songs it goes down to #100, and the "any country" is America, a particularly populous and wealthy country). All in all I think it meets our album notability standards. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I would tend to agree that this meet WP:NALBUMS #1. There is non-trival coverage in The Buffalo News, The Ledger, Allmusic, as well as Detroit News. I don't have full-text access to that last one, but its particulars are: Henrickson, Eric (April 15, 2005). "Kristin Chenoweth, As I Am (Sony Classical)", Detroit News, p. E7. Furthermore, the crosswalk.com article was also published in print as Cumbee, Jim (June 2005). "In Review: Music – Kristin Chenoweth: As I Am", CCM Magazine 27 (12): 66. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. It also fails WP:V as noted in the previous AFD. Most of the material in this article has been provided from three accounts which from the account names appear to be relatives of the article subject.Further the subject has not held any public office .Now in the Multan Chambers of Commerce & Industry website he is not listed here among the past presidents.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korephilia

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

See arguments made at Talk:Korephilia. The topic is not WP:Notable and it is WP:Fringe. It uses sources that define pedophilia incorrectly (for example, making it seem like the disorder is about pederasty, with one source stating "it is usually understood to mean homosexual fixation on young boys"), and sources that are outdated. We have appropriate articles for the things this article discuses. The article also includes WP:Synthesis. It was created by Froggzz5 (talk · contribs), who was blocked by Alison as a sock of Laatmedaar (talk · contribs), after I brought the matter to Alison's attention because of the obvious socking by the account. Laatmedaar has been involved in cases concerning a number of questionable articles that are currently at AfD. Although Alison did not identify the sockmaster as the person I suspected it of being, the person I suspected it of being has sent me emails (including with throwaway accounts) in the past about how he can continue to thrive on Wikipedia; one way is to get people to post his articles for him. This article looks very much like an article that the sockmaster would have written, and I usually have no trouble identifying that sockmaster. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete I got that it is an archaic term at best. I'm not sure if FRINGE applies since it is more of just a term that was merged in more modern language. I think it fails more generally under WP:MEDRS but the backstory confuses the issue in single article nominations. I almost said keep because AfD is not article cleanup and most of the points raised are related to cleanup.--Savonneux (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Savonneux, thanks for weighing in. I'm aware that WP:AfD is not cleanup. If I felt that this was a cleanup matter, I would not have nominated the article for deletion. Well, not unless the WP:G5 matter had been validated. You stated that "it is an archaic term at best" and "it is more of just a term that was merged in more modern language," but I'm barely seeing any scholarly sources truly discussing the term and it's not noted in any of the solid literature on pedophilia. The article states that it's like a female form of pederasty, but also states "Korephilia generally has much fewer frequencies of occurrences than other forms of pedophilia." I understand that article is stating that korephilia can be defined in different ways, but pederasty and pedophilia are not the same thing. Furthermore, female pedophiles (as separate from female child molesters) are very rare, which is one reason the term korephilia probably never caught on. The occurrence of female child molesters is also significantly lower than the occurrence of male child molesters. Either way, we have the Pedophilia article, Child sexual abuse article and similar articles to deal with these topics. We don't need this article, which confuses medical literature as it is used today and is a WP:NEO violation. And by "WP:NEO violation," I mean that this is an isolated term that is nowhere close to being mainstream. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: Roger, just wanted some clarification. Changing to delete.--Savonneux (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to pedophilia Could have been speedied per WP:A10 but this way is more solid. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe redirect to pedophilia, but I'm not even sure. I haven't been able to find reliable sources on the topic in my own search. There are 3 hits on google scholar and only one of them uses the word. The others use parts of the word separately. Then 6 hits on google books, none that seem like authorities on the topic and the few sources that use the term just define it (with varying definitions) and none give in depth coverage on that specific term. —PermStrump(talk) 04:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary:Korephilia: I am not seeing much if any evidence that this is a concept that would make a good encyclopedia article - no useful information anywhere never mind sources that satisfy WP:MEDRS or WP:GNG. It'd be only useful in a dictionary, and that is what Wiktionary is for per WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirection. Pedophilia is a widely known physiological disorder, while this is not considered as such. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outdated term, poor sourcing. Remove or redirect to pedophilia.Legitimus (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Others have already explained the details pretty well. Reliable sources just don't seem to use this term to warrant its own article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I contested the original PROD because it looked to be well sourced enough to merit discussion. After reviewing the rationale and discussion, I think it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm finding the arguments for delete troubling. There is no dispute the term exists, the fringe argument is ridiculous, the alleged sockpuppet argument is not valid for here, the arguments that the article's content is contradictory based on contradictions between sources is not an argument for delete - sources rarely all say the same thing and articles can express various viewpoints as long as they are sourced. There are questions about the inadequacy in content, for example the source defining the term is a book on Greek sculpture, it would be expected to define and talk about kore but in what context is it talking about korephilia and why is none of that content in the article (or is there actually no content and the book just defines "kore" and nothing more)? Since the term exists, surely a brief stub containing a see also link would be sufficient, rather than a delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield, exactly how are the fringe arguments ridiculous? As for "sources rarely all say the same thing," they usually define a topic the same way. For example, medical authorities on pedophilia are pretty consistent when it comes to what pedophilia is. Criteria differences is another matter. When there are a few sources that don't define a topic like most other sources do, it is a