Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:53, 7 October 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep per Criterion 3 as "[t]he nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Despite the nomination statement's claim that there are no sources in the article, at the time of nomination, the article had a valid inline source as well as external links that could serve as references. The nominator may have been misled by the out-of-date {{unreferenced}} banner, but it's clear he did not so much as skim the article. (As an aside, per ARTN, a lack of sourcing in the article is not a valid reason for deletion.)

Based on Citobun's evidence, Criterion 2(b) may also apply here. (non-admin closure) Rebb ing 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Kowloon Route

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

Article does not cite any source it therefore fails WP:GNG. Source found are promotional links Jamzy4 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one news link on the article, http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1236039-20160115.htm, isn't terribly good I agree. Gnews reveals more. ~~But not much more. I would say weak delete (and very selectively merge if desired) to~~ Hong Kong Strategic Route and Exit Number System does mention the proposed route, unreferenced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news sources mentioned by Shawn are probably enough to keep this, and the sources found by the Google Scholar and Google Books searches linked by the nomination process make notability beyond doubt. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I didn't get a chance to go beyond Gnews. Of course, then there's also the question of Chinese language coverage we're missing. This may well meet GNG, easily, if non-English sources are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep there's quite a bit of Gbooks coverage, too. I'll stay neutral but this does seem to be a notable planned (if delayed) transport infrastructure project in one of the world's leading urban centres. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is the three below deletion nominations in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Jobs (TV pilot)

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

TV pilot announced in 2010, but never actually produced, with no further development since. All references provided are from redundant 2010 announcement news stories reporting the same information, failing WP:NOT/WP:NOTNEWS: "Routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The announcement of a project in development 5-6 years ago is not itself notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The finished project would be the notable subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news on this since 2011. Can be recreated if it ever actually gets off the ground. ABF99 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a case of an article that was create WP:TOOSOON and then wound up languishing here ever since. The show was never produced, and has remained in limbo with no developments on it since 2011. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bithiri Sathi

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

Not so notable per WP:NACTOR and fails WP:BLPSOURCES. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 20:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero search results that completely fail GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some hits on WP:INDAFD search engines here, which include few passing mentions in English-language newspapers like this one and one or two interviews (I think) in Telugu language newspapers ([1]). I do not know Tamil, therefore cannot comment on coverage within their, but as far as Hindi and English language sources go, this one seems to me ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia failing both, WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Anup [Talk] 07:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Association of Architects

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#2 - bad faith nomination. Discussion about redirection/merging can take place on article talk page if still desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Kowloon Cultural Centre

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, Reliable source not found. Jamzy4 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with a smerge as needed) to Lower Ngau Tau Kok (II) Estate, where the Redevelopment section discusses these plans (briefly, and can be expanded). On one hand, there are sources for this, such as this one. On the other hand, this is a WP:CRYSTAL project, not slated to open until 2021, and with a long previous history of development delays. Policy urges to err on the side of caution with precisely this sort of future location. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note below. Additionally, construction is well underway on this building. When I have more time I can add more sources from English and Chinese media. But most importantly, this nomination was brought here in revenge by a single-purpose account with conflict of interest, not in good faith. Citobun (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is these three deletion nominations against him in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teacher

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

Doesn't meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria. One article source only mentions it in passing. Can't find reliable sources or significant coverage. Yintan 20:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added significant new reliable sources on the article. Keep the article.Riisen (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've deleted the article under CSD#G5 as it was created by a confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings Department

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

The result was speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Kuang English School

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and as a school it fails WP:NACADEMIC Jamzy4 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Included in the list of secondary schools by the Hong Kong Education Bureau, so covered under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NACADEMIC concerns people in academia like professors; it doesn't apply to schools at all. The guideline for schools is NSCHOOLS. Rebb ing 03:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is these three deletion nominations against him in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time, especially considering the article is well sourced with references to the South China Morning Post. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strugglers: The Reality Behind

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

Doesn't meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria at all. No reliable sources, no significant coverage. A few YouTube clips and one (minimal) listing on "Filmipop". IMDb hasn't heard of it either. Yintan 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is cited with national news paper references. It is extremely unfortunate about this editor's agenda driven vandalism. Riisen (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen:You've already been given a level4 warning for personal attacks. Stop it now. Yintan 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you, I have sent you national references, answer me about that, you are not answering me if i raise a valid point, you actually dont want to come to consensus about Kamalika Chanda article is notable. Riisen (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: Accusing me of "racial abuse", "harassment" and "chinese intolerance" is an attack. And I've already tried to explain the difference between 'notability' and 'existence' to you. Don't play dumb. Besides, if you've got a problem with my editing or my attitude, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. This is not the place for it. Yintan 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 11:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong deleteIs absolutely non-notable. Is missing even from IMDB. Extreme lack of independent coverage and sources. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Cornell. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scream Tour

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

Not notable nor referenced Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge An event not independently notable or deserving of it's own page. Instead it needs merged with the Chris Cornell page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Cornell; not independently notable per available sources. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. I don't see any reason for a merge as the article is currently an almost entirely unreferenced essay, listing just one source which is primary. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Cornell as stated above; otherwise just not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Examiner

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Plains

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

Article about an apparently non-notable road. Prod was declined. Peridon (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a road in Cobb County, and that's about it. There's not anything else notable about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:50k. We frequently delete such pages. This appears to be a run of the mill side road. Not all streets or roads are notable; perhaps one per 50,000 residents per community might be notable. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Gadsden

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

I still confirm my specific PROD here and I'll note searches at BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph only found a few links at the latter two (the Guardian had a few mentions whereas the Telegraph only actually had one) but they were never anything else but still being trivial and also for local art events therefore there's still nothing for actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Guardian review here is more than a mention and counts as coverage in a reliable source detailing her severe medical condition and her major part in an art exhibition at the Southbank which can be consideref as a national exhibition rather than a local exhibition. The Guardian review indicates there could well be similar coverage in other national newspapers that are not available free online. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That one review is still thin regarding actual substance of what would needed as noted by my nomination above, it's also not conceivable to say there could be other news online when I have in fact myself (as noted above) searched at every single major British newspaper, and found nothing but mere mentions. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the source mentioned above plus coverage of her work in Qatari newspapers [2][3] plus (less compelling, but still reliable) coverage from the UK Parliament [4] and magazines [5][6].--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Assaad

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

Fails WP:GNG, lady with a job The Banner talk 19:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement. JohnTombs48 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable person and WP isn't FB. Yintan 11:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure she's a lovely person, but unfortunately she doesn't meet the notability requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody wants to keep this, it seems. Sandstein 10:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva murugan temple, concord

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

The New York Times obituary for Sivaya Subramuniyaswami states "In 1957, he began teaching in San Francisco, where he founded what the paramacharya said was the nation's first Hindu temple."
This article asserts that "It is known as the first traditional Hindu temple established in the USA".
If the subject of this article is in fact any or all of:

a temple established by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami
the first traditional Hindu temple established in the USA
the the USA's first Hindu temple, traditional or not

then I would expect that there would be significant coverage in reliable sources of a place of worship called "Shiva Murugan temple", whether historically located in San Francisco or relocated to Concord. I have done due diligence, and have not found any evidence that this article matches any of those assertions.
As always, please do prove me wrong about this. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hindu Temple Society of North America says the one in Flushing, Queens, "was the very first of the traditional Hindu temples in the USA", and it has a reference and a side note. Page 720 of The Encyclopedia of New York State, while not explicitly confirming this, does seem to imply the claim: "Following the Immigration Act of 1965, Indian professionals and their families began settling in Flushing ... Humble beginnings in homes, apartments, basements ... and converted buildings led to the first traditional Hindu temples in the West." Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the above concerns could easily be allayed by "Shiva murugan temple is one of the first hindu temples in america ...", but is it notable ... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All Hindu Temples has a detailed account (not a mirror of WP) of the temple, with photographs. It certainly looks real; it may be that the temple itself submitted the text, but the photos indicate a real place. Temple Purohit has a briefer account and a map. Again, it isn't clear where the data came from but the temple seems real enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It's not a matter of whether it exists. There are lots of temples/churches/mosques/shrines. It's whether it is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that everyone who's contributed here is aware of that, which is why the discussion has been so cautious. However, if this is the first trad. Hindu temple in the West then it's certainly notable. We have established that it is a Hindu temple in the West, so we're part way there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first Hindu temple in America was however the San Francisco Vedanta Society's in 1906, following Vivekananda's 1893 visit, according to Timothy Miller's America's Alternative Religions. This is confirmed by the PBS Timeline: Faith in America. The Shiva Murugan temple was thus not the first in San Francisco; it could still have been the first traditional one, whatever that means, and it could have been established by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, since nobody seems too enthusiastic about this, I note that the claim to be the first traditional temple in the USA appears to be untrue, and I have removed it. There appears, therefore, to be nothing to prevent this article's deletion, and no sign of multiple, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. No doubt, when the temple has held some notable events an article could be written about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage found. To disclose, I previously prod'd the article. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fastvideo. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastvideo SDK

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

Fails WP:N. I find no coverage in unaffiliated sources meeting the general notability guidelines or any indication that this product meets the software notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shared my thoughts on this matter on the talk page of this article. Please review. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page, Fastvideo SDK is included into Nvidia's catalog of the selected GPU applications, also the corresponding results and benchmarks are published on Nvidia.com by Nvidia itself. Do you imply Nvidia is somehow affiliated with Fastvideo? I would say that is pretty much unrealistic. Implying that the library that is mentioned by Nvidia in its own catalog of GPU libraries is not notable is unrealistic too in a sense. I mean if the inventor of the technology mentioned the library that uses the technology - this is notable. And not just mentioned - Nvidia's GPU-accelerated applications catalog is a de facto golden standard in this industry. You won't see any apps or libraries there Nvidia do not recommend. They all (including Fastvideo SDK) are approved and tested by Nvidia. The catalog recommends apps, not just mentions them. Therefore, I do not see how Fastvideo SDK does not meet general notability guidelines or is affiliated. I'm looking forward to any comments on this. Thanks. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single line listing, among hundreds, in a commercial manufacturer's catalog, stating no more than a perfunctory "JPEG, JPEG2000, Raw Bayer codecs / Fast JPEG, JPEG2000, Raw Bayer encoding and decoding on CUDA / Has multi-GPU support" is not substantial coverage, let alone substantial coverage in multiple sources. Also, you'll find nothing in the notability guidelines that acknowledges notability on account of having been recommended by Nvidia—which, by the way, says nothing in this catalog about inclusion being equivalent to recommendation. As far as I can tell, all it's saying is that here are all the products that exist that are taking advantage of Nvidia's GPU technology. It's an Nvidia marketing vehicle and is, therefore, not coverage written at arm's length. Largoplazo (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Nvidia is a commercial manufacturer. But that does not make it less authoritative. What kind of more authoritative coverage do you mean then? More authoritative than Nvidia who - I repeat - invented the entire GPU stuff? Could you say who could that be?

Also, the catalog does NOT list "all the products that exist". This is a selective list. And there is no "Submit your own app" button there. It would be a pretty dumb marketing to just include every single GPU app on Earth to the list, don't you think? Anyway, the question is not about if the inclusion in the catalog is notable and substantial. It is, just because there are NO other catalogs nor other conferences in this industry. The question is, do you take Nvidia as a reputable and independent source or not. If yes, one source is enough. If no, well... I don't know what to say then. Nvidia is #1 expert in GPU computations. Best technologies, best specialists, best hardware. And yet it is still not reputable in the GPU field? That's nonsense.

You see, I understand and respect your formalism and adherence to the letter of the law. But the thing is, there are no other serious and reputable sources other than Nvidia in the GPU computation field. Not to mention more reputable ones. There are no multiple sources. And even if there were, they would simply blindly reprint what Nvidia says. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are essentially arguing that, for this one product, we should override the long chain of consensuses that have gone into the creation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and make up a new rule just for it. I think you're also continuing to conflate the quality of a product with its notability. Inclusion has nothing to do with the quality of a product. A product can be absolutely horrendous (see Microsoft Bob, for example) and still be notable.

I'm sorry, but Nvidia doesn't have the magical ability to confer notability, as Wikipedia defines it, all by itself, through a bare mention rather than substantial coverage, on each of the hundreds of products that appear in a catalog that it publishes just because it published them there, in complete disregard of Wikipedia's guidelines. If you meant to imply, above, that it's ridiculous to think that any reliable source (PC World? Game Informer? Esquire? The New York Times?) might have substantial coverage of it, then you're basically arguing that it isn't notable, and that even its inclusion in the catalog wasn't sufficient to draw anyone's attention. Largoplazo (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not override Wikipedia rules, of course. You should follow them. But from my point of view, the rules are for people, not people for the rules. And the magazines you listed have nothing to do with GPU computation and simply cannot say anything in this field without citing Nvidia. Therefore, their opinion on this topic is non-reputable even though they may provide wider coverage. Strange, but true. Anyway, thanks for considering and for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPivovarov (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage in reliable independent sources does not exist. Simply being associated with a notable company NVIDIA does not guarantee notability per WP:INHERITORG. There is nothing available which shows that this SDK is widely used. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; my original vote was to redirect to to Fastvideo where the subject was already mentioned. But my suggested target is at AfD itself so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fastvideo as a plausible search term. Fastvideo isn't deleted yet. --Mark viking (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 10:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C-drik Fermont

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO, and my searches find no in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The article is largely sourced to unreliable music fanzines without any reputation for accuracy, and coverage in reliable ones (e.g. Libération magazine) is always trivial, limited to no more than a sentence or two. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Wienbarg III

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the references actually establish subject's notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The subject has written articles and reported on many major topics for a widely disseminated media source and also wrote and produced a film for a notable historic cultural instution. He is also noted for his involvement with the famed Hollywood sign and credits as an actor. Brainplanner (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this on Wikipedia. He transformed the Hollywood sign into art works to be sold. By branding the sign for clothing he created a unique merchandising technique not used heretofore. What he did was notable as avant guard behavior that has come to be regarded as mainstream. Deleting this reference to George Wienbarg would make Wikipedia lless encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only are the 2 AfDs above simply stating he has authored contents and works, but they are not actually substantiating themselves with how, where and when they can actually improve this, how Wikipedia needs it, not what they want it to be like. There's nothing to suggest actual substance here and the obvious attempts at making the article seem larger than it actually is, is also noticeable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Subject is substantially referenced in at least two RSs from MSM. Played a role in the history of the Hollywood sign, and iconic landmark. Appeared in several films. The article could be pared down a bit and references cleaned up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a journalist does not inherit notability from his subject, unless he becomes the news or gains an award because of it. Typos indicate this might be a vanity page. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does not any longer seem to be a preponderance of typos.Brainplanner (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Case for notability seems to have been provenMasterknighted (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The source has been covered well through reliable sources and therefore makes it notable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - Well rounded entryJmpknoops (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article will be moved to List of AVA Productions films next. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVA Productions

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

No indication of notability. Lacking proper WP:RS. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm finding mentions but that's it, no actual substance for its own convincing article and there's nothing to be expected for inheriting it by simply being involving with other people and things. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list article and change title to List of AVA Productions films. Its products (many productions) are themselves sourcable as having won notable awards. Lacking use of available sources does not mean a topic fails, and SOURCES are available for that assertion of notability. WP:INHERIT is to be avoided if there was no logical supportive argument. Succinctly, if there was no production company there would be no films and no awards. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MichaelQSchmidt's arguments here make sense and are sound when looking at this objectively.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list article and move it to List of AVA Productions films. There are enough blue links to justify a list article. On sourcing issue: I adopt the above rationale (can repeat the same in my own words, if anyone want to). Anup [Talk] 08:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable production company that lacks sufficient RS to establish notability. I don't see a point in renaming to List of AVA Productions films as it would be WP:LISTCRUFT since the production company is non notable itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is fine that you choose to use a negtive essay as an argument, some others may believe MOS:LIST's WP:LISTPURP is the better means to evaluate how to properly share a list f notable topics when nowhere else is suitable . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep - This is another black and white case to me. The company has won prestigious national awards (there is independent 3rd party proof of that from multiple sources), what more is there to say?? The article is sufficiently referenced with solid sources, but a quick google search shows there are lots more references available to support the topic.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page should not be deleted as AVA productions is a notable production company in south India. The company has produced quite a number of movies and some of them have received national awards as well (the same can be validated with the sources listed - http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/kerala_state_film_award_for_best_film, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/adayalangal-wins-state-awards-for-best-malayalam-feature-film-best-director/article1235868.ece, etc). Not sure why this page got marked for 'speedy deletion'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkajal (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Note that "worldlibrary.org" is a Wikipedia mirror. Kuru (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- My reading of MOS:LIST is that it's not necessary to combine notable topics under an umbrella of a non notable one -- the only thing these entries would have in common would be the non notable production company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of the Keep comments have actually shown how, when, where and why we can finally improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had quite plainly above in case you missed reading it.. and the article's content is far better sourced than many list articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your comment of WP:JNN? Since others have described how and why after a renaming it IS notable enough under WP:LISTPURP, your claiming the opposite is kinda empty. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as a list article and change title to List of AVA Productions films. Its productions are themselves easily sourcable and have won notable awards. Remember,no production house=no films!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The possibility of merging in the future is, as ever, an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Klingon Way