WP:Due weight matter. There is absolutely no reason at all to keep this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term does not define something that is fringe, that is why I said the fringe argument is ridiculous. I think it would be a misapplication of what fringe is for Wikipedia to apply it to the popularity of the term. Also, an article's subject is defined according to what sources say about it, so there is no necessity for sources to be uniform in their opinions in order for an article on that topic to exist on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield, Permstrump summed up the matter quite well in a few words. The topic is fringe because "an erotic attraction of a woman toward a prepubescent girl that is called korephilia" is fringe, and so is "a female equivalent to pederasty." If someone can show that "a female equivalent to pederasty" is WP:Notable, then I would change my mind about deleting this article. The article would still need cleanup, per my earlier comments (calling the matter pederasty and then pedophilia is confusing, and the sources themselves confuse what pedophilia is; no experts on pedophilia define it as "usually understood to mean homosexual fixation on young boys"), but it would at least be worth keeping. Also, per WP:Due weight, how most sources define pedophilia matters and the mainstream view should be clear even in articles that take a different view of the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about "a female equivalent to pederasty" is that scholars usually state that there was no female equivalent in ancient times. So as far as the ancient aspect goes, "a female equivalent to pederasty" is quite fringe. This 2006 Sex from Plato to Paglia: A-L source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 122, for example, states, "No female equivalent to classical pederasty existed, as far as we know, and if biblical justifications for condemning male homoeroticism are difficult to pin down in meaning, biblical justifications for condemning female homoeroticism are even sketchier (Miller)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concept that examples exist of "an erotic attraction of a woman toward a prepubescent girl" is not a fringe concept - so I am arguing that a term for a concept that is not fringe cannot be called "fringe". A claim like "No female equivalent to classical pederasty existed" sounds about as dogmatically extreme as the viewpoint the article mentions when saying "the concept of a woman-girl relationship is sometimes negated by societies that dismiss the existence of an autonomous female sexual identity". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield, we'll have to agree to disagree about how the WP:Fringe guideline applies in this case then. As for "an erotic attraction of a woman toward a prepubescent girl", while one can argue that the concept is not fringe, one can also argue that the matter is fringe when examining the literature on sexual attraction of adults toward prepubescent children or specifically the literature under the term pedophilia. Do have a look and see the number of scholarly sources on Google Books that make it explicitly clear that "pedophilia is almost exclusively a male disorder" or that "paraphilias are rarely found in women." Also see "no female equivalent to pederasty." It is not a dogmatic matter; it's a matter based on what scholar after scholar has stated. And fringe authors who depart from that mainstream view had better provide a convincing argument as to why the mainstream view/mainstream research is wrong. I see none of that in this article, or in reliable sources not used in this article. I'm not sure how you think pederasty is defined, but I repeat that it is not the same thing as pedophilia (which is about a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not to mid or late teenagers), and it (pederasty) is mostly defined by the social ways of boys and men in ancient times. There is no documentation that there was such a setup between girls and women. Pedophilia also is not the same thing as child sexual abuse, which is commonly committed by non-pedophiles, can include cases of a teenager with an adult, and cases involving child-on-child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That explanation cleared up some things about questions I didn't even know I had. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 04:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual subject is not of interest to me. What I was concerned with is what I see as an abuse of the concept of Fringe. WP:FRINGE explains that it applies to theories, subjects, opinions, ideas, etc. It does not apply to a term (even if it is a little used term, or an archaic or obsolete one, or one that is an alternative to a better known one) that names something which is not fringe. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors, including the OP, have referenced multiple policies other than fringe as reasons why this article should be deleted. —PermStrump(talk) 20:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the discussions I've seen on Wikipedia about fringe terms, which may encompass "theories, subjects, opinions, ideas, etc.", I'll just state that I agree to disagree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shower#Wet room. MBisanz talk 00:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wet room

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

DIcdef, but oddly the one cited ref (a dictionary) doesn't agree with the definition in the article; but rather says a "wet room" is a European-style bathroom-with-integrated-shower. Which is a fine thing to have an article about, but I'm not sure "wet room" is the right title, and at any rate this article (falsely, I guess) claims "wet room" means something else. WP:TNT. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Najir Hussain

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR for now upcoming but not notable at this point. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 06:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhri Ughurlu

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Saremi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR .Lacks third party sources about the article subject or even his works. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 06:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Portico

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

The Hyundai Portico concept of 2005 has had no published indication of intent for production beyond 2010. It is assumed at this point the vehicle's production has been cancelled, or shelved indefinitely. This article of the Portico as a production vehicle should be deleted. Dirty Blueshirt (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are notable concept cars, but this does not seem so special.Borock (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 18:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Areg Shahinyan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO for now .Subject is upcoming but not notable at this point at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Pitsch

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

Fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; fails WP:SOLDIER as the Knight's Cross award is questionable. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.