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

Non-notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK). WP:TNT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I was not able to find a single book review that could help with WP:NBOOK. Anything salvageable can be moved to Marc Okrand though without sources there really isn't anything to save. - Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of copies and general reviews at Goodreads and Abebooks. Did someone notify the Star Trek project about this? It seems like a good start of a page, and of course, as do tens of thousands of pages, it needs citations, but there is no reason to delete. Randy Kryn 16:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As in, no WP:RS. That is a reason to delete per WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many new sources added on October 9 (see below), including an audiobook and its review by the Calgary Herald. Widefox, good job in pushing article improvement with this page, but maybe now please consider withdrawing this nomination? Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing still (11/10/16) fails GNG and NBOOK (see below). Widefox; talk 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete per nom. If more real-world context and third-party sourcing was available I might be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not finding evidence that that level of improvement is realistically attainable. DonIago (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the total lack of independent reliable sources either cited in the article or found by the various searches linked above, and this is a topic for which sources could be expected to be available online. Reviews in Goodreads and Abebooks are user generated, so it doesn't matter how many of them there might be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source, here is one source that mentions the book, from the Washington City Paper (which has a page here). There are many internet sources and reviews, but at least this one is a "real" publication. Randy Kryn 17:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The grand total of the coverage in that article is the single sentence, 'Meanwhile, Okrand has just released The Klingon Way: A Warrior’s Guide, featuring a slew of Klingon proverbs: “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”'. How can that one sentence in a local newspaper be the basis of an encyclopedia article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms that the book exists, confirms that is contains a "slew" of Klingon proverbs (which is a basis of the page), and even quotes one. Is that really a Klingon proverb? I thought it was an older saying, or maybe the Klingon's picked it up on a radio broadcast (and I thought Klingons like all of their dishes served either cold or wriggling). Will look for more sources later. Randy Kryn 20:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Revenge#Proverbs for evidence that this proverb didn't originate with this book, or with Klingons. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to claim that this proverb quoted by me as an example of the book structure is something originally "Klingon". Claiming that would be: 1) presenting own reasearch rather than documented research; 2) accepting an "in-universe approach". It was just an example, chosen by me by hazard, and nothing more.noychoH (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn [7] is a passing mention so doesn't count for one of minimum two in WP:NBOOK 1. Without a single WP:RS this is an argument to delete, per my nom. It doesn't even meet GNG or NBOOK. Not one RS so far, I couldn't find one quickly which is why I nommed per WP:BEFORE. Widefox; talk 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many reasons why I object to deletion (apart from the fact that I have created the article) are presented in the talk page to the article. The final one is that I believe in Wikiedia as a communal creation, I have created the basic stub, somone has added it to soem Wiki-community projects, someone will add some sources with quotations etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, it is very easy to destroy (delete), it is hard and time consuming to create. The attitude of the users who prefer destroying others' work to improving and commonly building is one of the reasons why many of my friedns have stopped working with Wikipedia altogether and I am also more often reluctant to start someting new, fearing that my effort would be destroyed by some fanatic of perfection from the very beginning. (no offence meant). noychoH (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What more, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Widefox, by reverting on 01:00, 30 September 2016 my edition, has deleted in fact several improvements introduced by me to the original article after his original critique - and despite my request in his discussion page to restore my editions first before adding the AfD template anew, he has not done it, although he has confirmed having read my request. (I have made my request to him to be polite to him and honest with him and also in order not to be accused of entering a war of editions). Unfortunately, I had technical problems with connecting to Wikipedia 24 hours ago, so I couldn't revert his edit myself, once having realised that he is not willing to show a bit of undertanding. ~~Now I have to describe his attitude as not fully honest.~~ noychoH (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, noychoH didn't dePROD as claimed [8], so I correctly took that as contesting the PROD, and waited for the dePROD, waited, messaged [9], waited, then took to AfD. noychoH then incorrectly removed the AfD (rather than PROD) [10] which I correctly reverted [11]. NoychoH, can you say what's not honest about me following policy? I've even explained your error to you here [12]. That accusation is a gross violation of WP:AGF, which reflects on you not me. Care to see the facts and strike? Widefox; talk 22:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the annoucement on dePRODING appeared on your talk page and the (earlier) act of dePRODing did not appear, there were some technical problems with my connection to Wikipedia for a few hours, so when I have realized that the dePRODing did not appear I have reinstated it, that's all. Your have reverted not only the dePROD template but all the 312 character long edit. When I got a connection again I saw that, and I have written to you explaining what happened and why, but you didn't react. Then I've lost the connection again and this has lasted till this morning. Now, above I did not say anything about your following the policy - as you could see, even yesterday I accepted it as a fact. But, following a policy is a formal rule that can be done by a machine as well. - I was talking about your lack of reaction to the whole situation, after you have read my request - which is related to a more human approach of understanding the context of the situation, the other's difficulties etc. I would have thanked you, had you paid attention to my request, but you just skipped over it. I didn't mean to offend you. Excuse me. noychoH (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want the whole issue to start resembling a personal dispute between two Users. Let it not cover the main point of this dicsussion: whether the article is good (even if only as a starting point), encyclopedic, needed, etc. and worth to be kept, or not. noychoH (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the edits, you undid the AfD not PROD. That is not allowed. End of story. This is both offtopic and moot. Without sources this will be deleted. Please see WP:ILIKE. Widefox; talk 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one final word to explain myself. It was not done with the undoing or reverting. Having realised that my editions were not saved to Wikipedia, I have simply copied and pasted the whole text of my edition from my notepad (where I usually paste it before clicking Save), without even realising that you had alread changed PROD into AfD (Maybe even my computer didn't show it, and showed something from the cache instead?? I've told you already that there were some technical problems that night). noychoH (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's now 6 sources, 2x trivial mentions (doesn't count for notability), and 4x others from Klingon Language Institute which according to our article is not fully independent of the author / advocacy group, so doesn't count for notability. I've tagged the article third party sources. There's still zero third party RS for notability. Widefox; talk 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more specialized the subject, the less possibility that there is an independent review different from a "trivial mention" (who is able to make a noteworthy review of a book on Bembe or Yukaghir language if one does not know the language? Who can spot printing errors in Klingon words if not a person who speaks Klingon? And most of those who are able to understand and speak or even write in Klingon, are members of the KLI, for practical reasons). The Wikpedia articles on higher algebra only cite the sources of those who practice higher algebra, often of their own professors. This does not mean they belong to their advocacy group.

It is obvious that a given Shakespeare Society's publication are highly dependant on Shakespeare, likewise KLI's publication, concentrating on the Klingon language as its object of research, are highly dependant on Klingon language resources, and these are not so numerous. Nevertheless HolQeD during 13 years of its existence was a reputed linguistic journal, with articles listed in the MLA reference publications. The articles published there are not "hymns to the praise of Marc Okrand" but they treat the subject in a neutral way. They admit his authority in the matters where he constitutes a real authority, like creation of new words, but not necessarily otherwise (similarly as Zamenhof constituted an authority in the beginning of the Esperanto movement for the authors of Esperanto dictionaries and grammars, but not necessarily in everything). Especially one should take take into consideration context of the lawsuits concerning the intelectual property rights to Klingon language (Marc Okrand alone was comissioned by the Paramount Pictures to create/build the Klingon language and authorised to develop it subsequently). Your opinion on HolQeD based on the Wikpedia article Klingon Language Institute is at the best a hasty overinterpretation of the information contained within that article (leading to a grave misinterpretation of the facts). Neither KLI as a whole nor single KLI members publishing their articles in HolQeD do belong to Marc Okrand's advocacy group. Nor is Marc Okrand a member of KLI, or a person related to the board, he is just their guest from time to time.

In my talk page I have typed in some excerpts from the review by Captain Krankor, in oder to show you (an the others interested) the level of scholarly work and independent research (beyond simply quoting Marc Okrand) done. noychoH (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's merit in the level of independence argument, that source still doesn't count per WP:NBOOK 1. This excludes... author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book (emphasis own). Even if it was a WP:RS (which should be taken to the WP:RSN) - how can we build an WP:NPOV article if the only sources are from a) one source b) which is an advocacy group? WP is WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX, we're not an extension of one website. Widefox; talk 10:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete it anyhow~~ - I can see that the more the article is improved, the more objections from Widefox does it raise. He introduces new tags but does not care to remove the tags that are no more valid or are obviously false from the beginning, like the {in-universe|date=September 2016} one. It seems to me that the article will be deleted anyhow, so it is a waste of time to try to improve it. noychoH (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [13]. Widefox; talk 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(excuse me, I've removed the non-applicable tags, anyone could have done it BTW). Widefox; talk 00:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your previous reactions I was afraid of removing anything introduced by you, not to be accused of e.g. starting edit-wars. Who can delete tags if not the one who has introduced them (who else can know the intention behind a tag than the one who introduced it)? But encouraged by you, I understand now that after making some more improvements, I am now allowed to delete the tags as well.

The problem is that you seem to be very strict about everything (too strict in fact, to my taste. E.g. your presumption of bad faith on my side on an accidental replacing of your signature with some meaningless content (yet not being a vandalism) - how does it differ from my earlier words about your not being fully honest, apart from the words themselves being used? It's not a rhetorical question so if you answer me, I'd like to know your opinion. But it's OK, if you don't want to, dont't worry, just think about it. I have now striked through my earlier words, to wit, previously I didn't fully understand what you meant by: "Care to see the facts and strike?", I think this is a shortcut that allows for different interpretations, anyhow, I was more concentrating on "see the facts" and why you don't want to see the other side of the facts.

I have explained in your talk page why I consider this space to be a relevant place for this kind of discussion in this context. noychoH (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi noychoH. Maybe you should ~~strike out~~ either your "Keep" or "Delete" comment, as you've now 'voted' both ways. It's a good page, so I hope you remove your delete comment. ~~Some editors are what we call 'deletionists', and they will find reasons to delete just about anything they set their mind to~~. I don't know why. But please don't ~~let it discourage you enough to~~ delete your own page, which might have to be called it's own genre of editor (self-deletionists?), defined as "Those who create good pages and then lobby to delete them even as they try to improve them". A symbol for self-deletionists can be designed which they can put on the top of their user page. What goes around comes around, and then gets deleted. Randy Kryn 15:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some childish dispute between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", but an issue of whether this article conforms to the basic requirement of being based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you and NoychoH and NoychoH's friends want to write about things that don't belong in Wikipedia then there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Randy Kryn, for your advice. noychoH (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.17.222.157 is right. Attempts to personalise just indicate being too emotionally involved and get in the way of core principles. The AGF violations have gone too far and are tiresome. What is this anyhow, a fan thing, POV pushing or a WP:COI? Hey, I'm a Star Trek fan but suggest this is Salted to prevent further attempts at recreation and abuse of other volunteers. This is just not acceptable noychoH. Widefox; talk 09:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely do not understand what you mean, as a whole. (I am not a Star Trek fan, I am just "fan" of the Klingon language and other constructed languages, just like authors of the articles on higher algebra are "fans" of mathematics. And I am not against other users improving on what I have done, just the contrary). But I am not familiar with discussions using a hundred of acronyms instead of normal words. It's like instead od saying "understand" I would say COD1266-7 (leaving for you to divine that I mean "Concise Oxford Ditionary [of Current English, sixth edition, 1976], pages 1266-1267, and which of the numerous meaning contained within the article on "understand" do I mean). Your are breaking the basic rules of human communication, and Randy Kryn was right in describing your attitude, and I start wondering if have been right in striking out what I have striked out. You may ban me now, if you like. Anyhow, I am also tired with all this, and since now on I shall not say a word. Let it go as it goes. noychoH (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(linked above). WP:FAN seems to be the most pertinent, where concentrating on notability is helpful. Trying to retain this article in the face of our policies is what? Calling others names (ad hominem) just because they don't agree with you reflects badly, and I advise to strike this nonsense. (I've given a L3 warning to the editor that this is unacceptable, despite two of us pointing this out). Widefox; talk 12:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a deletionist is not a "name", it's a description (Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia). I'm a self-defined inclusionist. And the above "If you and NoychoH and NoychoH's friends want to write about things that don't belong in Wikipedia..." qualifies as deletionist language, so pointing that out is not nonsense or calling names, but a factual point in this discussion. Randy Kryn 13:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not "deletionist language", but simply a statement of Wikipedia's core principles and an attempt to help you find an outlet for such writings. I have no time for anyone who defines themselves as either "deletionist" or "inclusionist", because they are both childish tribal labels that take no account of the policies and guidelines agreed here by consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The Irish Times is a very reliable source, and combined with other sources the article is now well-sourced, is a topic which many readers are interested in, and the original author has added to the page and has accurately defended this page. Some editors who still want this page deleted may think that articles about the Klingon language do not belong in Wikipedia, as was mentioned in the above discussion, but the language seems to be very well documented, sourced, and a part of both the Star Trek culture and the real-world culture. With the addition of the sources, especially The Irish Times, maybe this deletion request should be withdrawn. Full disclosure, I am a fan but not a fanatic about Star Trek, do not speak or write Klingon or know anyone who does (besides NoychoH, who I've just "met" after coming upon his new page, and who I've asked to tell me how my user name would be written and pronounced in Klingon and he has ignored my polite request! Grrr, roar, gnnork), but I do believe that articles about the language are perfectly fine as subjects to be covered in this encyclopedia, and that this article is now a very good page pertaining to the subject thanks in large part to the pressure put upon it by this deletion discussion. Randy Kryn 13:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above (passing mentions don't count for notability per WP:GNG and "non-trivial" in WP:NBOOK). Restating it does nothing, as what you believe is irrelevant in the face of basics such as WP:N and WP:RS. I count zero refs for notability (above). Best to focus on finding sources for notability rather than blaming the messenger and speculating the motivations of other editors per WP:AGF. Widefox; talk 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out above that the Washington City Paper only had one sentence about the subject, so doesn't amount to significant coverage, but The Irish Times has even less than that, as it covers five books in a single sentence. As I've already said, I'm sure that there are wikis for fans of constructed languages and/or Star Trek on the Internet that welcome such original research, but Wikipedia doesn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for calling you a deletionist. I don't know if you are or not, and have not looked at your contributions page. It just makes me sad the few times I've been involved in deletion discussions how many good pages must be removed on a daily and weekly basis, and I'm taking that out on you guys. And I want to assure you that I have no interest in writing about Klingon language on any blog, but thank you for the suggestion. I know as much about the language as I do about any obscure tribal language. But it is a language, and there certainly seems nothing wrong in having Wikipedia articles about it, so I was a bit confused why you kept wanting me to write on a blog and that this seemingly accepted language doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You are apparently saying it in good faith, so I'll respect your point of view. But since other articles about the language exist on Wikipedia, and this has been called a canonical book by the languages' leading journal, it seems like an easy Keep now. This is mainly because you and Widefox pushed the original writer, and I fell into it while on an italics run, and helped out at first because it's a Star Trek related page. Then you've pushed both of us, and I think the page shaped up under that deletion pressure. But now I think it's fine, and those journal cites should probably be the thing saving it. Randy Kryn 1:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a powerful argument. How can it be fine with 0 (zero) RS (per above notability)? Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer, there are multiple cites on the page from HolQeD. The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute, which was published quarterly for 13 years by the Klingon Language Institute. Now, if this was a book about medicine, or about astronomy, or just about anything, a professional journal apparently respected as the main journal of the subject, in this case the Klingon language, would be accepted immediately as a source. Why not this one? If you notice in some of the above comments, I've been told several times that if I and others want to write about this subject that we should take it to some kind of blog. I've seldom seen this type of bad faith at Wikipedia~~, and I've stopped answering those comments~~. I don't care a hoot about the Klingon language, but it seems to be a notable subject both here and elsewhere. And its top organization, the Klingon Language Institute, which used to publish the accepted journal of the field, a journal which is referenced several times on the page, calls The Klingon Way one of the canon books in that field. If the Journal of the American Medical Association called a book a canon in its field, that source would be accepted without question. I think the same courtesy should be extended to this page. Randy Kryn 22:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One source (and an advocacy one at that) for a whole article doesn't fit our core principles (per above). This is better elsewhere like a specialist wiki as correctly recommended. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to author. Trim unreferenced stuff. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, c'mon, this is an important book, we may as well delete the articles on the Oxford dictionary or the Bible's Book of Proverbs!, anyway, disappointing that the author article, doesn't have more on this book, so if this article goes under, a paragraph could be added there. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marc Okrand (and protect it) We require reliable third party sources specifically so that we know that the topic was noticed by the world at large and we do not become a collection of indiscriminate information. The Klingon institute is too affiliated to be of use here. I think a redirect is best here. If at all any information needs to be merged (though I don't see a reason for merging), it will be available from the history. Personally, I think for stuff like this Wikia is the best place to create articles. The Wikis over there are specifically devoted to a particular fandom and also edited by enthusiasts. It's a great way of preserving information not suitable for a general purpose encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer if we redirect (which is also fine by me), then please protect to prevent recreation and a repeat of abuse per above. Widefox; talk 09:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. This definitely needs to be protected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Mark Okrand. The Klingon Institute-related sources establish that the book is of interest to some readers, but the independent sources aren't sufficient to establish notability apart from Okrand or Klingon fandom. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment to closer, there are only 15 blue linked pages in List of Star Trek reference books, and this is now one of them (the listing was red-linked before). Please note the words and mocking tone on this nomination page, and the requests for the people "defending" it to go away, to go to a wiki, or a blog. As I've said, I know nothing of this language, but it is a real language and other pages on Wikipedia show that it has been accepted here. The original editor has done a fine job, above, of defending the Journal as a reputable journal. He shows that it is not closely related to the book aside from being from the same field, the study of the Klingon language. I hope you are not a nose-counter, but a closer who takes time to study this discussion, the page itself, and the related pages. I see this page as a fine addition to the Star Trek collection on Wikipedia, and hopefully, as one of only 15 blue-linked Star Trek reference books, it will avoid the pattern of Star Trek red-uniforms and escape falling into a red-link again. Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop interpreting well-meaning advice about where to find a suitable place for such writing as being told to go away. Nobody has said that you as a person are not welcome here, but we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My advice wasn't "mocking" or anything. Wikia is a pretty good place to keep this information. See memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Klingon_Way. It allows for a much lower threshold of RS which I think is necessary for a specialised fandom encyclopaedia. I'm a fan of Harry Potter myself and for detailed descriptions of characters, I generally consult the Harry Potter wikia and not Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemongirl1942. Again, it seems that the Klingon language has been recognized here and elsewhere as a legitimate language. I am not a speaker or fan of the language, or have any interest in reading or writing about it on a wikia blog, but others may, and some others will look to Wikipedia for the information. Since you are a Harry Potter franchise fan (as are we all), this would be like removing Potter pages from Wikipedia because some editors feel they do not fit, that they are not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. My point, and a point ably discussed by the original editor, is that the Journal of the Klingon Language Institute is a legitimate and professional source, that it regards this book as canon, and as the main journal pertaining to a modern tribal-like constructed language its cites are adequate to keep The Klingon Way as an article here. Replace the word "Klingon" with "Esperanto" and this would be an easy Keep. Randy Kryn 11:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Klingon is WP:NOTINHERITED by this book. The single source is an issue. As for Esperanto and Harry Potter, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't powerful. These are all covered above (and on your talk Randy Kryn). Widefox; talk 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Potter pages have been merged/redirected, which is exactly what I am suggesting here. Most Harry Potter pages have multiple reliable third party sources describing them. That's missing here. I would have accepted the journal but I don't see any indication that is a well known peer reviewed journal. And even if I accept that, it is still one review. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the best thing those who feel this article should be kept could do is provide at least one independent source that discusses the book in some detail. That would be a much more productive approach than arguing about it here. DonIago (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep We've got two mainstream sources that mention it and rather specialized sources that have reviewed it. The question is if the specialized sources are independent enough, and other than the nature of the narrow topic, they seem to be. Hobit (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Updated to a pure keep based on sources listed below. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions don't count for notability. A single advocacy source isn't in line with core principles. Widefox; talk 14:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They do count, just not for much. For WP:N, I'm relying on the reviews. But the reviews are coming from what is, in effect, a "walled garden" of a hyper-specialized area. I prefer to see at least some impact outside of that narrow area. And mentions like the ones we have are exactly that. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it counts? At WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK it says "two or more non-trivial", i.e. these trivial do not count. Explicitly. There's no walled garden, there's just no coverage. If we drop the bar for notability so low that an article requires just a single source from a non-RS journal from their own advocacy group, then that's WP:INDISCRIMINATE with no chance at NPOV etc. It's fundamentally WP:NOT. Widefox; talk 18:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are "trivial mentions". They only mention it once, but in both cases, they go out of their way to do so when providing background. Certainly not hugely in-depth, but relevant none-the-less. And which of the 4 prongs of INDISCRIMINATE does this even in theory violate? In all cases, we've met WP:V, we've got a case (like it or not) for WP:N. And yes, we often weigh sources by their quality. It's not unusual for something to be kept if we've got two strong sources. It's also not unusual to keep something that has one strong source and a lot of much weaker ones. This is common practice--it's not a bright line that once you're over it counts toward WP:N and if you aren't, it doesn't. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial/passing mention isn't what you think it is. There's consensus here they are trivial/passing mentions and as we go by consensus for common practice your second point seems moot. Per INDISCRIMINATE To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Widefox; talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft; two passing mentions in newspapers do not amount to the coverage in third-party sources required per WP:GNG. The fan institute and its writings do not seem sufficiently independent and reliable. Possibly also redirect and protect as suggested. Sandstein 12:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to Klingon language#Sources. The sources mention it in passing but not in detail, and obviously the KLI is not an independent source here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or possibly a selective merge) to Klingon language#Sources. The author's article is a perfectly acceptable target, but maybe the Klingon article will give readers more info about the language, which is presumably what they're seeking. There's been a lot of discussion about the sources, but I'm just not seeing how they can establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and the fact that something exists is simply not good enough for an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia. I'm unconvinced that the Klingon Language Institute can establish notability, as it's more-or-less Okrand's fan club. It's like how half of those Transformers articles are sourced to official fan club magazines. I'm sure the fan club magazines have lots of useful info, but they can't establish notability by themselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I don't buy the independence arguments. Having said that why not, given that editor opinions differ ,merge instead to the author's article? It seems like a ton of virtual ink has been spilled when the middle ground--cover the book, but not with its own standalone article--is clearly preferred in deletion policy, WP:ATD-M.Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my previous merge opinion in view of the increasingly large constellation of reliable sources, and the increasingly shrill objections of the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not just independence, but also "self-interested parties" WP:NBOOK, single source, there's no WP:RSN, fails WP:BOOKCRIT 1. no, 2. no, 3. no, 4. no, 5. no. . The journal is hardly Nature, but indulging... our guideline....WP:SCHOLARSHIP says to check citation indexes. Not done. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis own). A shred of evidence would help any argument trying to make the claim this is an RS. Anyone done that? Widefox; talk 18:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Klingon (or Klingon Language, for that matter) a point of view? You're not helping your cause out here by throwing around language that clearly doesn't apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN it's for those claiming the journal is a RS to reason it with that guideline when challenged, which has not been done yet. Don't think anyone disputes KLI's goal "Its goal is to promote the Klingon language and culture". Widefox; talk 10:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to lead editor's user space for continued revision and redirect to Okrand in the interim ... or just delete: ~~the cited sources seem to substantiate the book's content~~ Some cited sources are self-published wikis that fail to meet WP:RS. The Irish Times article does not mention this book at all, and likewise the cited academic journal is about a different Klingon text. The article does not even assert, absent substantiation, that the book is significant -- and, I doubt substantiation for such a claim (for a niche publication over 20 years old) exists. In other words, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG. Still, if someone's interested in working on the article without a looming AfD deadline, perhaps shift it to a willing participant's user space so interested folks can continue to scour for third-party commentary at their own pace and ping the wikiproject page for feedback before a possible re-introduction as an article. Such a rewrite would need to articulate why the book matters, and not just what's inside. But, considering it's a long shot, I don't think it's appropriate for this article to linger in article spaaaaaaaace, the final frontier. --EEMIV (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In addition to the sources above, there is a brief mention of the book in the journal of Science Fiction Studies[14]. There are also 34 hits in GScholar, and skimming a number of those indicate that this book is a good or possibly canonical source for Klingon quotes. So the book is clearly of note by a specialized subset of academic community, but I have not found any in depth commentary on the book itself. Hence the book seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. But per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, preserving verifiable material is preferable to deletion. In this case, selective merge of basic facts about the book is supported by multiple brief reliable sources and total deletion would be against policy. I think Klingon language#Sources is the best target, but the author's article would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens also said to merge, so you're agreeing to that too? Widefox; talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now struck my merge opinion, see above. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Miyagawa who has access to a number of Star Trek sources and may be able to shed some light on this. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting to see a mention of this in Voyages of Imagination, which is the sourcebook for the fiction novels in the Star Trek universe - however, there wasn't even a mention of The Klingon Way at all. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I've had a look through some databases, and here's what I came up with.
- A mention ("...including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)...") in The Irish Times. A good source but not enough to establish notability.
- A review of the audiobook in the Calgary Herald. A good source and helps along the way to notability.
  McKenzie, Grant (January 25, 1997). "The accent's on audio". Calgary Herald. p. E15.
- A passing mention, with a general discussion about Okrand's work, in The Globe and Mail. A good source, but does not establish notability of the book.
- Similar in The Ottawa Citizen (with roughly the same article in The Toronto Star). Again; good source, but does not establish notability.
- A passing mention in Star Trek: A Post-structural Critique of the Original Series, but with a note that the book has been "embraced" by some. Possibly helpful for notability.
- Discussion on Motherboard, which seems to be from Vice Media, so a good indication of notability.
Keep, based on the sources above and in the article, especially HolQeD. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, and thanks for adding the audiobook and its review into the page itself. As said before, this page has benefited by this nomination and discussion, yet maybe now is a good time to withdraw this nom. The preponderance of sources now seems to have met notability, and the tags on the page are all falling to the wayside. Randy Kryn 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, certainly don't withdraw my "delete" opinion. The sources offerred above are pure barrel-scraping, and don't amount to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that we require for all subjects, including articles about topics related to Star Trek and constructed languages. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP editor - as passing mentions don't count for notability, several of them still don't count (n x 0 = 0). [15] is a passing mention too. Widefox; talk 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, did you read the new section on the audiobook and its review in the Calgary Herald? And that the audiobook was read by the actor who played Worf? That's notable in itself, let alone to have a major newspaper review the audiobook. It is my uninformed understanding that a main reason that pages are put on deletion review is that interested editors will then improve them. This has been done here, by several editors. As the nominator I hope that a reason you nominate pages here is that there would be saves. This does seem like a save. Randy Kryn 00:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my comment is based on these new sources. I can't verify the audiobook as I didn't find it on Google or using the info in the citation. The notability of the audiobook (not notable with ~~1 RS~~ four sentences) is NOTINHERITED from Worf or it's actor. If counting that for the book, that results in ~~1 RS~~ four sentences which is still short or GNG/NBOOK and we can't make an article about the book based on ~~1 RS~~ four sentences (and the audiobook would presumably be a related media with different code/ISBN, so is tangential and wouldn't help us build an article much). This isn't a vote and arguments based on policy/guideline have more weight. Widefox; talk 12:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

This motherboard/Vice media source is a trivial mention. I don't see any significant coverage of the book itself.
I am unable to find a link to the review of the audio book. Can anyone provide the link? A database link would be OK as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We can't base an book article on 1 RS which is for an audiobook (irrespective of being able to verify it or not). Impossible to even write a WP:PERMASTUB as it fails GNG. Per WP:Indiscriminate (above), sure we can verify it exists, doesn't pass the most basic of notability, and not enough to write an article. This is unlikely to be WP:TOOSOON as it's years ago. Widefox; talk 13:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: Thankfully, there is no requirement that you, Widefox, are personally able to verify the existence of a review in order for that review to count as a reliable source. It can be checked by anyone with access to Nexis; unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be veering dangerously close to accusing me of making up the source. We now have a review of the audiobook in a broadsheet newspaper, a review of the book itself in a (weird but nonetheless scholarly) journal, and several mentions in journalistic and academic sources indicating that the book has some considerable significance for fans of Star Trek. In my judgement, that's enough. You don't have to agree with me, but it'd be nice if you tried to treat me as something other than a possibly-lying-but-clearly-deluded fool, which is definitely the impression I'm getting from you now. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the whole "permastub" rhetoric is inappropriate, as well. There are plenty of sources which are worth citing but which nonetheless do not meet the bar for the purposes of the GNG. The Institute, the book itself and other work to which the author has contributed could all be cited. Additionally, we have the various sources third-party sources that have been listed which mention the book without being about it. I can't see the article ever being long, but it could certainly be more than a stub. Again- reasonable people can disagree, but let's not overstate our cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I'm aware of that, which is why I added "irrespective of being able to verify it or not" meaning I don't personally need to see it to believe it's there. In your opinion the journal counts as an RS? I'm not sure where your tone is from, but it's clear my words have given you an impression I never intended. In that respect, if you reread now I've reiterated that you don't need to clarify about WP:V with me, you'll see that your comment fails WP:AGF straw-man. I do expect you to strike once you've realised this. As our guideline says such a journal is not an RS, I'm curious about your reply, and would help keep this about the sources. It only further illustrates how this needs protecting due to wild accusations. Widefox; talk 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it common practice to stub articles as we base on reliable secondaries? This is moot as we have only ~~1 RS~~ four sentences, but just clarifying common practice which I hardly call "rhetoric". I'm also not the only person claiming this doesn't meet GNG, or is not convinced of the sources, so I'm hardly an outlier here. Widefox; talk 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made up your mind on this article, and that's fine, but your continued patronising, belittling tone is making me quite sure I have no interest in dealing with you. I have nothing further to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The review doesn't count per Lemongirl942 (below). (And, that does have nothing to do with me). In the face of that assessment, the lack of sources speak for themselves for those open enough to comment on the sources rather than on other editors. Good day to you, Widefox; talk 09:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Audio Book review I managed to hunt down the audio book review. It is part of a 610 word column which talks about. The entire coverage about the book is here (short enough to quote per fair use)

Well, since this column seems to be focusing on accents (Irish and British), how about a little Klingon? The Klingon Way is a warrior's guide to understanding such great Klingon proverbs as "Four Thousand throats my be cut in one night by a running man." Noted Klingon language and cultural expert Marc Okrand collects the wisdom of these great warriors and has two of TV's best-known Klingons (Lt. Worf from Star Trek: The Next Generation and B'Elanna Torres from Voyager) read the phrases in Klingon and explain their importance. If you've ever wanted to toss some conversational Klingon into a friendly chat, this audio will quickly have you up to speed and make you the hit of the next Trekker convention. Non-Trekkers, on the other hand, won't have a clue what they're listening to.

4 sentences is not significant coverage. Per WHYN and WP:PAGEDECIDE, I don't see a need for this to exist as a standalone article at this moment. The book hasn't received enough attention for that. My !vote for redirecting and selectively merging any content from the history stands. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% . Widefox; talk 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion, as requested on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. To parallel what 86.17.222.157 said, the only applicable content in the Irish Times piece is "and since then there have been a range of books, including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)". There's not enough here to merit a standalone article and I'm disappointed the bar for inclusion has gotten so low. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Irish Times is only one source out of many now included on the page, and it's a good source as are most of the rest, WP:FANCRUFT does not apply here. The essay states "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." (boldface added). There is a real world institute academically focused on this language, there was a real world journal published by that institute, and there are real world speakers of this language. The institute, journal, and speakers apparantly consider this book canon. Randy Kryn 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FANCRUFT "is often a succinct and frank description... it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism." which certainly is in play here. WP:NOTINHERITED applies, too. It doesn't matter if there's a real world institute about a debatably "real" language. That they consider this book canon doesn't make the book notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the judgement of those of us who support keeping the article has been "clouded by fanaticism"? Josh Milburn (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from the keep arguments I'm seeing. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussion in an academic journal, a review in the mainstream press, and multiple mentions in the press and academic works, some of which indicate that the book is important to/for certain groups and others of which discuss the book in the context of the author's wider work. In my judgement, that's enough to support keeping an article. I'm not sure where the fanaticism enters, and neither am I sure why this discussion continues to get personal. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I don't take The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute seriously. The mere mentions in newspapers are just that. I don't see general notability here. I'm not seeking to make the debate personal but I cannot understand the mental contortions being performed. GNG, based on this discussion, seems to be becoming a far lower bar than I think anyone ever intended. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is indexed by the Modern Language Association and cited/mentioned as a scholarly source in plenty of academic works (for example, here and here). We can have a serious discussion about its reliability and/or independence from the subject, but to scathingly/sarcastically dismiss it because it is affiliated with the Klingon Language Institute hardly seems fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your two examples are poor ones to use: the first is a mere mention in the discussion of invented languages and the second only says "There is a journal for the study of the Klingon language (HolQed)". Neither makes the journal notable and the journal's mention of the book doesn't convince me of GNG. In such a niche field that has very little to cover I'd posit one discussing the other is neither notable nor relevant. When The New York Times reviews the book I'll reconsider. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the journal was notable. All I said was that its existence as an academic journal is attested to in a number of reputable scholarly publications. You don't think that discussion of the book in this journal is of significance, I do. That's fine, we can disagree, but let's be clear about the issues at stake. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Merge - sorry, but after doing a bit of research, it's glaringly obvious that the article doesn't meet WP:N & WP:GNG, but as it could meet WP:NPOSSIBLE in the future, I agree that it should be merged with the author's page. I mean, the language obviously is notable, but that doesn't mean that the book (this article is about) is too. N. GASIETA|talk 21:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, amomg the most oft-repeated delete rationale is that this is some novelty. Nonetheless, it seems the article discusses the discusses a book that gives an outline for a prominent linguistic phenomenon and the sources did seem satisfactory to me. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the presses (always wanted to say that), I've come across a pretty good answer to editors who have questioned Klingon's status as a real language during this discussion (which I guess I mentally did as well, to tell the truth, but am getting to like the concept more as this delete discussion continues. It seems an interesting experiment in sound-to-symbol system evolution). Much of The Klingon Way's right to exist as a Wikipedia page seems to rest on the question that some have posed about the Klingon language, the Klingon Language Institute, and its academic journal, to paraphrase, "Is Wikipedia the right place to include articles about this made-up language, or should the acceptance and information about Klingon be left to fan-sites and blogs?". So, after this longwinded intro, and in defense of keeping our page on what apparently is one of this weird languages' canonical books, here is a sentence from our Klingon language article: "The 2003–2010 version of the puzzle globe logo of Wikipedia, representing its multilingualism, contained a Klingon character." Randy Kryn 2:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Of the 16 languages represented on Wikipedia's historic first silver-ball logo, the Klingon letter is the one here, on the top right. I guess it might represent something close to a 'W' in Klingon. Randy Kryn, 2:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

New source added, an editor has added a new source] to the page, From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages by Michael Adams published in 2011. Randy Kryn 13:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a great source and worth citing in the article, but it should be noted that Okrand is one of the authors of that chapter, so it isn't as helpful for notability as it may first seem. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, didn't know that. Yet it is at least another source, as it seems Michael Adams either edited or wrote the book, and had to both ask the author to add information to his book and also, hopefully, fact-check the author's work. The cites of the journal, to me, do establish notability, and combined with the rest should be enough to keep the article mainspaced. Especially with Wikipedia's use of the Klingon "letter" (sound? growl?) in the open-globe image from 2003 to 2010, one of only 16 languages chosen. If the main academic journal of this Wikipedia-honored language calls a book 'canon', that has got to count for something. Randy Kryn 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone locate a copy of "Krankor, Captain (June 1996). "From the Grammarian's Desk". HolQeD. The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute. 5 (2 (18)): 2–6. ISSN 1061-2327." ? I cannot even confirm such an article exists outside this Wikipedia. It seems that it is not digitized at all :( PS. If you reply to me, please echo me back. Tnx. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted what I think is the publisher and they say it was an article but that republication rights in electronic media are less than clear and won't share it with me. It is apparently republished in [16]. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think that with a little tightening up and a few more sources, this could be a just fine article. However, it seems to me that with all the discussion that's taken place on this page, that if such edits would improve the article duly, they would have been made. As such, I recommend merging the content into the Klingon language article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did intend to spend some time on the article, but I have been very busy and was put off by the way this discussion was going. I may try to put something together this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Center for Atmospheric_Research#Tools and technologies. And merge as desired from history. Sandstein 10:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCAR Command Language

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The fact that a programming language is used does not necessarily make it notable. ubiquity (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think NCL is a quite relevant language to atmospheric scientists, and it is actively developed. I noticed that it is installed on the main server of my lab. (I'm an ocean modeller; I don't use NCL.) Hulten (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surely no scientist but the Gbooks results seem quite robust. Also rather than deletion a redirect and merge to National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research#Tools_and_technologies might also be an option? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Hulten (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support redirect/merge. ubiquity (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Hillclimb Championship

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

fails WP:GNG. Not a national Championship. Zero hits in gnews and gbooks which I find unusual as it's a long standing recurring event that you would think get some coverage in Australian press but none LibStar (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely notable even in the realm of Australian motorsport. Cases like this are a common thread across the Australian Motorsport project...people seem to think that lower-level Australian motorsport is much more notable than in reality. – Ky ta bu 03:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for this article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tunney Hunsaker

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

Fails WP:NBOX and is a not notable small town politician. He was the first to fight Ali first, but such things aren't covered under NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Does not pass WP:GNG either. Notability is not inherited by who you interact with.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a biographical profile in an entire chapter devoted to him in the book Facing Ali. Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times features an interview of Hunsaker. The Ali-Hunsaker fight is a historic boxing match because it was the first fight of Ali as a professional.Finally, Hunsaker must have been a prominent figure in his own right considering he has a bridge named after him.The official website of the eponymous bridge ( https://officialbridgeday.com/in-the-shadow-of-the-new-river-gorge-bridge-the-tunney-hunsaker-bridge/ ) says: "The bridge was eventually renamed in honor of Tunney Hunsaker, the long time Chief of Police in Fayetteville. Tunney was the youngest Chief of Police in WV when he got the job at age 27." Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bridges and infrastructure are regularly named after local people. How many communities named something after a fallen soldier since the war on terror started? Source for this information may not pass WP:RS too. It is a privately run website....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Some more material about Hunsaker which indicates that he was a notable figure: Obituary in Los Angeles Times and What happened to Tunney Hunsaker. Soham321 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My interest is bridges, rather than boxing. Whether or not Hunsaker himself is sufficiently notable is one question; the notability of the bridge named after him is a separate question. To the latter, I must say, this bridge is notable as a predecessor of the major New River Gorge Bridge. Therefore: Keep, in some form. One good way to cover the bridge is to keep a biographical article, in which coverage of the bridge should be kept rather like it is now. (A refinement would be to add a heading.) In case there is enough opinion that the biographical article should be deleted, an alternative would be to write a brief article on the bridge, which would include at least a brief mention of who Hunsaker was. But can we delete the bio, without providing an article on the bridge? I don't care for that at all. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article transcends WP:NBOX. It meets WP:GNG by virtue of an obituary in the Los Angeles Times and a feature in another major national newspaper. It's not a WP:INHERITED case, Hunsaker is not just a footnote to Ali's career, he's a personage "worthy of note", as WP:GNG terms it. It's the sources that have decided that. Spicemix (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He hasn't "inherited" notability by fighting Ali first, but instead has become notable himself at least partially because of that fight. The LA Times obit and the profile in Facing Ali make that much clear. agtx 17:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed some unbelievably minor trivia to concentrate on the notable part of his career. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has since been improved and consensus is to keep, This should never have been relisted but anywho closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Braiterman