The subject is mentioned in a book by Reynolds; however, I would consider this to be a WP:QS source, as his work has been described by historian Robert Citino as of of those that "flirt with the admiration" for the Waffen-SS, with some "[going] farther than that". Please see Waffen-SS in popular culture for more details.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- medal is disputed, fails to meet general notability. Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward B. Giller

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

Seems to just miss WP:SOLDIER (awards and rank are too low), and there's nothing particularly distinguishing in the article that jumps out. His association with Project Orion appears to be indirect. MSJapan (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline gave me the impression that one had to be a 3-star. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't understand how. "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." No mention of three stars there. One star is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still need the requisite coverage in the reliable sources though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they..."--Savonneux (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But one can presume and be wrong. A "presumption" is not a "fact." Case in point; the answer to "Dr. Livingston, I presume" could have been "No, he's over there." I could presume someone is notable, and then not find a single source on them. The presumption means nothing if it's not borne out in fact when checked. MSJapan (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My personal perception of the rules is that presumption overrides actuality. Based on the mass porn-star deletions last year where WP:PORNBIO was taken as the "law" (as it were) for pornographic bios over WP:ANYBIO. I just apply, I don't interpret.--Savonneux (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet WP:SOLDIER (the essay you quote) explicitly states: "ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources." So in the end it defers to WP:GNG (i.e. policy). At any rate how can a presumption ever override reality? If one presumes something to be true but it is later proven to be wrong, why would a reasonable person continue to hold the presumption of the opposite? Sure hold on to ones presumptions until proven otherwise, I get that, but not after. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:Soldier. I don't know why the actuality of his existence and rank is disputed seeing as the official US Air force website has a bio on him. Indy beetle (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not about "existence" or "rank" - the "actuality of his existence" isn't the question, and as you should be aware, existence is not notability. What's at question is doing something of note. In short, read the entirety of the policy first. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said "existence and rank." I know existence isn't the same as notability. I meant to answer GraemeLeggett's comment that we would "need the requisite coverage in the reliable sources." I was asserting that this guy's legitimacy of rank is supported by the US Air Force's official website. And I would argue it is very much "about" his rank, as per WP:SOLDIER #2. Granted, that is an essay, and not policy. So it really depends on whether we in this discussion want to follow the limited consensus behind the points put forth in the essay or the more widely accepted and broad Wikipedia:Notability policy.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER - I personally think that the criteria should be adjusted to include only 3-stars and above as being "automatically" notable, but until that changes, this article is a keep. ArchieOof (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as "automatic notability" regardless of rank, and WP:SOLDIER certainly does not claim that there is. It uses "presume" which of course requires one to check on a case by case basis as to whether the presumption holds correct for the subject in question. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My comments above aside I'm on the fence about this individual's notability, and will need to look further at the sources available as there does appear to be some coverage, but I'm not sure I can determine whether it constitutes WP:SIGCOV with out going through it in more depth. Ultimately my main concern here is that the keep arguments seem to be misapplying the substance of an essay (i.e. WP:SOLDIER) which contrary to the arguments above does not create "inherent" or "automatic" notability for anyone (regardless of rank, award or deed), but merely lists topics that are presumed to have significant coverage as req'd by our extant notability guidelines (but obviously would not be notable if that presumption were proven not to apply). Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - consensus says keep but to be sure... Nordic Nightfury 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as another week has suggested nothing else and there is in fact enough substance (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Mayer