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

~~Delete~~-~~No notability except being a proffesor in a (reputed??) university.Article sources are closely associated with subject!~~ Keep-I think the improvements by Squeamish Ossifrage has taken the article to another level! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete doesn't seem to be notable at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Struck vote, and changed to Keep based on much improved article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the materials available, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source used, and it's from the university he works at. Too closely affiliated on its own to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having hopefully met the Heymann Standard. I came to this AFD with the assumption that a cursory source search would reveal the big fat nothing that these one-line substub article subjects always produce. But actually, there's quite a bit out there. His first major book is cited all over the place, and his second received a full review in a scholarly journal (and nontrivial references in a few other places). I slapped together a somewhat better, more thoroughly referenced version. It's still a stub, and I don't think it's going to get much better, but I do believe it now crosses the inclusion threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph, Alansohn, and SNUGGUMS: pinging the previous contributors to this deletion discussion, in an effort to determine if I've made sufficient improvements. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tremendous improvement, but I'm still not sure what the claim of notability is. The lack of articles / books about Braiterman remains as an issue. I'm willing to consider changing my vote, but I'm not sure that we've crossed the line yet. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I echo all of what Alan just said Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's an author in academia, I don't think we're going to see a lot of personal biographical details in reliable sources. There's quite a bit of discussion of his theology in the cited literature, though, which I think arguably gets us to WP:NAUTHOR #2 (for his concept of antitheodicy) or WP:PROF #1. The alternative would be to consider that his first book might be itself notable under WP:NBOOK #1 and #3, and that his second is possibly notably under NBOOK #1--but that he himself is not notable. That's a logically defensible position under policy, but it would result in two even stubbier articles without anything connecting them; all else being equal, this serves the reader better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I basically second the views of Alan and Snuggums. But that~~(1)-Lack of reliable sources &~~ ~~(2)-doubts about the claim of notability is a gray area~~!(Edit 1-Sorry for not strikethroughing the 1st point in the last edit.I did not notice by mistake earlier!Sorry for the inconvenience.)(Edit 2-I think the comment by Squeamish Ossifrage has to be accepted.It's no doubt a great point. Strikethroughing the 2nd part) Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the citations are from unreliable self-published sources couldn't be further from the truth. Did you even look at Squeamish Ossifrage's improvements before writing that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If my previous comment appears puzzling it is because ARUNEEK changed his or her comment after I had replied to it. Even after that change the comment is still obviously erroneous, as all of the sources are reliable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Having stated that- just to take the journals- the peer reviewed Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, A Journal of Jewish Art and Visual Culture, and Religious Education are self-published sources, apparantly ARUNEEK now believes them to be not reliable ones, either. Most curious. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish delete. GS h-index of 6 slender, even for theology: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Squeamish Ossifrage has demonstrated clear notability. I don't think that h-index is relevant in this field. What counts is the nature of the citations by others of Braiterman's work. Many of them are not citations that simply substantiate assertions, as are most citations in the natural sciences, but are examples of other academics responding to or otherwise engaging with what he has written. There are also examples of responses to Braiterman outside academic writing shown by the news search linked above. I would also add that there are reviews of Braiterman's books in Theology[17], The Journal of Religion[18] and AJS Review[19]. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited those reviews in the article. I find it difficult to understand why, if they are here to build a neutral encyclopedia, some editors piled in so quickly with "delete" opinions in a deletion discussion about a Jewish theologian who has opposed a particular view about what opinions Jews are supposed to hold, and restated those positions in the face of clear evidence of notability. Jews, just like anyone else, are allowed to hold differing opinions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are major academic books, and he is notable as WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. h index is utterly irrelevant in the humanities. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - full professor in a high-prestige field at a major university. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not criteria to satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- well referenced article at this point, with notability clearly demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the reviews mentioned by 86.17.... meet NAUTHOR 3 last clause, there are other paths in policy that also demonstrate notability, but I think NAUTHOR 3 is probably the most clean-cut. --joe decker ^talk 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article has been completely re-written; I don't believe that further discussion is necessary as the OP has withdrawn the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above. This was relisted unnecessarily by an editor whose speciality seems to be to perform unnecessary relists, and should have been closed a week ago. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you might want to ask an admin to look at this and close "early." 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:51, 1 November 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) 11:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Weiss (filmmaker)

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

I can't see a credible claim of notability here. TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands sole claim to fame is making a nonnotable version of a notable novel - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem here is that wikipedia notability is being asserted by the author based on the subject being a filmmaker. Yet his sole work in that industry is not notable, comprising sources that merely prove existence. However, other sources--multiple and credible (Billboard, NY Times, etc)--indicate that his true notability is for creating and running Oswald Mill Audio. I think this article can be salvaged by rebadging it "Jonathan Weiss (Entrepreneur)" rather than (filmmaker). Another thing to consider is to make the article about the Audio company rather than about Weiss. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment The company may me notable, but that does not necessarily make the ceo notable.
Delete as there is no inherited notability from any works, regardless of what information is involved therefore there's nothing else to suggest otherwise better if there's no independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie Nine

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

WP:NOTNEWS TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine. DH85868993 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article documents important issues for Australians traveling overseas. Warbler21 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominatorThe suggested redirect looks like a good solution.14:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirect Support the redirect. Some of the content in the article may warrant being transferred, although there are multiple errors (eg. article states "group is notable because it consists of Australian politicians" which the group does not, there was a political staffer, not an actual politician). -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine - WP:NOTNEWS. Another routine news about a group of Western tourists misbehaving, getting into trouble and then crying about it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a minor incident involving some Australian tourists. There shouldn't be any mention of this on the relevant grand prix article as this had low relevance on absolutely no impact on the event. T v x1 10:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is judged hereabouts on the attention independent sources paid to it. This passes that test. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring to delete inbound links to this article. Wait until the AfD decides, one way or another. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted by User:MBisanz. Cavarrone 08:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (soundtrack)

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

Just another soundrack album. I'ed propose merging with the article on the film, bu this does not seem to exist TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:This is the soundtrack album of the film M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story which was created due to the reason mentioned by Kailash29792 (talk) below, why would it have to be deleted when many films have soundtracks? Rajan51 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Many films have sountrack albums; why is this one notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rajan, your comment is not justifiable enough, and borders on WP:OTHERCRAP. If I were you, I'd say something like, The main article became too large, so we created a separate article for the soundtrack. This way, we could also upload the album cover to the soundtrack infobox as album covers are discouraged in film articles per WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, well, that aside, since the nomination statement is in error and the main article does exist, then a merge to M.S._Dhoni:_The_Untold_Story#Music would be a simple enough solution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad. Sloppy searching. The film article is, howeve, pretty baggy already.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal, merging this is not a good solution as the film's article is bulky and cannot afford to hold such long track lists.Rajan51 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, importing the soundtrack article as is might push the main article to the point where it becomes unwieldy. I've no strong views on the matter either way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm convinced that merging it to the main article would make the navigation pretty much difficult. However, I also noticed that majority of sources in the article are either primary or unreliable ones, and I wonder if there are any decent replacement for them. If not, it could be merged with parent article after removing contents based on unreliable/primary sources. Find replacements and ping me, I'll !vote keep. Anup [Talk] 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story. The length of the article does not justify WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. The page as it stands contains too much intricate detail and is possibly a WP:PROMO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Given the fact that the main article itself has a lot of sections within itself and has a long summary, I think that this article for the soundtracks deserves a separate page like it is already having. Also we have to consider the fact that the film was released officially in four different languages and the names of the songs are also different and some of the singers are different too. So if we merge this into the main article, then the main article would be unnecessarily long. So this article deserves to be kept separated. Arka 92 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't look like the album is notable on its own. The second paragraph can be placed in the film's article, with the rest deleted. There's no need to repeat the tracklisting. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with film's article already existing. Our articles these days on "popular culture" tend to disregard WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and go on to write every verifiable trivia. This only deteriorates our overall quality. Some editors here have been creating soundtrack articles just so they can use a different non-free image as MOS:FILM#Soundtrack doesn't allow it anymore. That's ridiculous and stupid and to top that they even argue on same lines. I wonder if admins could bother to look into this matter. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, unnecessary split. --Cavarrone 10:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myrea Pettit

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

Fails GNG: Unable to verify independent, reliable sources offering more than a trivial mention. Worldcat alone obviously doesn't establish notability. —swpb^T 13:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment She's actually somewhat well-known for her fairy art, but I can't find RS coverage actually about her - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though it's a bit in a gray area, I found the following, not great, but not completely trivial either. We do have to acknowledge that people who do this type of genre-focused art will not have coverage in the New York TImes, even if they are fairly well-recognized within their genre. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources located:

As usual, most of Montana's signature blind dump of what must be every google hit can be immediately dismissed from consideration as any sort of indicator of notability:
- ~~http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Myrea+Pettit and https://books.google.com/books/about/500_Fairy_Motifs.html?id=84I5h-tdbBsC&hl=en~~ Not independent.
- http://www.northampton.towntalk.co.uk/local/famous-people/d/728/myrea-pettit/ Local coverage without byline—potentially valid if authorship can be established, but even then, not enough on its own.
- ~~http://www.ovguide.com/myrea-pettit-9202a8c04000641f8000000000750d8a~~ Utterly trivial. Subject is mentioned–barely–as one of 12 artists in someone's calendar.
- ~~http://wisewomanmentor.com/art-gallery/3214334~~ I can't even access this site, because it's being blocked by my spam filter. That can't be a good sign.
- ~~http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Myrea-Pettit~~ There is literally nothing there.
- ~~http://www.faemagazine.com/myrea-pettit-on-antony-gormleys-fourth-plinth/~~ No evidence to be found of reliability for this site.

—swpb^T 20:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is it so difficult to just say, "here is my assessment of the sources presented" without adding the personal attack language? This was far from a "signature blind dump of what must be every google hit" (If it was, you'd see facebook and instagram...), it's a presentation of what I could find that is potentially useful to establish notability. Even I think this one is not the hill to die on, but I think it's important to give the article a fair look and not just dismiss it because of its subject content. Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you want to challenge the idea that this was a "blind" dump? The alternative, that you examined each page, saw (or failed to see) that it was invalid, and still posted it, is far more damning. Supposing that you were merely lazy is the best case scenario. —swpb^T 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try this, swpb: "I looked at the pages, I filtered out what was obvious cruft, and what is left I thought provided some potential indicia of notability and have presented them here for the community to decide. Genre artists aren't going to be covered in the New York Times and I read WP:N as saying we have a presumption of notability in the gray areas, and fairy artists, are, unquestionably, in a genre and a gray area. But I am trying to put my preconceptions aside and look at the issue objectively. Even you note the Northampton one is potentially OK, we all know many press releases do not have authors and are still legitimate sources, and unless you can assert the faemagazine is not independent, that's two, even if you think it's . If your spam filter is blocking sites like wisewomanmentor, hm, that's a potential problem, but I can load it and it appears to be powered by http://www.wildapricot.com, which looks like a Canadian site that provides cloud services for nonprofit groups; sometimes these smaller web sites do get blacklisted for a while if they generate a lot of unexpected traffic, but it looks like it's not a spam site to me. I see three potentially decent sources plus some additional mentions and pretty significant business being generated. To me that all leads up to "weak keep." This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, but I am getting quite sick of being personally attacked for making a sincere attempt to see if there is some potential indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Full points for effort, but if multiple people have said that your estimation of notability is off - as they have - this may not in fact be each of them personally attacking you, but instead it might be that your estimation of notability is off - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm happy enough with my "win percentage", if that's what you are talking about (77.5% of the time I either vote with the majority or there is no consensus). Sometimes the guidelines themselves are the problem and my consistent participation and commenting on repeating issues is, slowly, changing some things for the better and generating useful debate on others (there is a good discussion about beauty pageant articles, for example). I get a few wrong, and I can live with that, a few other things I just don't comment on because I've decided they aren't worth the fight, but the point is that civility matters. It is also important to not only address the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia, which is huge but also we need to address what one user referred to as "editor bias" —the "I've never heard of it or I think it's stupid, so it's not notable" problem. Bottom line? The people who personally attack me for my assessments and in doing so get so livid and spittle-frothing-angry that they cross the line of civility have no credibility with me. I treat their remarks as the temper tantrums that they are. Stay civil, and I'll win a few and I lose a few. But I'm often enough in the right to keep plugging away at it. Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that what I mostly see is you claiming negative assessments of your provided sources are personal attacks, the spittle appears to be flying in the other direction - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, using personalized language like "blind dump" and "lazy" is a personal attack. Anyone can critique the sources without getting personal about it. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        There's an easy way to avoid increasingly strong criticism from an increasing number of directions—stop doing what you've been told over and over again is unacceptable. —swpb^T 20:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        For the record, I appreciate montanabw's source listings. Also, I find swpb's easy dismissal of worldcat results to be very strange. The Steve 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Worldcat lists essentially every book ever published—you know that, right? A listing in Worldcat has never been considered evidence of notability, by anyone. The flaws with the rest of Montana's sources are thoroughly documented; what's strange is how you could see fit to defend any of it at all. —swpb^T 13:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not even close. Worldcat only lists books held by libraries. As in, bought and curated by librarians. As in, considered worthwhile reading by libraries. Its a small fraction of all books published. You didn't know that, obviously. As to your other point, see here... The Steve 07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        100% wrong. The Library of Congress, just for one, holds or catalogs, exactly as I said, "essentially every book ever published". Not some small fraction, but nearly every single modern one. That's supposed to support a case for GNG? Give us all a break. BTW, I'm traveling this weekend, so it's unlikely I'll be able to see or respond to anything else here. Luckily, there's no reason to worry about which way this AfD is going. —swpb^T 13:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - "the Library does not retain all of these works..." ..."the Library of Congress retains copies of every publication in the English language that is deemed significant" (emphasis mine). The LoC rejects 1 of every 5 items that are submitted to it, and those are mostly US publications. That means it only holds 80% of things sent to it Plenty of books published in the US never receive an LCC. Even if we're generous and assume that the LoC holds 66% of all works published in the US, their foreign holdings are far smaller, percentage-wise. I seriously doubt they hold even 20% of all books published in any given year. And again, Worldcat only shows holdings, not everything given an LCC. The Steve 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's put the goal posts back where they belong—you can't say with a straight face that world cat is enough to meet GNG, because it isn't, by 1000 miles. —swpb^T 01:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Not in this case. However, DGG (a librarian) has used worldcat holdings as his AFD reasoning many times, and I generally agree with his analyses, both keep and delete. Ergo, my confusion over your dismissal of those results. Worldcat results should be seriously considered, even if you aren't using them as your sole measurement. The Steve 00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You're using DGG as your AfD guide? I think I found the heart of the problem. —swpb^T 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Fairy wondering why there are so many snarky arguments
        
        OK people, no more snarkiness. Let it rest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Her work has not been the subject of any kind of critical analysis. As far as I can tell, there simply is no material in reliable sources to base a biography on. Mduvekot (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:GNG and has made substantial coverage. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —swpb^T 13:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL7 (although a weak one). I looked through a bunch of databases but was unable to find coverage in reliable sources. While the subject has created some really nice fairy art, it is hard to find what is the impact - any awards/museum collections. Because of the paucity of information in reliable secondary sources, I am going for a delete. Per WP:WHYN there is simply not enough information available on which to base an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability - fails WP:GNG, and I can't see that any alternative basis for notability applies. Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet M. Stenftenagel

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

This article's subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. YHoshua (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources indicate that she comes even close to passing any of the guidelines for the notability of academics. Beyond this all sources are from onrganizations she has connections with, and only show she is active in southern Indiana community affairs in a way that is far below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Swell (band)

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

Japanese indie band, fails WP:MUSIC. Yintan 12:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, not a great article, but two albums charting on the mainstream (Oricon) charts [20][21] - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In most cases, charting on a national chart (which satisfies criterion 2 in WP:BAND) is usually taken as a good indication of notability. They also seem to get good coverage in the rock/music press, including a major like Oricon: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. I think this is sufficient to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion, and protection/salting requested at WP:RFPP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Pandit

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

Non-notable person, chairing a non-notable local organisation. Most sources only mention him in passing. Awards and Nominations section is unsourced. Yintan 12:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources makes ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. I had earlier boldly turned it into a redirect and it appears that an IP user has been repeatedly restoring it to standalone piece what this title doesn't deserve.

Here we have two options, we restore the redirect to Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal and semi-protect the title, or just delete and get over this thing. Anup [Talk] 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This non-notable article has repeatedly been redirected to "Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal", yet again and again someone reverts back the redirection, with no stated reason. In my opinion, this article needs to be deleted completely, or if some protection can been enabled to keep the redirection intact, then this article needs to definitively be redirected to Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal. ♥ Shri Sanam Kumar ♥ 19:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is the article entirely flooded with listing other people or groups as named mentions, but there's still nothing for an actually convincing and substantial article of his own information, simply tossing information and sources is not the same thing as a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very well, delete this non-notable piece. I'll watch the title for couple of weeks and if required, will make a request of salting the title. Anup [Talk] 04:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's been recreated a few times, salting might be a good idea, yes. Yintan 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. I'm closing this procedurally as the content has already been merged to Bruma, Gauteng. It seems there was a 2 year merge proposal on this article with no objections. As it has already been merged, this discussion is moot. I'm closing this early per IAR. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruma Lake Flea Market, Gauteng

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

Delete: Non notable market. Article was earlier created (and deleted) under the name Bruma Flea Market and user created the page again under a different name. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't even nearly fit the criteria of being a shopping centre.Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has already been merged into to Bruma, Gauteng ([29]). clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tin kadeema

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for games. Article has no references to demonstrate notability or even to provide verification. ubiquity (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable game. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher–Blair consensus

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

Personal essay on topic/concept of unproven notability. Uses a term scarcely found anywhere. Many sources, but none actually talk about the article subject, and are used merely for original synthesis. Possible POV fork of Blatcherism. See also discussion on talk page.Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above, seems like an undergrad essay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree. Blatcherism seems even more egregious actually. Mezigue (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it is an essay. Blatcherism looks like a possible AfD too. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely an essay; a worthy subject for a PPE thesis, but original research does not a Wikipedia article make. This is Paul (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like OR. South Nashua (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sat Lal Razdan

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

Delete: Fails GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. His only claim to fame is that he has allegedly taught some famous people and a condolence message by former Chief Minister of J & K. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete looks like a vanity article. Sources are not convincing. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately this person lived in the era and place, for which unavailability of kind of sources we seek, is no big surprise. I found one mention in Tribune India, which states that the school he worked at awarded him the title, "teacher of the millennium". Anup [Talk] 07:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only are these challenging subjects to analyze, the user himself has confirmed it's in fact not notable, therefore with the article not conveying anything else better, there's nothing to suggest there's currently an applicably convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if we assume that it's true that he once taught Prince Charles, what did he teach him? How to pick his nose properly? There is totally lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because he might have once had a prince in his class does not make a teacher notable; we need a lot more. Compare Joyce Carol Oates, John Adams, Sr., etc. This page is a disaster. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Lindh

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. There is a claim that she won the Eugene O'Neill Award in 2004 but I have been unable to find a reliable source (only mirror sites and Wikia) that this is the case. Quis separabit? 00:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eugene O'Neill Award is in fact O'Neillstipendiet, i.e., O'Neill Scholarship, rather than "true" award. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Re the Eugene O'Neill Award, it is called either "O'Neillstipendiet" or "O'Neillpriset" in Swedish, and it is most definitely an award rather than a scholarship - it's supposed to be given to "highly deserving actors" at the Royal Dramatic Theatre in Stockholm. The naming confusion in Swedish shouldn't mislead us into thinking that it's a scholarship for aspiring actors or anything like that. Here is one source confirming that Lindh received the award in 2004, and this press release from Dramaten also lists her as a recipient. (I'm not !voting yet, because I intend to add more information and sources to the article first, but I am going to !vote keep as soon as I have done that.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played several notable roles, and has received not only the O'Neill Award as discussed above, but also the Litteris et Artibus. Article edited to add this info. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recieving Litteris et Artibus is possibly the highest award you can achive within arts and culture in Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Swedish royal award should, in my view, confer sufficient notability. Vanamonde (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you look at the subject's body of work in the theater and in film on the Swedish Wiki page, that should be enough for inclusion. Not even sure how this was even nominated for deletion. ExRat (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. and per Litteris et Artibus. BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Packer (software)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

While this page was undeleted by @Georgewilliamherbert in April of 2015, I feel that the concerns he mentioned on the talk page (most especially notability) have not been adequately addressed since then. The only sources are tied to the developers (HashiCorp), and I was unable to find much in the way of potential sources that weren't.

My first thought would be a redirect to either Vagrant, as Packer is apparently closely tied to it functionality, or HashiCorp, perhaps with the addition there of a section on it. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got more reliable sources, but my consulting company has 3 top-25 web company clients using it now, so it's somewhat popular... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're a top 10 Bank and we're using it. This is serious stuff. The debate needs to be clearer about why this is better than puppet and chef, because the debate often ends there. This page is essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.130.230 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" and which top 10 bank are you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This seems to be widely used. It is an important part of "infrastructure as code". Covered in this book: [30] But that book *is* written by a Hashicorp employee. --146.140.210.15 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sort of clearer consensus we're going to get; reliable sources by WP standards in the DevOps tools area are difficult to find. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G Money

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

does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelyricalmaster (talk • contribs) 23:49, October 6, 2016 (UTC)‎

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable disc jockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4) by Iridescent. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 10:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalika Chanda

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

Non notable actress, article's sources barely mention her at all. I also doubt she has suddenly become notable in the month since the previous AfD discussion. Yintan 12:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Yintan:: Since the article has been re-created so soon after the last AfD, it might be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4 if it is bascially the same as the version that deleted. Re-created articles really only require a new AfD when they differ substantially from previous deleted versions. Having said that, another option to deletion might be to suggest userfication to the article's creator. That way the creator can (if they want to) continue to work on a draft version of the article and search for better sources. The draft can then be submitted via WP:AFC once it's ready for review. If the AfC reviewers will provide comments on things that need to be improve and will only approve the draft if they feel its ready for the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi. I can't see the deleted version so I can't compare the two. As far as the creator goes, he appears to be determined to recreate again and again. [31],[32] Yintan 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is basically the same as before and just keeps being recreated after it is deleted, then you could ask for the tile to be salted. FWIW, I asked the admin who deleted the first time around at User talk:MBisanz#Kamalika Chanda whether this version qualifies for speedy deletion, but haven't received a response yet. You can try asking for assistance at WP:AN if you want, explaining what the creator has said about recreating the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concluded: Keep the article: Added several sources, and established notability. Keep the Article Kamalika Chanda.Riisen (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: AfD does not work that way. You may continue to work on the article and improve it by adding sources and content, but the discussion remains open until an administrator reviews it to determine whether a consensus has been reached on what should be done about the article. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you probably should read WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions and familiarize yourself with how an AfD works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, I have re created the article, you dont teach me wikipedia, with new sources, new content, new references, and notable filmography. now will you stop reverting my edits in this page again, could you please do that, could you could you please stop reverting my edits on this page. pleaseRiisen (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted by reply at User talk:Marchjuly#STOP for reference, but just want to add that you should try to be careful not edit the talk page posts of other editors like you did to mine here. Accidents like this may happen, but others might feel it's being done on purpose if accidents start to happen too many times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: And you can stop the accusations of racism and other personal attacks too. Thanks. Yintan 09:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: Be civil. Do not make baseless accusations. Who is that "someone" that prevents or prevented you from participating in this discussion? Last one, how is "you" related to subject of the article? Anup [Talk] 08:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to G4 it. Anup [Talk] 08:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Yintan 09:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consider future redirection to TV series for playing lead role. czar 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnav (TV actor)

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

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. None of the sources confirm his past work. Article also had mention about "awards" that were not backed by any citations - I have deleted the section. Article appears to be promotional and the sources are not reliable. I translated the Tamil source pages to verify the serials he claimed to have worked in, and nothing credible came up apart from passing mentions. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient claim to notability as an actor for this encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 15:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For whoever may be interested — cited source Dinamalar is a reliable source. While subject apparently fails WP:NACTOR, it could possibly be a candidate for inclusion per WP:GNG. I do not how to read/write Tamil language, but I can read english-urls and see the length of articles in here, [33], [34], [35].

All prominent regional languages should be given equal weight in relation to English. In fact, there are only 2 English-language newspapers in top-10 largest by circulation in India. Anup [Talk] 11:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onur Albayrak

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

The footballer never played a match in a fully professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTY. There is no evidence he passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he's played in the Danish Superliga Seasider91 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season of mischief

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

Initially tagged for speedy deletion, and contested. However no substantive change since then. This article is about a publicity campaign for a particular beer by a small brewing company. It has been run during halloween for the last few years but has no significant coverage. The beer itself doesn't have a standalone article so surely a promotional campaign FOR the beer doesn't deserve a standalone article. It perhaps deserves a mention in Wychwood Brewery#Hobgoblin and IF that section becomes large then COULD be broken out to a standalone article eventually, if reliable sources can be found. Witty lama 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As suggested in the nomination, the contributor of this article should be encouraged to incorporate maybe a couple of referenced sentences about this advertising campaign into the existing Wychwood Brewery article. But I am seeing no indication that the campaign is notable in its own right. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Wychwood Brewery is notable but this promotion isn't. I don't see redirecting as necessary. Blythwood (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, no reason this particular ad campaign needs its own article. Anything notable about it can be incorporated into the Wynchwood Brewery page. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly written spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Banks dory. Consensus is to merge Gloucester dory, Swampscott dory and Cape Ann dory into Banks dory.

The opinions that this is the wrong venue and this should have been a talk page merge discussion have merit, but then discussion of the merge did continue here anyways and I find that it has sufficient consensus. The strongest argument is that all three sub-articles only have one single source, and it is the same exact book source for all three, making it almost impossible to write about them as truly distinct topics. However, I absolutely would not oppose further talk page discussion about the merge that may result in different consensus about keeping the topic separate or not (assuming more sourcing is uncovered). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester dory

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

This is a slightly less accurate -or, rather, less complete - reduplication of the Cape Ann dory article. This is the same place, same boat. Merge? Delete? Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, wrong venue. You cannot delete a subject easily found in books. And Wikipedia:Merging may be handled only by these who are versed in the subject. By the way, how do you know it is "same boat"? Can you cite sources which say that? If yes, nobody prevents you from merging. If not, hold your horses. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "Gloucester dory" cited in that book is likely a different boat, it would appear. "Gloucester dory" can refer to near-shore surfboats used in fishing -the subject of this article and the Cape Ann dory article- but also to Gloucester-built dories regardless of design, to dories carried by Gloucester fishing boats, etc. It's an ambiguous term, which is another good reason to use "Cape Ann", which is a little more specific. Anmccaff (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is a confirmation that this is wrong venue. And you did not answer my questions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This article duplicates, completely, another; yin or t'other should go. There should only be one article about any given subject.

Next, you responded to this afd by removing sources material from one of the articles; both are mainly based on Gardener's dory book, but the material also shows quite accessibly in Chapelle's American Small Sailing Craft, Their Design, Development, and Construction, around page 90, if memory serves. This is something which anyone with even a moderate awareness of the subject is familiar with; I'd assumed that anyone with an opinion here would either be acquainted with the subject, or make themselves so, not just dredge up something on Google.

Next, let me again point out the mere publication doesn't indicate notability, especially for publishers who specialize in narrow subjects, which are Arcadia's bread-and-butter. Anmccaff (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "by removing sources material from one of the articles" the source cited speaks about Johnson sailing dory, but does not say it was Cape Ann dory. Please provide another reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you removed two separate blocks of information. Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And...? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "This article duplicates, completely," - completely false statement, even for a person with morderate awareness of English language. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to see the acknowledgement, but, no, it is not false. It's ambiguous; I'd expect you choose the meaningful interpretation. The two articles cover exactly the same subject: small beach dories common to a particular area. There is complete overlap of the subjects as the articles are written; that need not have been the case, since it's trivially easy to get examples of "Gloucester dory' referring to other designs built at or hailing from Gloucester. {[User:Anmccaff|Anmccaff]] (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Covering the same object" is not the same as "duplicate, completely". Subjects may overlap, but text may be 100% different. You have yet to prove that the subjects overlap, citing reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your opinion these are the same, bearing in mind that Gloucester, Massachusetts is on Cape Ann, but you have yet to provide the sources which say so. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...aside from Chapelle, you mean? Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite Chapelle who says they are the same. I did look through the book, section about dories, but failed to find this. I admit this could have been stated indirectly and I missed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re "publication doesn't indicate notability <etc>" - I fail to comprehend your argument; narrow subjects are quite fit for encyclopedia, as long as they are covered in specialized publications. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Almost every high school student in some areas is reliably pictured in a school yearbook, yet this clearly makes neither them, or their class year, or their school, automatically notable. The mere fact that something could get printed is no guarantee of notability. Many of Arcadia's publications exemplify this. Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor comparison. Yearbooks are not reliable sources for wikipedia. If you doubt that Arcadia publications are reliable sources, you may argue your point in WP:RSN. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far its only two people which have commented. Perhaps we need more commenters? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Water transport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banks dory as appears to be a variation of said boat. Nordic Nightfury 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging -all- the dory articles might make sense, but the shore-fishing dories preceded the bankers by at least three decades, and more likely about a century. Again, see Chapelle, American Small &cet, who flavours the later date, and Gardner, who favors the earlier. Anmccaff (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again wrong venue. There are rules about non-trivial merging requests: you have to put merge tag on both pages: source and target, so that all interested editors are notified. If you tag only some obscure page, the editors of the more general and (more edited) page will not even see the merge request. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...were someone starting an actual merge discussion, that might be relevant. Anmccaff (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue (as per WP:DP, move to a talk page) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: This AfD was IMO improperly relisted as there was no argument for deletion and the request to close was not processed. Please do so now. Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#5 does give content forks as a potential reason for deletion, and I am inclined to treat a duplication as the same thing. So actually there was a valid deletion reason in the opening post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell me how did you figure out it is a "duplication of the same thing"? Did you actually look into the two articles? The nominator failed to answer me this simple question despite long chat. BTW DEL#5 specifically says unless merge/redirect is appropriate. Clearly, in this esoteric topic a random wikipedian cannot make an educated decision unless the article text is essentially the same, which is obviously not the case. Hence expert opinions are required, hence wrong venue. Staszek Lem (talk)

Don't assume when you did not hear an answer that the error was entirely in transmission. Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see that they are discussing the same boat, an oar-and-sail nearshore dory somewhat similar in hull shape to a banker. This need not have been the case; there was a power boat commercially named the "Cape Ann Dory" that is essentially s Swampscott dory with a good deal of decking made early in the 20th century, and several US government fisheries reports that use "Cape Ann dory" to refer to bankers in the 19th century.

Next, there is nothing at all "esoteric" about the topic, at least in many places.

Finally, a "random wikipedian" would, I hope, have the good sense to either hold his tongue, or read the references, before weighing in. Anmccaff (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please write a plain answer: which reference directly say that the two are the same. You say: "Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see ..." - Wikipedians' inferences are called original research and not allowed in articles. Just cite the piece which says they are the same, and done with it. Resorting to personal insults usually means that there are no better arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 13 days without relist - if not commented would've closed as no consensus. Final relist Nordic Nightfury 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dory, and merge Cape Ann dory and Swampscott dory there as well. All are only sourced to one mention in a book, which is not enough to support an article. Sandstein 11:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the right venue I disagree with saying that this is the wrong venue. Often, AfD is the only place where an article will receive attention. Content forks are a valid reason for deletion: whether it is indeed a content fork or not is something to be debated during the AfD. Speedy closing AfDs like these actually stop the discussion and adds to the bureaucracy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is confusing speedy close, which ends a discussion; with wrong venue, which moves a discussion. If you want a centralized discussion place for redirect/merge/notability discussions, it is my understanding that the community has already agreed to implement this forum. AfD is for WP:Deletion policy, not content disputes. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banks dory ~~Dory~~ (Updated per below). The content is short, sourced to a single book and it is ripe for merging. Merging also helps to improve the target page here. I guess the other articles can be merged as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notified some interested parties as well [36], [37], [38]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to a merge to Banks dory --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banks dory. Merge also Swampscott dory and Cape Ann dory to Banks dory. These are just variants of the Banks dory and don't warrant separate articles. On the other hand, the Banks dory, associated with fishing on or near the Grand Banks, is an iconic boat and does warrant its own article. The dust kicked up above is just obscuring the issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That which is obscuring the discussion above is the discussion above, which is in the wrong venue. AfD volunteers are not subject matter experts (SME) on all topics on Wikipedia. A merge result out of AfD is not binding for several other reasons. Wikipedia doesn't work well by bands of editors declaring that somebody somewhere sometime should do some content work as required by the band of editors. Administrators are not bound into subsequent content disputes just because they closed an AfD. Are you volunteering to do this merge? If so, then I will consider withdrawing my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a possible content fork and AfD is the place to discuss it. In fact AfD is the place where articles are brought so that it receives attention from the community and we decide what to do with it. As you saw here, I managed to find someone who is familiar with the topic in general. Getting even this little bit of attention helps and each of this is a baby step to improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old argument that has the form that the end justifies the means. However, closer analysis indicates that the problem with quality on Wikipedia is not due to insufficient AfD discussions. If this were true, we'd have robots bringing articles to AfD to increase the workload for the ARS. It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that improving articles just before they are deleted does not improve the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I understand you. Are you asserting that "this article was not a content fork in any way" and that "this should be kept as it is"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asserted neither of those things. AfD is for worthless articles, where the breaking of the assumption of good faith to the content contributors has a foundation in policy. If you want to have redirect/merge/notability discussions, either follow existing WP:Deletion policy, which says to use talk pages and if necessary, RfC; or move forward with the centralized discussion forum for such. Redirect/merge/notability discussions are covered as a part of WP:Editing policy, and do not require administrator tools. Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re merging to Banks dory, authoritative sources, e.g. Chapelle and Gardner, unambiguously note that that the grand banks dory is a variant of the coastal boats, not the other way round. Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coastal prototypes were developed first (or rather, beach dories – the Banks dory is still essentially a coastal boat). It's almost obvious that that would be the case. But it was the Banks dory during its classic period that most represented the idea of the developed dory in the public mind. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But an encyclopedia, or something trying to impersonate one, does not base itself on public impressions, except in areas which the public is reasonably expert. The banks dory, for all it lit'rary and artistic prominance, was a blind alley of dory development. The Swampscott boats and the Cape Anns, in the sense that 'Cape Ann" is used here, are not.

A real problem is that so many of the terms used are inherently ambiguous, expecially seen over time. A Cape Ann is a small oar-and-sail beach dory with washboards....except when it's a banks dory, or a decked powerboat actually based on the Swampscott/Nahant boats. Anmccaff (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with you, though I wouldn't characterise the Banks dory as a "blind alley". Rather, it represents the heyday of the dory. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh. The Bankers proper were obsolescent by the early 1900s, which is when the Boston Power Dories came into their own. The western rapids dories -cousins of both the Cape Anns, and the lumberman's bateau- are still made and still the dominant solution in some waters. The bankers lasted only so long as life was cheap, frankly. A swampscott boat could be made to nest, too, but not at the price. Anmccaff (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient evidence that it is notable; whether it is to be handled as a variant of other similar notable boats is not a question for discussion here. Is there any unambiguous academic source saying there is no significant difference. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there is sufficient evidence" that what, exactly, is notable? The article is about a boat which is precisely the same boat seen in "Cape Ann dory." do you feel it so extremely notable that it requires two separate articles, or are you suggesting we nuke the other? Anmccaff (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating "they are the same boat" without proof. I asked you several times here already: Please write a plain answer: which reference directly say that the two are the same. You say: "Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see ..." - Wikipedians' inferences are called original research and not allowed in articles. Just cite the piece which says they are the same, and done with it. 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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 Fear of trains. Sandstein 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siderodromophobia

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

Fails WP:MEDRS. No significant coverage beyond phobia content spammers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Cursory search shows it to be a real thing, though, better sourcing and CE needed. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources idnicate this is not a medical issue, therefore MEDRS does not apply here. Nonetheless, it needs to meet other criteria such as GNG, and I feel it does. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero MEDRS sources - no reviews in pubmed; none in PsyNet (can't save searches there). The sources in the article used to support descriptions are not reliable for content about health. just another pseudopychnology fun with greek term. Delete and salt like the rest. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bulk of sources discussing it are not health-related this seems more a social concept than medical, although I agree that the article needs to be revamped in roder to reflect that. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the sections and content are "Symptoms", "Complications," and "treatment". that is WP:Biomedical information. I get it that you are confused about what is biomedical content and that it appears that you are beginning a campaign to try to redefine what is biomedical in WP per this and this and things you have written elsewhere in WP. You are going to run into a very solid brick wall in that effort - especially since you seem to have no clear concept of what is and is not medical, and to the extent you start promoting pseudoscience you will face discretionary sanctions; i just provided you notice of them. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that according to your logic each page under category fear constitutes a medical article? Pwolit iets (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are actual specific phobias from which people seriously suffer, and they are treated that way by the medical/psych professions and here in WP. There are also a bunch of "fun with greek" bullshit "phobias' that people like to create/coin and make long lists of and pass around the internet. Read the last paragraph of the lead of List of phobias Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if I added a sentence about "complications" of alarmism. Would that article suddenly become medical? Pwolit iets (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to list of phobias with the rest of them. Not seeing enough here for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. No indication of significance or reliable sources. -- Begoon 06:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to specific phobias. While I "like" these type of articles, the pretty clear consensus in the recent past of AfD has been to delete or redirect such articles. This case is even more extreme an example of a non-notable phobia; there is virtually no peer-reviewed literature about the topic. We've hashed this subject out, let's move on. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with current sources plus sources such as this one in-depth and mentions in books.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the first is a gee-whiz trivia article about words related to trains (no one denies the trivia value of "fun with greek"); the second uses the term in passing in the subtitle and never goes back to discuss "fear of trains". Neither is MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, everything that is not MEDRS is simply trivia, so you'll delete 95% of the encyclopedia if its not MEDRS. Puh-leeze. Read the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Coverage? Check. Reliable sources? Check. Independent of the subject? Check. => Keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability. Setting aside the MEDRS issue, I see no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG. As for the sources provided by Tomwsulcer: they are both mere passing mentions; additionally, the piece in The Week that claims siderodromophobia was once synonymous with a type of injury strains credibility, and the second barely mentions the subject at all. Rebb ing 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fear of trains if the concept is notable (otherwise delete). Duh! There are sources for the -phobia word, but most of those are using it with the intent to be pedantic. If it -phobia word was found to be MEDRS-worthy, I would advocate to keep as the technical word for the concept (painkiller is a redirect), but since it has not stuck, move to the common name.