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

Notability not asserted, doesn't appear to meet WP:SCHOLAR. Subject seems to get passing mentions only with respect to his work, and all the ELs simply are the instances where he's mentioned once. His Harzing h-index was 6, which seems pretty low for anything. MSJapan (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable scientist and has been interviewed several times. He is included in two books of George Dyson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.237.48 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I added the material from Teller's 1955 article in Science which briefly explains his contribution to the H-Bomb. It seems to be a substantial/significant contribution, meeting criteria 1 and 7 in a unique way not described in the notes on the criteria in WP:Scholar.Smmurphy(Talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be quite a bit of coverage of the subject in the books found by this search. We need to be very careful about using citation count as a metric here, both because of the era in which the subject worked and the classified nature of his work. I haven't checked, but I doubt that Alan Turing has a particularly high h-index. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only quibble is that those books all say "Harris Mayer describes" or similar; he's quoted because he is just about the only one still alive to interview. I can't find any mention of him otherwise, and it's not like the key scientists weren't mentioned - we have articles on most of them. If he's only being interviewed because he was there, that's a WP:NOTINHERITED problem. Turing, by the way, has an h-index of 54. MSJapan (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I stand corrected about Turing, but I'm sure that if he had been able to publish his classified research from WWII his h-index would have been even higher. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Smmurphy: I have to say I'm not seeing anything useful in that material. It's essentially "Mayer, as a student, continued the work of Teller, which Rosenbluth finished." One, we still have no idea what that work was, and two, if it wasn't finished, I still feel no more enlightened as to Mayer's contributions than I was without it. Is there anything else there? I am having a difficult time asserting notability of an individual who has a serious WP:V issue; nowhere is it stated what Mayer did, and it's only made worse by the fact that whatever he did apparently wasn't finished. This is the problem - if someone does something that's classified and we therefore don't know what it is, I don't think it's appropriate to have a WP article based on a presumption of notability. That's all I'm seeing here. I suppose what concerns me particularly is that almost no one mentions him, and he's hardly published - I looked up Oppenheimer, and he's still got a ton of papers despite probably being one of the most classified people on the project. MSJapan (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I guess. I still think that being a notable Los Alamos lab scientist in that era fits under wp:scholar. Early next week I'll try to add some material about the Mayer-Goody model and bring the page up to gng. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: I'm sure more could be done, and my writing could always do for some copy-editing, but I've expanded things a bit more. The hardest part is that I wanted to give an understanding of why including line absorption in opacity calculation was important without being too technical, so hopefully that is comprehensible and useful information to the reader.
I think the article is long enough that it could be split into one or two subheadings and the lead paragraph could use one or two more sentences, but I'm not sure. Perhaps the article could be cut a bit as well, but the context and culture bits are fun to learn about, I think.
Other than his frequent mention in textbooks due to the Goody-Mayer Model, references to Mayer is largely based on works by Teller and by Mayer himself, which may struggle to meet the independence clause in the notability guideline. But I think this is a case where independence is a clause in a guideline and not a policy, even as I tried to meet it. I still think Mayer's notability was strong without this expansion. Also, I am not sure that WP:NOTINHERITED fits for high-level scientists involved so closely with something like the Manhattan Project. In any case, With the expansion, hopefully it is clearer why he is notable and what his contribution was. Let me know what you think. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting there, but as you noted, the sourcing is definitely problematic. I really don't understand why there's almost nothing independent of the subject as far as sources go, but Mayer worked with both Teller and Dyson's father, so their personal writing might be skewed, and I'm pretty sure we can't use Mayer's own book under any circumstances. So the underlying issue is that the importance of the work is being claimed by people involved in it or very close to it, which isn't objective. I'm not entirely sure I want to IAR on independence, as it's pretty fundamental that other people have noticed the subject, no matter the article, and I would think I'd see more in the field overall if that were the case. Simply working at Los Alamos isn't going to meet GNG; if so, the maintenance would qualify, even though that's not the intention. We've got articles on a number of scientists involved in the Manhattan and Orion projects, and AFAICT, Mayer isn't even mentioned in any of them, which just seems very odd. I understand that these are specialist topics, but it shouldn't be this hard to dig up substantive information on supposedly key personnel. I wonder if one of the relevant WikiProjects might be helpful. MSJapan (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is skewed and have some suggestions, let me know. Beyond that, independence is meant to ensure "we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization". While the article certainly advertises for Los Alamos and doesn't talk about the human cost of bombs, I don't think that is really so skewed by Teller and Dyson's writings. Both are reputable writers on the history of science and both use reputable publishers.
My thought on "not-inherited" is that being a high-level scientist at Los Alamos in that era might be as notable as being a full professor at a top university. I suppose being support staff at Los Alamos is of similar notability to being support staff at a top university, but I don't think that applies to Mayer.
I don't follow the issue that Mayer isn't mentioned on other scientists' articles. I've added him to Goody's for what it is worth, beyond that it isn't clear adding a mention of him in Maria Mayer, Teller, Rosenbluth, or Dyson's pages would be balanced. A lot of Manhattan project scientists cite each other through the project template and he could be added to that. Most biographies only cite the most important related figures in their text - and many of scientists biographies are stubs, so it isn't surprising that he isn't widely mentioned on wikipedia.
Also, for what it is worth, the Goody-Mayer model (or Mayer-Goody) is well covered by independent sources that don't cite Mayer's paper, per se, which lowers Mayer's citation count.Smmurphy(Talk) 21:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he is mentioned in Teller's autobiography and other sources like Turing's Cathedral. That said, many sources are interviews with him, and you could argue that by surviving to an old age he could overstate his importance by giving interviews when others couldn't. But I think worth keeping. Blythwood (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Books search appears to meet #1 on for the Scholar Criteria. We should be careful to focus the information about Mayer's influence on physics but not overly detail the process (looking at the 1st paragraph of "Problem of opacity"). Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Prickett

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, nor does he seem to have WP:SIGCOV; the sources seem to point to trivia or one-off items rather than anything that would truly assert notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - one !vote not really enough. Nordic Nightfury 13:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 13:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code Name Project Orion (film)

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

Unsourced NN TV episode. I think this is more correctly an episode of History Undercover and the rest is the subtitle, but we don't have an article on the show, and there no assertion as to why this particular episode is deserving of an article. MSJapan (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still going! Okay, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Churches of Christ in Europe. The general consensus seems to be to move the material elsewhere, by renaming or making it a subsection in a main article. The best compromise is a direct merge, which was supported in the discussion. Please merge the data into a new subsection and convert to a redirect or request deletion via speedy delete of the empty page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement)

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

redundant with Churches of Christ in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - This article was originally added as the result of a discussion about the base Churches of Christ page. There were one or more editors who wanted to add some material about other groups that, while they use the same name, have no historical or organizational connection with the Churches of Christ that originated in the Restoration Movement. This isn't all that surprising, because there are certain terms that occur over and over in the names of Christian churches. I have no strong opinion about the notability of these other groups, or even whether it makes sense to discuss them as a unit. But it does seem reasonable to create a place to park material on groups that use the name "Church of Christ" but don't fit in the article until there's enough to do more detailed articles on each one. EastTN (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow. There seem to be a number of distinct or partly distinct church bodies that have used the same of similar names. I observe that there is an Australian article on a denomination whose routes were in US and GB. The GB denomination (merging into United Reformed in 1981) seems to derive from Alexander Campbell, but is stated to be distinct. The book by Grimm cited in this article is expressed to be about Europe. Since the book is a translation, I presume it is about Germany or some other continental country. I would suggest the appropriate solution is to have three articles of equal status Churches of Christ in America, Churches of Christ in Great Britain (I assume they did not function in Ulster), and Churches of Christ in Europe. It is unfortunate that the article tells us very little about what Grimm wrote. "Non-Restoration" is a horrid disambiguator. Despite the apparent geographic limitations of these names, I would see no reason why the various articles could not explore the relationships between these and the Australian and Canadian denominations (or lack of such). Church of Christ is an obvious name, which has been used in different ways at different times and in different places. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Nordic Nightfury 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'moved to draft' . Magioladitis (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Noise

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nominator. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not Delete - I think they're notable enough as they have collaborated with EDM superstars Martin Garrix, Dannic & Julian Jordan and also they're signed by Spinnin' Records which is a huge record label. However, the article needs improvement on sources, grammar and proper formatting. Rizhopper (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's right. I also think they're notable enough as they have collaborated with EDM superstars such as Martin Garrix, Dannic and Julian Jordan and they're also signed by Spinnin' Records, a huge record label. And also, I have added more references and more information about them. XPanettaa (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thought for a minute that Garrix/Dannic were TV Noise. Undid my keep !vote. With no autonotability along those lines, we need sources, and I'm not seeing sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Simply working with well known musicians does not make them notable -- it makes them worth mentioning in the notable musicians' pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, yes, there are some sources, but none of that even including the information amounts to both independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that @Rizhopper: can help by making this page notable. XPanettaa (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this discussion, since the page has been moved to draft to be reworked there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: A Finance Secretary in the State Government (as opposed to a Secretary rank officer in the Government of India) is a mid level official. Has not won any significant awards to assert notability. Has held relatively junior level posts. Speedy Delete. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subrat Sahoo

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

Non Notable public servant. His supposed books are also non notable. Seems like a fan page. No notability shown. NO SIGCOV Uncletomwood (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Jadhav

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

Stub. Fails WP:BIO. Non Notable civil servant. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete can't find any RS source. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Obviously this does not prevent anyone from creating a revised version of the article in future provided they address the concerns about lack of coverage in third party reliable sources and promotional wording. Hut 8.5 22:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leadwerks Engine

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

No evidence of third-party notability since creation; most references are primary; heavily promotional in tone (was created before the software was even released). PROD was removed, but article hasn't improved in the years since. David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see any reliable sources in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adora Cheung