Of course, it will lose a few sentences like "stuffophobia is the fear of stuff", but that is kind of the point. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to move in the text. You are very welcome to write the article Fear of trains, based on no-fool sources. In any case, it is a good idea to painlessly kill off lots of tautological "stuffophobia" articles by creating Fear of stuff pages. By the way, "Fear of things" gives 1,8 million google hits. Time to write the article! :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist - not done so in 13 days. Nordic Nightfury 06:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 06:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fear of trains. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is actually pretty well done. am ok with redirect. I don't know that this is such a generalizable solution; turns out that "fear of trains" is a thing in the psychoanalytic Freudian tradition, stemming from the man himself. Pyschoanalysis itself is considered mostly pseuodscience today but hey, there is indeed an article at fear of trains that is ok in my view. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 East Carolina University protests

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

No notability of the topic of this article. It's just a loose collection of current events that are mostly only relevant to one school's own community or student-body. The main theme seems to be that this is all notable because it's related to a notable movement (BLM), which fails two ways: it is not supported by WP:RS to be related other than by timing (WP:SYNTH at best), and notability is not inheritable regardless. This article is instead one of several recent attempts by now two SPAs try to shoehorn various components of this set of protests into many articles, every time failing to ride the coatstrings of notability that does not independently exist (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lives Matter protests at colleges and universities). WP is not a school newspaper. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, I doubt this run of the mill protest will ever meet GNG Seasider91 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even the Governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory commented on the protests. ^[1] --NotablePeopleFan (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Governor commented on a protest. That can't be WP:SYNTHesized into the topic of the article at hand. DMacks (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As The Story Grows

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

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not independently notable. Just a bullet list of "guests". W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Triangle (film)

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

Not notable. Lacks full reviews or other coverage. Prod removed with the claim "has reviews" with no indication where these reviews might be. The article has none, IMDB has no critic reviews linked, rotten tomatoes has a single capsule review. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one lone review from the Chicago Reader, but this by itself is not enough to justify a keep. The only other sources were two extremely brief, trivial mentions in the same newspaper. This doesn't show a depth of coverage. That it's apparently tied to an attempt to promote Kevin L. Walker on Wikipedia doesn't help much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable film and a WP:PROMO page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street (season 33)

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

I looked hard for published sources discussing this season but found nothing. This article appears to be fan-based trivia and original research rather than a summary of reliable sources. There are no other Sesame Street season articles on Wikipedia, and this one isn't any different. It doesn't rise to the level of notability. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albeit reluctantly. Unlike the vast number of other long-running shows, there are no episode or season lists for Sesame Street (List of Sesame Street episodes redirects to the main article). I'm aware that at least one of the primary editors in this field strongly objects to the idea of episode lists, and I do agree that sourcing would be challenging (but, on the other hand, the episode names and production ID numbers are trivially easy to source), but that's not an obstacle to inclusion. My personal opinions on the matter aside, this article is a stubby, unsourced little thing about a random season, which is not the way to go about changing the status quo. We're better off with nothing than with just this; anyone looking to develop a sourced season/episode structure here should probably develop it initially outside of mainspace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nature of seseme street does not really lend itself to or justify articles on individual seasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Langton's ant

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

This impressive-looking but mostly-meaningless buzzword salad fails WP:NOR. Its only reference is to an article that defines the original (unextended) Langton's ant, which is name-dropped at the start of the article and then largely ignored. Except for that one brief mention of something else, the article is entirely unsourced and unsourceable. Past discussions have suggested redirecting or merging to the Langton's ant article, but there is nothing here of value to save and it would be a mistake to even mention this in the Langton's ant article. Delete this gobbledegook. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I may not understand something, but it looks like this article does not describe anything different than the original Langton's ant.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, just tacked on to Langton's ant to look good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research with nothing worth salvaging from it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not adding anything to Langton's ant and incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David SK Lee

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

This page had been previously been successfully WP:PRODded but has since been recreated shortly after hence why I am bringing this up for AfD as I am doubtful recreated article that was deleted via PROD are eligible for WP:CSD.

The PROD rationale by the proposer SwisterTwister as quoted: "Essentially such an advertisement, it's inches away from a G11, the fact it not only to specifics about his career information and what his business and activities involve (note the company link professionally taken "showcase style" photos are immediately listed early in the article); none of this actually establishes anything close at all for both independent notability and substance with a non-PR basis; the article is actually only ever sourced 2 times by major news sources and that's simply for his car collections."

My rationale to support the proposal: "I only heard of this guy when his name get mentioned on YouTube car videos a number of times but this PROD is hardly surprising given the promotional nature of this edit and reeks of paid editing given the professional look of the photographs. Excluding his car collections (which I cover later), the edits about him as a businessman makes him out to be just another run-of-the-mill businessman with a overglorified Linkedin profile called Wikipedia not helped that coverage about him in business is minimal. A huge portion of sources here is dedicated to his car collections but then there are plenty of people, notable or not, who have collections like that and do get invited to prestigious shows but then some of those are notable for other things that paid for their hobbies or have a high profile public museum." Donnie Park (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as the nomination statement clearly shows what my PROD was and it was actually then simply boldly removed by an SPA, yet that actually only emphasizes the PR intentions and actions, nothing else apart from that therefore Delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Despite a pretty good attempt to promote, the subject is not notable. I don't see any evidence that he is a notable Ferrari collector. Note that references such as [39] and [40] in "Forbes/sites" are not considered reliable for the purpose of notability. This Huffpost "blog" is similar - user submitted content which is published with hardly any editorial oversight. (I remember the paid editor who was writing stuff on HuffPost blogs and then using them as sources). The rest of the mentions are passing/brief mentions or in questionable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix this before you delete. Please and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.190.17 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person is rich, but that doesn't make one notable, and he actually doesn't seem to have done anything to make him notable. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua M. Schwartz

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

Delete and Salt may be needed considering there's still nothing actually substantial since the first AfD and there's nothing to suggest it should be expected, searches are not finding anything which is unsurprising and there's certainly nothing significant here. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage actually of him that I could find. (Lots of other people called "Joshua M. Schwartz", though.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- utterly unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farswal

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

I couldn't establish that it's WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed only because of lack of response - hopefully we can resolve this issue now. Boleyn (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing I can find about this is extremely similar text from another wiki, and it is referenced there, but equally terse. It clearly fails WP:GNG. As an aside, @Boleyn:, why not make a single AfD disussion for each of these articles, or use WP:PROD? FalconK (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response' Falcon Kirtaran, I avoid using prod when sources are likely to be mainly in a language I can't read. As for bundling them, it's an idea, but a minority of these articles will (and have been) prove notable at AfD - I think judging them separately is fairest, especially as they are different and by many different creators. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of other similar AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farswal

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. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutkani

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that it's WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed only because of lack of response - hopefully we can resolve this issue now. Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a very minor tribe; I found this passing mention (1 sentence) in Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province by Horace Arthur Rose, Sir Denzil Ibbetson. One word mention: Re-Thinking Punjab: The Construction of Siraiki Identity by Hussain Ahmad Khan. Not enough for encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus after discussion and better sourcing seems to be to keep. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogar

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD closed as no consensus only because it failed to attract any comments - hopefully we can get it resolved this time. Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources whatsoever, and no indication of notability. Brianga (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Convert to a surname article and keep~~ as there are enough people with the name to meet the criteria of WP:APONOTE. Uanfala (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sitush's findings. – Uanfala (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I would move Dogar (disambiguation) to the main page, which now contains those. Boleyn (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the brevity of the list, this isn't a bad idea in itself. However, we normally keep surname lists and dab pages separate per WP:NAMELIST and, in view of the association that normally exists between a surname and the name of a community, verifiable information about the community (notable or not) is relevant in the surname article. Uanfala (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Arguing to keep an article, that has zero references, and tagged since 2014, with "notable or not" because it has some unclear association between a surname and the name of a community, is insane. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, genealogy portal, publisher of original thought (such as "defining terms"), or indiscriminate collection of information. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY, even WP:GNG, as well as WP:VERIFIABILITY. These are reasons we don't "keep" articles regardless of some remote connection to something else. Otr500 (talk)
- Note: There is the article, Dagar that shows this as an alternate name, along with "Dangar" and "Digrana". That article actually only has one reference that states, "the Panchal Luhar have small exogamous divisions (got), such as Dagar ...". Even with that there just is not enough verifiable information (notability) to keep the article. Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see
- Chaudhuri, B. B. (2008). Peasant History of Late Pre-colonial and Colonial India. Vol. 8. Pearson Education India. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-8-13171-688-5.
- Bharucha, Rustom (2006). "The Past in the Present". In Menon, Dilip M. (ed.). Cultural History of Modern India. Berghahn Books. p. 76. ISBN 978-8-18735-825-1.
- E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936. BRILL. 1987. p. 114. ISBN 978-9-00408-265-6.
- Singh, Chetan (1988). "Centre and Periphery in the Mughal State: The Case of Seventeenth-Century Panjab". Modern Asian Studies. 22 (2): 299–318. JSTOR 312624. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
- Gaeffke, Peter (April 1991). "Reviewed Work: Hīr Vāriṡ Śāh, poème panjabi du XVIIIe siècle: Introduction, translittération, traduction et commentaire. Tome I, strophes 1 à 110 by Denis Matringe". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 111 (2): 408–409. doi:10.2307/604050. JSTOR 604050. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an easy keep. I am rewriting the article with sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Since this is the chosen article to keep we can merge as uncontested the alternates Dugar, Dagur clan, and Dagar. Otr500 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of castes/clans that share the same or similar names but which are distinct communities. Some of that is because of the gotra system, naming after rishis etc, meaning that one clan name is used by multiple castes. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a novel idea: When a name, especially one with alternate spellings, is used across multiple platforms, in this case communities, areas, castes, or whatever, and has separate articles, this can be solved by using sections in one article. This prevents a lot of stubby-stub articles, that are just variations in spelling, resulting in a better singular article. This is especially important when several articles show the same alternate spellings, that can not be argued as not being confusing, and a solution. I have been informed that there is no improvements that can be made but someone would have to logically explain why this would not be a workable solution. Otr500 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a novel idea. It does occasionally happen, particularly for clans of the Jats and Rajputs, but in most cases the things are so distinct that they rightly deserve their own article. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit a sarcasm and I totally agree that if "something is so distinct" it should have a separate article. However, this is impossible to assert when an article has zero references, is a one line less than stubby-stub, and is no more than a dictionary type entry, or what appears to me a push to move Wikipedia into the genealogy business. Something "distinct" is considered WP:NOTABLE by reliable independent sources, and not just having a place on Wikipedia. If there is not enough coverage merge and cover the different aspects in sections of a single article. That just makes too much sense to me. Otr500 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't merge something that is unverifiable. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! and now we make progress. We can not do anything with subjects or material that is not verifiable. "IF" a subject or content is not verifiable it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Dab pages do not need citations because the target article is subjected to policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't dab something that isn't verifiable either. You are not going to "win" this one (you do seem to be treating it as a sort of battle), so I suggest you change your !vote here given the sourcing now in the article and that you move on per the note recently left for you by someone else on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Sitush. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but Khamosh

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

Non-notable book, getting trivial coverage from association. WP:NOTINHERITED §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It probably meets BOOKCRIT#1 which states, A book is notable if, The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

Sources: Outlook India, Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times-2, Telegraph India, Telegraph India-2, Firstpost, Free Press Journal. For more, click here or do a simple Google search. Anup [Talk] 06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extracts, excerpts and newsbites are different from book reviews. Which of this is a review? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times-2. Anyway, the guideline says nothing about "book-review", it says, "subject of two or more non-trivial published works". Anup [Talk] 07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 book reviews: Hindustan Times and Bollywood Hungama. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HT's review is just paraphrashing of book, an non-lazy form of quotefarming but not review. A Bollywood film portal is not a suitable reviewer of literature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read HT review carefully. Does the 2nd and the last para look like mere paraphrasing. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. These two paras of the ten paras of article that you mention have two common repetitive points: that the book is well-researched and it has lotsa gossips and trivia. Makes the book more notable now! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still feel that the 2 required sources for meeting WP:NBOOKS should be reviews? --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again asking for my feelings/thought? Ready to be offended again? The two or more sources should be non-trivial as NBOOK says and all lengthy sources that simply copy-paste book's content do not count. Also, they have to be about the book. This should exclude press coverage of book release and actual life of Sinha. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can express yourself without offending others. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:BOOKCRIT, multiple reliable sources present. Most of which are non-trivial. Pratyush (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had created this article after finding multiple reliable sources which covered the subject in detail. It passes WP:NBOOKS. --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic under discussion satisfies the inclusion criteria. @Skr15081997: use these sources to expand the present one-line stub? Anup [Talk] 09:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any justification for a "standalone" piece for this topic. This one-line article on book is already covered in author's article. If and when more target article is edited to add more verifiable contents and it becomes a possibility that holding contents on this book in here, might make navigation difficult, we can do a split. Anup [Talk] 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NBOOK also says This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among many other things. Are you suggesting a 'merge', therefore? I think, that could be discussed given the size of existing article. Anup [Talk] 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though the author is significant, the book is not. We need expert reviews about the article. - Vivvt (Talk)

Sorry I was under the impression that it's an autobiography but it is not. Looks like author is also not notable. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: ~~You seem to be messing it up here. Author is one-time Bollywood superstar (worked for more than 4 decades), and two-time member of parliament (last election won in 2014 for 5-years).~~ Article is one-sentence long and is "already merged" in the target article (a redirect therefore?). Anup [Talk] 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author of this book is Bharathi S. Pradhan. It could have been an autobiography if Sinha himself had been the writer. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be any evidence at all that the book is notable--just routine coverage. No suitable merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I have a little query after reading your opinion. If the given sources merely indicate routine coverage, then what kind of coverage proves notability? Just a small query. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the references are about the subject of the book, not the book. It can be an unclear distinction, and if a book is really important over time we could make a separate article. As an example, Even for famous people, most bios are just listed in the Additional Reading--the most famous bios only get a separate article, and the usual distinction is a major prize in the books own right. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

I do think the references are talking about the book, see about the book, again about the book, book review, about the book and many others, try a google search. Since the book is a biography, a news article talking about the book will talk about the actor because the whole book is about him. I don't know what is done with other bios, I believe you in good faith if you say so, but according to my knowledge there is no such guideline. What I do know is the notability guidelines for books (factors which determine whether a book is notable or not) are listed at WP:BOOKCRIT and the subject clearly passes the 1st point of BOOKCRIT, which makes it notable enough to have a separate article. Pratyush (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three "about the book" refs are literally quote farms and "the review" is paraphrasing of quotes! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan 1234, can you amplify your opinion a bit. As far as I can see, this meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason given by nominator was trivial coverage resulting from association (WP:NOTINHERITED). But a search for the book's title yields numerous incidents of significant coverage in media. Now just because the book happens to be the biography of an actor-turned politician does it makes the book ineligible for an article in spite of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Of course the article is just a one-liner. We could solve this issue by expanding it. Deletion won't help. The kind of coverage received by the book is same as that received by any other notable book, or is there any other type of specific coverage the book hasn't received? I don't think so. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You very well will fluff it with trivia, add all names of celebrities who know nothing about writing and came to the inaugural ceremony and blabbered their hearts out, you will then go on and write book review written by film critics who are unsuitable for doing that, you will write what fellow-politicians tweeted about the book content and then you will select few quotes from the book and increase the article length; nothing of it amounting to stand-alone notability and failing WP:AVOIDSPLIT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What made you think all that? Does WP:NOTINHERITED is the only reason you think the article should be deleted for? --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your past track record. Re-read all comments so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks. Try to keep the comments related to the subject. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was asked and here it is. If you can't digest it, you are free to not talk to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong but your 3 comments above indicate that you are a bit angry with me or this whole discussion. Remember my friend Dharma that if the concerned parties keep a cool head then results might be produced easily. But in the end we are free to disagree. You have stated your viewpoint very clearly. I myself don’t know about any politician’s tweet regarding this book and if this becomes a reason for disagreement, it can be solved at the concerned article’s talk page. You have mentioned my past track record Dharma, but as far as I can remember I never added someone’s irrelevant blabbering or random tweet to an article. I’ll glad if you show me the diffs to any such edit. The author is a well known film journalist and columnist and based on the provided sources, the stub can be expanded into a decent size start-class article. Thanks for the time you are putting in deletion discussions. We need more editors like you. Thanks again. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, NBOOK also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book." Why aren't you taking all your sources and writing a small para about this biography in Sinha's biography itself? If author is notable, you are welcome to work on Draft:Bharathi S. Pradhan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to author page (whoever that is). Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try having a look at WP:BOOKCRIT, specially the 1st point. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable, and neither is the author. Optionally redirect to Shatrughan Sinha, who is the subject of the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect and expand the article Shatrughan Sinha with a new section possibly called Anything but Khamosh, a biography, including the references. The book attracted attention of independent sources and definitely deserves a mention in the main article about the actor/politician. It is in my opinion a better option than deleting possibly valuable and verifiable piece of information. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I don't see how this is independently notable. Now open for over 40 days, this discussion is getting stale. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG& WP:NBOOK. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:32, 19 November 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) 08:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lancom Systems GmbH

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

My clearly stated PROD mass-removed by driveby-IP with the sole basis of "sources existing" but they never actually acknowledged the concerns listed or at least attempted to improve the article, since my searches clearly found nothing and this is the only name the company uses as shown by the company website, so even German news media searches are not finding anything. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, I couldn't find anything myself either - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikiepdia facing these days in abundance! Light2021 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Akash

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

Actress who falls under too soon. with only 2 roles so far and neither have been released. Wgolf (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel reliable sources like these (and quite a few more that are available on Google) to be significant enough per BASIC: Deccan Chronicle, Times of India, Bangalore Mirror, Cinetrooth, another Deccan Chronicle. These sources have been added by me to the article now. Lourdes 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment-I was under the impression that they needed to have been in at least one film or tv show already to have a page-not where none of the films have been released. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be in case you're not referring to GNG or BIO (or BASIC)... It's not uncommon for an individual to fail NACTOR yet be qualified on GNG or BASIC. Lourdes 04:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miana (tribe)

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, agtx 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing reliable that discusses this community. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of other similar AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya, etc. The nom might want to list several at one time. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican News