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

Many references, but all of them are essentially press releases or local stories for non notable founder of a failed company. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Washington Post. I've added references to the article, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not coerced, persuaded. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Assertions of "PR" should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. The articles provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America1000 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- TOOSOON. The coverage is all PR like or tangential, with trivial mentions. For example:
  • Forbes -- an article about a new venture of the brother of the subject, who is only mentioned in passing
  • Vanity Fair article -- retelling of a blog post by the subject, not a suitable source for a bio article
  • Tech Crunch -- interview with the subject about the company
  • San Jose News -- interview with the subject about the company (i.e. adds to company notability, not the subject's)
  • Washington post -- article about the company, with the subject mentioned in passing.
  • Etc.
The company may be notable, but its former CEO does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the individual has adequate indicia of notability, the coverage by major news outlets clearly meets GNG. If anything, the company could be merged into this biography, frankly. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homejoy Excellent analysis by K.e.coffman. This is a BIO1E. The coverage of the individual is solely in the context of the company and notability cannot be inherited from the company itself. (Also note that she was the co-founder along with her brother - should we also have an article for her brother as well then?) The company is no doubt notable, but that doesn't make the founders automatically notable. Till, that time the information about the founder needs to be covered in the article about the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors also need to understand that GNG is not an automatic free pass to an article. GNG is subject to WP:NOT (which is a policy) as well as other guidelines like the single event guidelines. We tend to cover founders of notable companies in the company article unless it can be demonstrated that the individual is notable independent of the company. (As a sidenote, many of the sources are interviews which are primary sources not useful for notability.) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is also a policy. In this case, to say that the company is more notable than its founder or a CEO is circular reasoning; I see no "policy" that says that a company's founder is only notable in the context of their company ... if anything, it should be the other way around! Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is a guideline. WP:NOT is a policy. The fact whether a company is notable or the founder is notable can be seen from the nature of the sources. Over here, the sources talk mostly about the company with a small mention about the founders. Sometimes, the founders are quoted in the articles. This happens all the time with founders of every small company. If we start keeping articles on this basis, we will become a directory of business-people (which goes against WP:NOTDIR). Which is why we have WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE as well WP:NOTINHERITED to apply along with GNG. The sources show that the company is notable, not the founder. This has been applied across multiple articles on multiple business-people. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't BIO1E... there's coverage for her after HomeJoy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show me some of the significant coverage apart from Homejoy? I don't see any. Simply being quoted is not significant coverage. Reliable secondary sources are needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aggregate of the sources seems to pass GNG to me. In terms of what's already been discussed: the TechCrunch and Vanity Fair pieces are entirely devoted to her work, I see no reason why they wouldn't be relevant to a biography; the WaPo piece has several paragraphs on her work so it counts for something; the preface to the Mercury News interview is secondary source material and thus goes toward to notability. Then for some more sources: here is a Business Insider piece in which she's featured, a Recode piece, Forbes write-up and further commentary on the Recode piece, etc. Article's shortcomings seem editorial to me, rather than shortcomings in available sourcing or that any exclusion criteria apply. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG is not the only reason. We also look at WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The nature of the references show whether we should have a page. I'm also unable to understand your sources
  1. Business Insider piece Trivial mention. The only mention of Cheung is a single line caption below a photo. There is literally no mention in the article. (I also don't understand why do you say she is "featured").
  2. Recode piece, Forbes piece Literally deal with how the company failed. It has a few quotes by Cheung but nothing else.
Notability also cannot be inherited from a company. Over here it is clear that the company is the focus of the article. And the subject at best deserves a section on that article, but definitely not a standalone article. You can also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Business_people_and_executives. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still more sources, on her more recent enterprises:
She has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple endeavors. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness (+potential additions to the article) here's what else I've found so far that hasn't been mentioned at AfD yet.
Innisfree987 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about sources Unfortunately, this is a still a WP:BIO1E.

Fortune,Gizmodo, Wired, FastCo, A different TechCrunch piece - Every single one of these sources simply mention Cheung in the context that she announced stuff. Note that none of these sources are significant coverage. The other sources you pasted after that are all about Homejoy again, making it a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Another important thing to keep in mind is that startups are usually in news and getting an article "up" on Techcrunch/Gizmodo/Wired/Forbes is not a big deal. What needs to be seen is the subject is independently notable - that is someone has decided to cover the subject without focusing on the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"What needs to be seen is...someone has decided to cover the subject without focusing on the company." 1, We do have commentary on endeavors beyond the company (unlike for the Payal Kadakia example below, where it was all about ClassPass, here we have additional sources on Cheung being on the board at Y Combinator and the cities project) so I don't agree with the 1E reading, and 2, if I understand correctly that the suggestion is we require coverage of a person that doesn't dwell on their work, I disagree. We would never say coverage of an author wouldn't count unless it wasn't in reference to the books they wrote; if anything a source that set aside their work and purely discussed their personal life might well be considered too tabloid-y to count toward notability. I'm going to be plain, I'm troubled by the suggestion work a woman did is somehow not relevant to her notability--and not because I think it's Wikipedia's job to make women look good, in fact I think including this coverage will not necessarily be flattering, as a good chunk of it holds up her work as an example of a controversial deregulatory trend in U.S. political economy.
What Wikipedia does have to do is apply its own rules evenly. In terms of how such cases are commonly handled, you might be interested in how the Julio Cabral-Corrada AfD went this week--another young person in the U.S. related to business and political questions, but that entry had much less sourcing than this one does, and closed as no consensus. I don't believe it's accurate to say cases like this are "usually deleted". Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is supposed to be for discussion so I don't understand your refusal to discuss. Neither do I understand what you mean by "various AFD's about women subjects"; I vote on multiple AfDs about different topics and I apply the same standards everywhere. That actually helps to understand notability better. I see that you have been exclusively voting on AfDs about women, may I invite you to try voting on other AfDs as well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is appropriate to have a very brief merge and redirect as suggested, but not an independent article. The sort of duplicate coverage shown here is purely promotional and does not justify a separate article. Expecting individual coverage in cases likethis amounts to changing wikipedia from an encyclopedia into not just a who's who, but Who's Who among Young People. It's a violation not primarily of BLP1E, but of the fundamental policies in WP:NOT. Hmlarson, I can't act as I normally would as an admin because I am involved in the discussion, but your comments to Lemongirl are violation of our equally fundamental policy, l No Personal Attacks. . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Alsever, Jennifer (November 2014). "How to Run a Successful Sibling Startup". Inc. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

      The article notes:

      Adora Cheung had tried starting companies with co-founders before. But it wasn't until 2012, while working on her laptop in her brother's filthy apartment, that Cheung both hit on a great startup idea--Homejoy, an online service that helps users locate a housecleaner--and found her ideal partner, her brother Aaron. Today, the pair jointly run Homejoy, which operates in over 30 markets and has more than 200 employees and $40 million in funding.

      ...

      Why have the Cheungs succeeded when so many sibling co-founders fail?

      Adora says it's because they are both introverts who grew up in a goal-oriented, studious family. They rarely get frazzled under stress, and each can be blunt without the other's taking offense. "You inherently trust your sibling more than anyone else in the world," Adora says. "You know you have each other's back."

    2. Arbel, Tali (2014-01-08). "How to get ahead in business with a short resume". The Business Journal. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

      The article notes:

      Homejoy

      FOUNDERS: Adora Cheung, 30, and her brother Aaron Cheung, 25

      STARTED IN: Mountain View, Calif., July 2012

      THE BUSINESS: Now based in San Francisco, Homejoy's website connects more than 100,000 house cleaners with customers in about 30 cities in the U.S. and Canada

      MONEY RAISED: $40 million

      BIG BACKER: Max Levchin, co-founder of PayPal

      Coming out of the University of Rochester, which had no entrepreneurial community that she was aware of, Adora Cheung wanted to learn how startups work. She joined a Bay Area company, Slide, which was started by PayPal co-founder Max Levchin.

      ...

      — FOLLOWING FRIENDS: After Cheung left Slide, she and her brother spent three-and-a-half years trying to come up with a business. They participated in the Y Combinator accelerator program, which helps startups launch. Friends who had been through the program recommended it.

    3. Hull, Dana (2013-12-04). "Housecleaning startup Homejoy raises $38 million". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

      The article notes:

      Homejoy, a housecleaning startup launched last year in San Francisco, is set to announce Thursday it has raised $38 million in venture funding from Google (GOOG) Ventures, Redpoint Ventures and angel investor Max Levchin.

      The company was founded by Adora and Aaron Cheung, siblings who created an online platform that connects house cleaners who need steady work to clients eager for an easy way to get their houses and apartments cleaned.

      ...

      Cheung, 30, became a housecleaner for a month to learn about the industry. She said that several investors in Silicon Valley have used Homejoy and began to approach the company about raising capital.

    4. Walker, Alissa (2016-06-27). "Now Y Combinator Wants to Build a City Because Every Other Tech Company Is Doing It". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

      The article notes:

      In an announcement today, Y Combinator partner Adora Cheung (who joined the famous seed-funder four weeks ago) writes that our present cities “don’t provide the opportunities and living conditions necessary for success.” Cheung goes on to highlight specific failures the project hopes to address in the areas of affordable housing and transportation.

    5. Rhodes, Margaret (2016-07-08). "Y Combinator's Plan to Build a New City? Not Actually Crazy". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

      The article notes:

      Last week, Y Combinator, the Silicon Valley startup accelerator that helped launch companies like Dropbox and Airbnb, announced it was launching an ambitious project of its own. The “New Cities” initiative will study freshly minted cities, and how to plan, design, and build them from scratch.

      To many, the announcement registered as audacious, even for Silicon Valley. The language surrounding the announcement sounds like it’s lifted from a half-baked VC pitch deck (“You can fix existing cities, which a lot of people are doing, or you can reimagine them from a blank state,” says Adora Cheung, who will head up the project with Y Combinator president Sam Altman) and details about the project’s curriculum are scant (Cheung says “it’s all TBD”).

    6. Bonanos, Paul (2014-05-23). "Homejoy: Cleaning up the mobile competition". San Francisco Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

      The article notes:

      When Homejoy co-founder and CEO Adora Cheung began exploring new ways technology could improve on traditional house-cleaning services, she took matters into her own hands, literally: She joined one of them and started scrubbing.