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that this organization is referenced on a site ([41]) that shares a name with Sinn Fein but is not that political party's actual website. agtx 05:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:CORPDEPTH as publication is referenced in multiple locations on Wikipedia ([42]). Note that site ([43]) mentioned above refers to the Sinn Féin movement and newspaper Sinn_Féin_(newspaper) founded in 1905 that gave rise to multiple extant political parties and publications, such as Republican_Sinn_Féin and Official Sinn Féin, now the Workers'_Party_of_Ireland, as well as Sinn_Féin. Crossborder (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)— Crossborder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NPOV. An uncited corporate essay with questionable POV: "... independent publisher of news on the republican struggle for a just, peaceful, and united Ireland. WTF does this even mean? No prejudice to recreation if can done with reliable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has been edited to pass WP:V and WP:NPOV and to use language more appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and citing information which can be verified easily. Noting that as there is not an objection to the article as such, the discussion on style and content would be better served on the discussion page for the article itself, rather than through the process of deletion and recreation. Crossborder (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)— Crossborder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This doesn't solve the major notability problem. The key reason for deletion is that there are no secondary source mentions of this organization. agtx 15:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article still retains a problematic POV, as in "...from the point of view of Irish Republicanism". What the heck is "POV of Irish Republicanism"? No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment seems directed at the idea of subjective news. Almost all political news fits into this category, such as Counterpunch, "described as left-wing" according to Wikipedia. Irish Republicanism is a political philosophy dating back over 200 years. Look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossBorder (talk • contribs)

This is ridiculous. IRN is older than Wikipedia and probably older than you, agtx. There are scores of references on Wikipedia itself and here are some other secondary sources:

Global Report http://www.globalreport.org/ireland/

Bucknell University http://www.bucknell.edu http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rickard/irish.html

Earth Newspapers http://www.earthnewspapers.com http://www.earthnewspapers.com/Ireland-Newspapers/index.html

WorldNewspapers.com http://www.world-newspapers.com/ http://www.world-newspapers.com/northern-ireland.html

Info Nordirland http://www.info-nordirland.de http://www.info-nordirland.de/new_256_e.htm

Divided We Stand, by John Horgan https://books.google.ie/books?id=39ZBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=%22divided+we+stand%22+%22irish+republican+news%22&source=bl&ots=YKPJ8JR8Ln&sig=1P2rr_-dFqAif0bS_cSTYjzD6I8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDwO-DuNPPAhVLnBoKHRm0BxkQ6AEIITAB

Ancestry.com http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlker/kercivwar.html

4inm.com http://www.4imn.com/reviews/829.htm

Ancient Order of Hibernians http://laohtrinity4.tripod.com/id11.html

The Inquistr http://www.inquisitr.com/3253328/could-brexit-lead-to-a-united-ireland/

Newstral http://newstral.com/en/article/en/1028080750/-brexit-vote-denies-the-national-rights-of-the-irish— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossBorder (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL7. There are no third party reliable secondary sources to verify the information. We should not keep such articles until reliable secondary sources talk about it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lessons of History

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A short classic of popular history, written by the Durants near the end of their work on The Story of Civilization. Basic searches show lots of coverage. GScholar shows this book is cited, at least, in hundreds of other works. This was first published in 1968 so digging is required to find online reviews, but some examples of coverage from the time of its publication and since: [44][45][46][47][48] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Based on Arxiloxos's research the book passes BKCRIT but it's insufficiently developed as-is. I'd be willing to rework this in my userspace but I don't want to see this article stay as-is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ Pls see below // Original comment: as requested above. Currently, the article is a self-cited essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Arxiloxos for finding coverage in reliable sources. It is surprising that a book published in 1968 is being reviewed in 2015. The Time magazine review seals the deal for me. Will and Ariel Durant won a Pulitzer Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I believe that there is a strong presumption of notability for all of their books. AfD is not cleanup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be sufficiently notable, but I hope that somebody would improve the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it could use some expanding, but is notable. It is a condensed essay format book from a larger series work by the two authors (who are Pulitzer Prize winners for historical work). Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand if possible. The book is a contribution by notable authors to a subject of very long, and ongoing, interest. Nihil novi (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the so far uncontested claims of meeting GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Deadly Sins (series)

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

There are no refs in the article except for a link to the website of the author, and I was not able to find references demonstrating notability. Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Trying this out, I find [49], [50], [51]. So, she seems to be getting reasonable, ongoing press. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like Simon & Schuster just reprinted these in a multivolume compilation. Gotta say, the false positives are pretty hard to filter out for a really common series title like that, but it looks like a case where the article fails to use coverage clearly available online. Failing that, merge to the author's web page, because these clearly exist and aren't just self-published. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, although the series doesn't appear to have been reviewed as a whole, there are numerous reviews available on individual titles, article lists 6 of them in the references section. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Grant Sherry

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

William Grant Sherry is not notable according to the guidelines in WP:ARTIST. The fact that he was Bette Davis's husband does not not confer notability on him, see WP:INVALIDBIO. Some of the material in the article could be incorporated into Bette Davis. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Cracroft Ash

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

No reliable sources found for this biographical article. The article on his son, Michael Edward Ash, has sources added by Arxiloxos and was deprodded, but the father should be considered separately as notability is not inherited. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see contemporary coverage of him calling him a "distinguished civil engineer", but I suspect we'll need someone who knows the paper sources for this to stand - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm literally finding nothing but mere mentions and that's not surprising, current article conveys nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been able to find very little on line that's about Wilfred individually, but the company he co-founded, Gilbert-Ash, appears to be probably notable based on the extensive coverage of its activities in sources like the Belfast Telegraph and others visible in a HighBeam search. The content of this article would be relevant and usable in an article about the company (assuming it can be properly sourced). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Rise (GRID)

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

Non-notable sports team filled with primary sources and blogs as references that do not meet WP:GNG. Some sources are likely WP:ROUTINE. League is notable enough but teams do not show that they meet GNG independent from the league for the time being (WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Anthem

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

Non-notable sports team filled with primary sources and blogs as references that do not meet WP:GNG. Some sources are likely WP:ROUTINE. League is notable enough but teams do not show that they meet GNG independent from the league for the time being (WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DC Brawlers

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

Non-notable sports team filled with primary sources and blogs as references that do not meet WP:GNG. Some sources are likely WP:ROUTINE. League is notable enough but teams do not show that they meet GNG independent from the league for the time being (WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan McGrath

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a mountaineer, who has a potentially valid claim of notability but isn't sourced even close to well enough to support it properly -- of the three sources here, two are primary ones that cannot carry notability at all, and the one that is real media coverage just makes her a WP:BLP1E. As always, a person like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she could qualify for an article if she could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, but one piece of media coverage doesn't accomplish that. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of what little is written here is copied verbatim from her own website - it's a vanity bio, and a potential technical WP:COPYVIO. I think WP:PSEUDO and WP:1E control here - she's covered in WP:RS for two things. One is a single rescue she made, and the other is a time she was rescued. I, too, have been rescued from my doom by use of a satellite phone. FalconK (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steffi Sidney

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

Despite her role in Rebel Without a Cause, she doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. I suspect her obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and Variety[52] were more out of respect to her father, Hollywood columnist Sidney Skolsky. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While this is borderline, there was no support for a delete beyond the nominator and the commenters either voted keep or noted the addition of sources. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harper and the Moths

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Has some coverage, but not sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 25 September 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, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added much more references that should help with the decision. Kishmael 21:23, 03 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is not great; I've tagged it as a stub due to the lack of content. However, the band has certainly received some coverage in reliable sources. FalconK (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This article is a little disorganized and needs some expansion to properly identify with the group, but that does not mean the subject does not have some significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frasers Property

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

Possibly non-notable property development company. All information about the company itself in the article is sourced to an "Our Story" page on the company's website. There is one section on a definitely notable building the company developed (One Central Park). However, the sources provided for that section are a link to a press release by a partner development company that worked on the building, and a link to an award the building received. The award appears to be the only legitimately third party coverage provided in the article and the award is for the building, not the company (which is not mentioned in the award article). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of coverage in gnews search including in mainstream Australian press. meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see their name a lot, but what specific sources were you thinking of that contain any WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it seems some of the above articles are subscription only but I could view them via gnews search. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

urbandeveloper piece reads like a reprinted press release, others are corporate ownership coverage ... do the News Corp sources talk about the company in terms other than who owns which bits of what? -David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some of them talk about the company itself eg its plans for expansion and ownership structure rather than sites they're developing. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good, good ... they're a huge company, the sort of thing you'd expect to have been talked about - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 22 September 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, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. The only notability is inherited from (One Central Park), which has it's own article. Wayne 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a mjor copany, and one central park just the most recent of their properties. Needs expansion. (that al lthe refs given come from that building is just a matter of the article being incomplete.) DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Relies heavily on primary sources as written, but subject appears notable. Tag article with a need for better citations. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. It appears to be notable, based on what it built, but I'd prefer better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Chaltiel

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

Delete. Biographical article, tagged for notability since 2011 with no substantive improvement, of a person whose main claim of notability is that he was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor. This is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL, but there's very little substance here to claim that he's notable for anything else -- and the sourcing here is all either deadlinked or local coverage about his death. This is not good enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for mayor are almost never notable for such alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing of notability as a politician or businessman. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The rewritten/stubified version still does not appear to pass muster with most discussants. MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limeroad.com

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

My extensive PROD nearly immediately removed boldly with the thin and unconvincing basis of "news exists", but my concerns explicitly stated that the news found are simply what the company advertises about itself (which is not surprising) or then other simple trivial and unconvincing coverage. My PROD essentially explains everything so I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete per nom~~ it's been cleaned up since the PROD, but the sourcing is still really bad and too much of it actually fails verification - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Duplicate !vote struck. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Keep Sadly the company does find mention in the newspapers such as The Economic Times, Mint (newspaper) and Hindustan Times which makes it notable according to WP:CORP

The title seems misleading. It should be renamed to Limeroad or LimeRoad (The choice of capital R in between is deliberate here going by some articles and .com only suggests its an e-commerce website). Also the "Partnerships,"Online Traffic" and " Awards and Recognition" parts of the article are unsalvageable. It seems to be a stub after all these editing but the company seems to pass the notability test as per the verifiable sources. vivek7de--tAlK 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT -- unsalvageable even if the company is notable. Check out this contribution diff, which restored 3500 worth of promo content, while removing the AfD template. No point to keep this garbage in article history. No prejudice to recreation as LimeRoad if notability can be proven and better RS exist (which is not likely per the current state of things). But maybe the company will become more notable in the future, who knows? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is written like an advertisement. Runku4g (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've blocked the article creator Himanshu.butta (talk · contribs) for spamming. Discussion should focus on whether the sanitized version of the article is worth keeping. Sandstein 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sanitized version. It may be doomed to be a stub forever, but there are no rules against that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sanitised version. It's a bit better, but I'm still unconvinced by the sourcing. (Also, why are we sourcing claims about an Indian company's activities in India to not merely an English paper, but an English tabloid.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: did you mean for there to be a whole new discussion after the break, or is there a duplicate !vote above? Safehaven86 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was specifically phrased as discussion of the sanitised version, so I proceeded discussing that in particular as should be reasonably clear from both Sandstein's actual words and mine - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your original vote was also in reference to the cleaned up version, hence my inquiry here. I don't think it's standard to !vote twice at AFDs. I also don't think it's standard to respond to good-faith questions with condescension, but it appears irresistible for you to do so. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am saddened by your assumption of bad faith - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I addressed a reasonable and legitimate question directly to a different editor, and you responded with the assertion that the answer to my question was "reasonably clear." Obviously it wasn't "reasonably clear" to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. And you didn't exactly "proceed with discussion", you in fact cast a whole new !vote, hence my very reasonable question about whether users were supposed to cast entirely new !votes after the break, or merely proceed with a discussion of a particular version of the article. The bad faith here was yours, not mine. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still the same discussion, so everybody's opinion only counts once. Sandstein 05:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the "sanitised version" is equally unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be sanitized or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler to accept one version over the other; to suffer the slings and arrows of sources that are only PR, repackaged PR, company announcements, company sourced interviews, mundane financial information - Or to take arms against a sea of promotion and say, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Alas, to be lacking in GNG and CORPDEPTH is the true state of each version. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this article does get deleted then I also suggest putting up Voonik for deletion as it has the same "sea of promotion" in it. vivek7de--tAlK 19:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks pretty promotional, do a WP:BEFORE and if you can't find stuff that convinces you then by all means put it up for deletion, you don't have to wait on this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really convinced that it meets NCORP and add to that the promo pressure, I go with a delete. The sources are also not very convincing. For example, ET has a very brief coverage (~150 words) out of which 100 words are quotes by the founder and investor. HT is an interview of the founder which is not useful per WP:CORPIND. Business Standard is a vert brief coverage about funding. LiveMint is probably the only source which is somewhat better but not enough. The company has been trying to promote itself but it doesn't seem to have received enough secondary attention.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well over the top for GNG as well as CORP. International coverage in the UK, and coverage of A. M. Marketplaces Pvt Ltd. in businessweek.com, link, are further evidence. The only question worth asking is, since it is a startup from 2012, does it satisfy SUSTAINED? This company seems to be beyond just a potential if they are claiming 10000 merchants. As usual, WP:PROMO specifies NPOV, which means that we are required to report why the company has commercial appeal, else the article would not be NPOV (and thus fail WP:PROMO). Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Safran

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article, written far more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of a lawyer with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:LAWYERS. The referencing here is based entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media, so she has no strong claim to passing WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertising for an unconvincing lawyer whose attention and news would only come from any known clients and affiliates, therefore as the article shows these concerns quite noticeably, there's nothing suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary source coverage about her. Everything is press releases or otherwise non-independent sources. agtx 15:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiepay

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

Essentially actually speedy A7 and G11 material but it may be ridiculously removed with the "sponsors" claims but all of this is in fact an advertisement, focusing with only things the company would say itself, and my own searches are then finding nothing at all aside from a few mere mentions. Certainly nothing for actual independent notability and substance. PROD was in fact boldly and ridiculously removed with the basis of "new article, let it improve" yet no improvements have happened and this was an in fact from the start, not only that the user was "Indiepay" but a second account came later, this was also then nominated for speedy deletion but also removed. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing any significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- purely spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is near speedy material. There's hardly anything available in RS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied on request (by an admin other than me; I don't do that.) Sandstein 08:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal Health in Texas

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

This article is extremely non-neutral and is really an opinion piece rather than a formal neutral encyclopedic article. It cannot readily be fixed. Blowing it up and stubbifying it would be acceptable in place of deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur this is simply a journal report and certainly not an encyclopedia article, nor will it be because it's not a subject to suggest enough for its own article, instead better at an overall health article. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems very unencyclopedic. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it is a good topic, but the writing has NPOV problems and the topic is already covered in Maternal health. No reason why we need a WP:CFORK.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While we do have a few "Maternal health in (country)" articles, we don't cover sub-national regions and even if we did this article is nowhere near acceptable for various reasons already mentioned in other opinions above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please move to draft space This article is being developed during a class in the Wikipedia Education Program. I talked with the instructor in the course who asked if this might be moved to draft space for reflection. Could this deletion discussion be halted and this made a draft? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As Blue Rasberry mentioned, this is a student article that shouldn't have been created in mainspace. While it has issues in its current form, I'd like to userfy and work with Land and the student to try to get it into something acceptable. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Underwood

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

Per WP:1E Brianga (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a classic case of WP:BIO1E; the subject is not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Pincus-Roth

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journo. While there is a lot of sources there are no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. The awards are not major. Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal so should not be used. His citation numbers are trivial.
Last afd was tainted by a bad faithed nomination and sock puppetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The finding from the previous nomination discussion was accurate. What makes you think that his citation numbers are "trivial"? They were not trivial a year ago and have only increased since then. This entry does have room for improvement (citation formatting is the first thing I see) but this clearly meets standards for notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bangabandhu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to hide anything about authoring the article. I don't have any conflict of interest. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the scholar link above we can see that his highest cited work Avenue Q has bee cited 3 times. Trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar is primarily for academic or scholarly works and isn't a fair measure for a journalist, especially not an entertainment journalist. Washington Post authors on popular topics like Pat Goss, Rachel Elson, Steven Goff or even Donna Britt don't have ANY scholar citations, but we wouldn't question their notability. Those journos, like Pincus-Roth, are well represented in a Google search or a news search and are notable. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it was you that linked to google scholar to claim he was widely cited [59]. Trying to have it both ways? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist he's got a lot of citations, but as an author, he has one book. To clarify (in case there's a 3rd nomination?), here's a screenshot from the second page of his Google Scholar citations. Google Scholar focuses on aggregating citations for books, not newspaper articles, but you can see his writing is widely cited, even if Google News would be a better way to demonstrate this. Now, if you want to take out that he's an author from the lede, I think that's reasonable and would support the change. But there shouldn't be any question about his notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:03, 3 October 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to meet WP:JOURNALIST based on positions held, scope of work, and authorship of Avenue Q. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What positions held satisfy WP:JOURNALIST? What is special about the scope of his work? How hoes authorship of a non notable unviewed book help? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep -- I don't see what has changed since the last AfD, where the article was kept. The tone is somewhat neutral, and the subject appears notable, per positions held and awards received. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What positions held? Good jobs but nothing notable. What awards? None are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hillfields, Bristol. The one "keep" makes no policy-based argument. Sandstein 11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Park, Bristol

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

Chester Park is not a recognised area of Bristol, it has no significance and does not warrant such a lengthy page. Trunky (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How long are pages limited to? How many words per inhabitant are geographical areas restricted to, lest WP run out of server space?

This is not a major area of Bristol. It is a subdivision smaller than an electoral ward. Yet it is a real place, a long-established and well-defined place. There are at least two schools here calling themselves "Chester Park". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 30 September 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillfields, Bristol, the ward that it's in. The few verifiable scraps could be selective paste merged if anyone wishes. I can find no significant coverage of this small 19th century housing development in online sources; Google Maps shows the neighbourhood formed by "Chester Park Road, Berkeley Road, Argyle Road and Charlton Road" is a total of 4 or 5 small blocks of houses, which I do not believe is likely by itself to have ever been the subject significant coverage in any WP:reliable sources, online or offline. (Note to any further contributors to this AfD: Confusingly, Chester Park (as opposed to Chester Park Road) is a street over a mile away and so clearly not part of the neighbourhood as described in the article). Qwfp (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Noise

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like that I could use help with improving this article and making it more notable, because it still could not pass WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Could you guys help out please? Thank you.@Alsee:@Ss112:@Earflaps:@Infopage100:@Jax 0677: - XPanettaa (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has twice before been reached that TV Noise does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm not sure how more editors searching for reliable sources that don't exist will increase this band's notability. Winning a Grammy or having a few songs chart would certainly help. Until then, this is kind of like flogging a dead horse. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XPanettaa, it would be more useful if you screened topis for notability before posting a page. It saves a lot of time for everyone involved. Earflaps (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - This page is really notable. TV Noise is really notable. They collaborated with Martin Garrix and other big DJs. It takes time to make pages perfect. So us Wikipedians will get around this page really soon. But for now, just keep this page. P.s., this has got to be the poorest written comment by me.

Infopage100 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Hey @XPanettaa:, I haven't done much for TV Noise yet, but I did update the writing under the career table quite a bit. I will gather a bunch of references for this article soon. It's just been taking a little while because I've been mainly focusing on Mike Hawkins (musician). I think you asked me to edit that page earlier, and I certainly did. Though I'm not finished with that project either unfortunately. I'm not even halfway finished with anything yet. So check out Hawkins and TV Noise to see the progress, and let me know what you think on this talk page or on my own, User talk:Infopage100. Anyways, I wish you good luck with your articles, and I'm utterly exhausted, so goodnight.