      “I worked at a service for a little bit to pick up some skills and learn how old-school companies work,” Cheung said. “It took them hours to juggle a schedule,” she explained. “I thought, ‘I could make this happen in less than one second, with code.’”

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adora Cheung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and analysis - Every single source listed there is essentially either a business profile or a press release-laced "news"; there has been considerable consensus that the Business Journals, such as the last one listed here, can not be used at all for notability, let alone actually NPOV non-PR uses, because they are essentially always simply interviews, puffery about the person and their companies. Owning and operating one's own company is not by itself a suggestion of actual independent notability at all, as we would need said non-PR coverage of course. The sources above even include unacceptable things, take the first paragraph of the Business Journals for example,

    When Homejoy co-founder and CEO Adora Cheung began exploring new ways technology could improve on traditional house-cleaning services, she took matters into her own hands, literally: She joined one of them and started scrubbing.

    “I worked at a service for a little bit to pick up some skills and learn how old-school companies work,” Cheung said. “It took them hours to juggle a schedule,” she explained. “I thought, ‘I could make this happen in less than one second, with code.’”

    No actual working-jourbalist should mention this, and of course they would not, because a Business Journal "employee" is simply involving themselves with PR and fluffing their interview. It even goes to talk about how she operates her company, as if this was a job listing-like interview, which essentially there also been consensus that the Business Journals is used for funding and financing seeking opportunities. One of the articles even states the company is "ambitious", this basically translates as not being notable if they still need to motivate "ambitions". The article even goes to state how she "was working with housecleaning for a month", none of that would be meaningful for a genuine news article, and it obviously is supported and supplied by Adora Cheung herself; it states by itself that anything about this would not be acceptable, the fact it's listed as it is shows there must have essentially been nothing else meaningful for the "news". There are claims from the Keep votes that GNG is somehow met yet they are not actually supplying their analysis or otherwise comments about this, and they have not met anywhere to somehow acknowledge the said PR concerns; therefore there's nothing to suggest these Keep votes can be taken thoroughly or seriously. If that's honestly the best coverage that can be listed, that's explaining enough. Even my comment earlier stated this clearly and exactly. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Cunard. I don't find the arguments for WP:BLP1E compelling. Coverage about Cheung typically relates to her company, but that's not coverage for one event, but for a career and a business. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is rather thin considering users have stated exactly the concerns here, yet the comment sinply states "per other user, [for career and a business].". SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply saying that Cunard did a very thorough analysis here, and I agree with that user. I can say that without echoing all of that user's comments. Writing "per X user" is a frequent practice at AFD and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's a way of signaling agreement with another user's comments without having to restate them all Ad infinitum. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Radio Bonpounou. MBisanz talk 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonpounou Gospel

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

Notability is questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: Bonpounou has been deleted earlier, see here. Also the user page of the article creator has been deleted because of promotional content. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Duplicate of Bonpounou Gospel Radio Bonpounou, created by the same user. Both seem to fail notability. Start another AfD or propose for deletion for that article. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) (edited: 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton University Campus Boat Club

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

No indication of Notability. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One !vote to delete isn't enough. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-Venture

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

Non-notable bus operator, most cites are Flickr images, only written cites are about trivial road incidents. Duncgc10 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivet Goranova

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

No evidence of work in major museums or independent critical analysis of her work. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Magickal Mystery D Tour EP

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mik Current

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claims here are charting on a couple of individual radio stations (whereas NMUSIC requires an IFPI-certified national chart on the order of Billboard, if you're going for notability because chart hits) and having been favourably reviewed by a blogger who also previously (but not in this instance) wrote for Spin. And that's exactly what we've got here for referencing, too: blogs and a single-station chart. Nothing here is a credible notability claim for the purposes of encyclopedia, and there's no reliable sourcing here that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fat, bald, mustache

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

I'm not seeing the required sources that would make this article pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM for that matter. Half of the article is untranslated. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course, the foreign language thing is not a reason to delete. I did Google the Arabic title -- I encourage more people to do that. The first result was this short item about a filmfest screening. You can use Google translate to translate it. I see here that it won a prize, maybe at the same festival, maybe at a different one. Not seeing the independent, substantial coverage that you'd want for NFILM. But I haven't looked through all of them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the film seems to be Persian, not "Arabic." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the second paragraph, which at this time is yet to be translated, has links to seven different websites. Based on the google translation of the paragraph, each of those links appears to be about a different award/prize won by the film. So there appears be the "independent, substantial coverage" available, but I cannot judge the contents of those links. We really need that second paragraph to be translated by a competent translator. I note that someone has pasted the google translation to the talk page, but that is not helpful because the links are lost. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked through them. They all appear to be short official news agency-type mentions that the film has won an award at one of several short and/or student film fests. Nothing there that would meet WP:NFILM, from what I can see. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_21&oldid=735572636"