Infopage100 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello @XPanettaa:, I have now done everything that I can for TV Noise, and have no more information to contribute to this page. Therefore this means that I will no longer be editing the following page. Tomorrow I will be busy updating an article that a friend of mine requested my help for, as I have already promised to do so days prior. If you wish to help you may. Thank you and good luck with the page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability. Add that to the over the top promotion, the over the top excessive refspamming, the undue weight given to almost everything, the fan cruft, the lack of any real coverage WP:GNG. Delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find one article about their songs which is not clearly a routine song announcement / press release. They seem to have done one minor interview in a non-notable magazine (Empty Lighthouse) but otherwise there is no coverage - no reviews, no charts. Simply, not notable. Nik thestunned 12:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians:

@Alsee:, @Ss112:, @Infopage100:, @TheMagnificentist:, @Earflaps:, @Jax 0677:, and anybody else, I need your help, because this article is still not notable enough. Could you guys help out please? This has to be notable, just like Mike Hawkins (musician) which has been expanded by Infopage100 before and after Jo-Jo Eumerus closes the deletion discussion. XPanettaa (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply@XPanettaa: - I will try to look for charts that will help, as I have tried few weeks back after the 2nd nomination. I will try again, but please do not take offense to my deletion nomination of the article you created, Henry Fong by attempting to redirect pages I created like you did on Mako (DJ duo), Gryffin (DJ) and Ookay. If they were done because of me not responding to your ping on 19th October then I am sorry because I did not see this until now or I might have been distracted. Please do not take it personally, I hope we can remain good Wikipedians without personally attempting to sabotage each other's edits. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTESTACKING @Drmies:? Karst (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, sure, a bit. XP is asking for help on the article, though we can guess what it means. I assume that the readers who were pinged will have found out by now that XPanettaa is indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @XPanettaa:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @XPanettaa:, ummm.... I'll try to do something. I really don't know what else I can do. Sorry. Infopage100 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that the duo meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC. No charts and the sourcing is all WP:PRIMARY. Karst (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No "keep" opinions of any substance. Sandstein 13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolurfrushan family

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

Vanity bio, fails WP:GNG by absence of independent reliable sources. Brianhe (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Notable family, founder of bank Saderat. Better sources needed may be. Consequently Oppose its deletion. 47.17.18.64 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the bank is notable and maybe even its founder, but the entire family certainly does not enjoy inherited notability. - Brianhe (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point but may be it's a bit like the Rothschild dynasty. They have an interesting coat of arms which was deleted by someone linked to "Rockefeller" in the edit history... 47.17.27.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more refs are needed and a founder of a bank himself might be notable but not the familyWorldlinguistic (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldlinguistic: that sounds like a !vote to delete it, then? - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL We do not keep family history articles, unless the family is unambigously notable. This seems to me more like a vanity page about the family, possibly to hitch a ride on the reputation of Wikipedia as generally neutral source. I do not see enough third party sources that the family is notable and references to the company/individual members do not count. (The family doesn't inherit notability from the company). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Steele Band

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

Advertorially toned and almost entirely primary sourced article about a band, whose most substantive claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is reaching #79 on a chart that doesn't satisfy WP:CHARTS (the magazine's Wikipedia article describes its chart as "focused on exposing new music played on secondary market radio stations", which means charting on it isn't noteworthy.) A band with no claim to passing NMUSIC #2-12 could still get an article if it could be sourced well enough to satisfy NMUSIC #1 (which is essentially "has enough media coverage to satisfy GNG"), but with the sourcing here being virtually all primary that hasn't happened. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the fancy wiki linking, but this is absurd. This is a real band, real people, and the bio isn't advetorially toned, it's just a plain description. Making the charts is a big deal, and per wiki's policy on WP:CHARTS there are countless band pages on wiki that have no charting or sources to prove charting. Did (talk) bother looking at the sources, which are all well established industry websites which show coverage. Additional media coverage will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article was advertorially toned; thank you for toning it down, but what it is now is not what it was at the time I wrote my nomination statement. Secondly, "real band, real people" is not, in and of itself, a reason why a band gets a Wikipedia article — we are not a free PR platform where everybody who exists at all is entitled to have an article just because they exist, but an encyclopedia where people qualify for an article if they satisfy certain standards of notability and sourceability. Thirdly, making "the charts" is not a big deal if the chart they made isn't one that qualifies as a notable chart per WP:CHARTS. (Frex, a band qualifies as notable because charting if they charted in Billboard; they do not qualify as notable because charting if the only charting claim they can make is on iTunes.) And fourthly, people do not get articles based on "well established industry sites" where the content is PR-oriented — they get articles based on reliable source coverage in real media, which exactly zero of the sources here are. Even "The Magazine of Country Music" source is actually a press release issued by the band to publicize itself, making it a self-published source. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not delete this page. We are getting the CMT and GAC sources that his music has run on for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 nationally recognized sources to the article that show national play. This should satisfy #11 and #12 of WP:NMUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only new sources present in the article since the last time I looked at it are both to a small local newspaper in Erie, Pennsylvania, and neither one says anything about radio airplay on a national radio network whatsoever. Those would be acceptable sources if the rest of the sourcing around them were better than it is, but the Erie Times-News is not widely distributed enough to carry WP:GNG all by itself if it's the best you can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the band appears to exist, but does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at the moment. There are not enough reliable independent sources writing in significant depth about the band to establish notability. Google searches turn up promotional and/or self-published material. The point where reliable independent sources write articles on the band (not reprinting press releases) will be the time the band is ready for a Wikipedia article. Article currently attracts an average of three views a day, and that includes those involved in writing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Turismo Dominicana 2009

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Turismo Dominicana 2008

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss TQI República Dominicana 2008

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the OUTCOME of the parent article's AFD. Utterly unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss TQI República Dominicana 2007

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the OUTCOME of the parent article's AFD. Utterly unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukari Mononobe

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

An "original character" with no indication that this has notability. I can find nothing on this in Japanese and searches in English only find a mention or two on personal sites. Michitaro (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria A11. This looks like a character made up by the article creator. I've added the A11 tag to the article. Calathan (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy deletion nomination was declined, but I still think this should be deleted as non-notable. Calathan (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable fan fiction character [60] [61] inspired by the characteristics and names of two Touhou project characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. ~Mable (chat) 12:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have declined the A11 speedy nomination, because WP:CSD#A11 requires that the article plainly indicates that the subject was invented by the article author or someone personally known to them. Suspicion is not enough. However, delete as non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone the deletion request as a WP:A7 no indication of importance - web content. The only place where it appears is on the author's page and a user-generated wikia entry for fan fiction characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also wanted to nominate this for speedy deletion, but I couldn't see a category that fit "unnotable fictional character," so I went through AfD. Michitaro (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that speedy deletion nomination. Fictional characters are not one of the subjects covered by A7. Merely having information about a subject available on the Internet does not make it "web content" (if it did, almost everything would qualify as web content). Web content in this sense is things like web sites, browser games, blogs, etc., that are inherently something you access with a web browser. Calathan (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is technically an idea from a blog, but that's fine if it doesn't fit A7. Still gets a delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eh, I'm ambivalent about the speedies, but yeah, I see nothing either, so a SNOW close wouldn't be a bad idea--by my count, we now have 7 deletes and 0 keeps, including the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buttercup Creek

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

I cannot find any sources beyond the article's photo to show this stream exists. GNIS searches turn up nothing, and Google searches turn up only wiki, wiki-mirrors or unrelated streams and housing developments outside of New York. Searching within the article's only reference (a dead link, but currently available here) does not turn up any results in NY. I'd really like to be proven wrong here, as WP:GEOLAND standards are rightfully low for geographic features, but I can find nothing - except for the picture with the sign, which I guess at least proves this is not a hoax.

In fairness, the article creator (who did not edit except to create this article in May of this year) contested a speedy by saying: This page should not be speedily deleted because... The creek is fed from a cold spring which reduces the temperature of the waters downstream to allow the trout to spawn. It is the only known spring fed tributary of the important kinderhook creek, hence having more than ordinary significance.

If sources are found, I would support keeping or merging the content to Kinderhook Creek, which this stream claims to be tributary to. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If deletion is supported, I wouldn't mind if the article was moved to my userspace in case I can locate offline sources at a later date. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Given new information about the stream's dimensions revealed below, I doubt this would ever be a subject needing its own article. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found Gifford road in Canaan on Google Maps, and it is very short and only crosses one creek on that map which was unnamed. Assuming it was Buttercup Creek, it is a tributary of Stony Kill which is a tributary of Kinderhook Creek. (Note that Stony Kill Falls is located on a different Stony Kill, but also in NY State.) That it drains into Stony Kill (not Kinderhook Creek) is stated in Canaan, New York also. I also found this creek on a USGS topo map [[62]] and that map doesn't show a name either. It looks to be about .75 mile in length - no wonder it doesn't have a widely recognized name. MB 05:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also used the interactive NYS DEC mapping tool (the one reference in the article) and found it is indeed classified as C(T) as indicated in the article. This map also showed no name, just a blue line. Have not found any other sources and conclude this stream is too small to be notable. Other than this entry in a database of all water bodies in the state of NY, can't find any map with it's name or any other reference. MB 15:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to piece all of this together MB, it's a much clearer picture thanks to what you've found. Searching for the road in order to find the stream was very clever. Given that this seems to be an extremely minor stream, I'm striking my request to userfy as it seems that this subject could be adequately and briefly covered as part of a downstream article (if anything identifying it by name is ever found, that is). Antepenultimate (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whaddya know, I actually found something, though it changes little. The name "Buttercup Creek" is currently a proposed name for the stream, having been submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names for review sometime before June of this year. See pages 12 & 13 of this document. It confirms that the naming is intended to refer to the Caltha growing on its banks, FWIW. Also interesting: the proposal summary, in assessing usage, notes that "The name Buttercup Creek is the subject of a short entry in Wikipedia, although there is no information to suggest it is in local use". Citogenesis in action! Nevertheless, the stream is still officially unnamed, and even if adopted, I still feel it best to include any information about this stream in an existing article for a larger stream fed by it. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting - good find. So it's actually 1.5 miles long. Where I grew up, there were many big ravines with little tiny creeks at the bottom and all were unnamed. If the name makes it into the GNIS, someone may recreate this article. But for now, I'm sticking with delete because it is one of thousands of short, tiny, and un-notable waterways. Hey, Antepenultimate I just realized we crossed paths a couple of months ago when you improved West Canada Creek. MB 02:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I recognized your sig, and I was glad to see someone who may have more local familiarity with the area take an interest in this deletion discussion (I really don't much care for deletion of geo features, in general - I was pretty reluctant to start this one). Good to see you! Antepenultimate (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kinderhook Creek, probably to its "Tributaries" section. --do ncr am 03:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG by a mile. why is there a picture of a ditch in this article?? Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS indication of existance or use of the name. Earlier comment about proposal to name the ditch is good evidence it is not a recognized, named feature. Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I lean towards keeping geo articles, this one seems to be a minor stream with no official name on any map. There is no coverage which can help us write an article and the concerns about potentially serving as a WP:CIRCULAR source of information makes me go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for the purpose of clarity since I raised the possibility of supporting a merger in my nomination - as no reliable sources using this name have been found, and all evidence points to there being none currently in existence (per the USBGN, noted above) - I would argue against a merger. There simply is no sourced information to merge. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:51, 1 November 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 Higher-Order Perl. Discounting the subject's own views per WP:COI, we have only one "weak keep" and a "keep or merge" on the keep side, plus a "redirect" and four "delete" opinions on the other. A redirect probably accommodates most views as it allows selective merging to the book article, subject to consensus among non-COI editors. Sandstein 09:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jason Dominus

AfDs for this article:

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

Article written by the subject of the article (and heavily edited by them). Subject has marginal notability, all of it stemming from a book he authored and self published sources. Google hits are not an indicator since the subject of the article has done his homework on generating link engine spam. COI edits throughout, and reads like a book advertisement. Article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Higher-Order Perl. Questionable sources. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May in fact be notable, though this article isn't good. If not kept, redirect to Higher-Order Perl, which is actually noteworthy in the field - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the subject of the article, which has survived three previous deletion discussions with strong consensus for “keep”. The proposal to delete claims that I wrote the article and edited it heavily; both of these claims are easily seen to be false. Wikipedia's policy on notability of authors says “The person has created … a significant or well-known work. Such work must have been the primary subject … of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” Higher-Order Perl meets this standard. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, the subject may well qualify as noteworthy and the article one to keep. May be a fixer-upper rather than a delete. And COI doesn't mean you can't touch the article about yourself, it means that you shouldn't beyond minor details (a can vs should issue). I mean, Dominus should definitely avoid editing the article, but it's incorrect to say it's forbidden - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very constructive and helpful suggestion. It's current sources are not secondary sources, and it still seems to make the most sense to redirect the bio to the article with the book because there is no context for his bio and the content does not meet standards as you pointed out earlier. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: I think a review of my edits to the article will show that I have only edited it to make the most minor changes. For example, this is my most recent edit, in March. But if there is a concern about my edits to the article, this is not the correct forum for dealing with them. The procedure at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest should be followed. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now about the notability of Mark Dominus. COI, if it exists, is a distraction. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, although it would be best if someone else sort of rewrote the article, it is extremely poorly written. I would stay stick to coding, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete computer programming language figure who lacks coverage to pass GNG. The inclusion criteria back in 2005 were a lot more lenient than they are today, which is why Wikipedia is plagued by thousands of articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator seems to be a single purpose account, per WP:SPA, and has made few or no edits unrelated to this particular AfD nomination. Starting an AfD with their third edit to WP (after user page and user talk page creation) is not typical behavior for a new user. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit all the time with my IP address, but you have to have an account to list an Afd. Have someone change Wikimedia to allow IP editors to create Afd without an account. At any rate, there is nothing sinister about it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be seen as an SPA attack account, then not attacking would probably be a good start - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now about the notability of Mark Dominus. Motivations of nom are a distraction. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I see no justification at all for the accusation of attacking, unless you mean the very mild incivility of "vanity article", which would be best stricken. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of David's assertion, there were, at the time David wrote that, a couple of passages by Octoberwoodland that could be considered more aggressive. But to Octoberwoodland's credit, they subsequently deleted those passages. At this point, I am content to assume good faith regarding Octoberwoodland's intentions and put the SPA concern to rest. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a little distracting to be debating something other than the subject of this debate. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some basic searching shows lots of web presence (twitter, personal sites, YouTubes, etc), but nothing that would clinch GNG in terms of archival sources. Indeed, the bibliography seems mostly to be web stuff, biosketches, conference presentations (broken link), etc. Awards, like the "Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility" are not notable. As far as I can tell, Mr. Dominus is a peripheral actor within the larger Perl world, rather than a notable computer scientist or language developer per se. The main claim for the article seems to be his book Higher-Order Perl. Most languages have their "Bibles" (like Kernighan and Ritchie for "C"), but Higher-Order Perl does not seem to be one of these for Perl. Noticed nom's mention of redirecting, but the book's notability seems debatable. I think JPL's above assessment is correct: this is a legacy article from the early days of WP when notability considerations were much lower than they are now. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge selectively to Higher-Order Perl. MJD's main claim to notability is as the author of Higher order Perl and as a columnist of The Perl Journal. He was a prominent although not central figure in the Perl world. Based on the book, he seems to meet notability per WP:AUTHOR, but reasonable people could disagree on this. What is clear is that there is basic verifiable information out there on the man, and per our WP policies of WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, it is preferable to preserve verifiable information rather than delete it. Hence if consensus does not develop for keeping the article, merging basic facts relevant to the HOP article, his most notable achievement, would be the best policy-based course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to HOP would be fine, unless that article would be at risk too. From what I can tell, Programming Perl is the "Bible" here. Presuming that Perl is like other modern languages in that there are dozens, or probably hundreds of dedicated mass-market books and technical texts, it's not clear to me that HOP itself is even notable. FWIW, I don't think being a columnist at The Perl Journal carries any notability weight. As far as I can tell, that seems to have been a short-lived trade publication/newsletter that went defunct about 15 years ago (all 19 issues seem to be here). I wonder if the following would be better. The main article on Perl is certainly permanent. Many of the people in the "perl box" listed at the bottom of this article are mentioned prominently or cited in that article. Dominus is not (though the HOP book is post-scripted as "further reading"). Perhaps this content should be redirected there, which would certainly satisfy ATD and PRESERVE. Agricola44 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A book doesn't need to be a "bible" to be notable; it just needs to satisfy the notability thresholds of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. HOP seems to do that, although folks are welcome to to bring it to AfD if they disagree. The Perl Journal was the main and dominant journal in the Perl world at the time, and being a columnist for the journal definitely contributed to the notability of MJD in the field, if not WP. At any rate, I think we should get not distracted by what-if scenarios and just concentrate on the article at hand. If keep does not become the consensus, a merge or redirect to the Perl article would be OK by me. But from what I have seen of the biographical sources for MJD, every one of them mentions HOP. A merge or redirect to Higher-Order Perl would seem a better fit and it would be easier to manage due weight in the merge. --Mark viking (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HOP probably satisfies WP:NBOOK, though I'm not sure. The point is that, if it were of "Bible status", it might render Dominus himself notable per se. It's not, so it doesn't. In digging a little further, I think it's fair to say he was a very visible advocate/promoter/teacher of Perl and he contributed some important modules, but AUTHOR (probably the best guideline match) would require him to be "regarded as an important figure", which he is not, or for HOP to be "a significant or well-known work", which it is not. BTW: The Perl Journal was not a peer-reviewed archival journal. It was a newsletter/trade-periodical that published a whole 19 issues. I think we're trouble if we feel that being a columnist for this caliber of publication renders notability. Agricola44 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this discussion had been about a person whose only claim to fame was to have written a minor book about a pretty minor tool used in any other industry then the article would have been laughed out of court. Why do we persist in applying different standards to some topics, such as the software industry, than we do to other topics? Isn't it time for Wikipedia to grow up from its geeky past and take a broader view of what is notable in an encyclopedia about the whole world? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri

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

fails WP:GNG, can't find any reliable source discussing this subject in detail Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable non-profit foundation developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 27 September 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, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important lawyer and advocate for human rights in Nigeria. Sources include several paragraphs and few paragraphs and in-depth and an interview here and she is quoted here. She is a frequent writer of op-ed columns such as this one and this one as well as a speaker. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Future commenters, please review Tomwsulcer's sources Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lawyer as the user noted above. Article needs work, but there is enough coverage here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the user who listed sources says themselves, they're merely mentions and paragraphs along with interviews and a few named connections, none of that amounts to substance and, considering this current article is entirely an advertisement, there's nothing suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not reliable sources. Columns written by the subject are not an indication of notability. We require reliable third party coverage about the subject. I looked at the sources above and I'm not really impressed. 1 is a passing mention/quote, 2 (same website as 1, but different article) is actually the same quote, copied word to word as the previous source (which makes me seriously doubt the reliability of the sources). 3, essentially a repost of her facebook post where she alleged that someone plagiarised her work. 4 redirects to an interview on a citizen journalism site, and 5 seems to be a quote. More importantly, almost every source talks about the subject in context of the organisation which potentially makes it a BLP1E. I guess this is WP:TOOSOON and in any case there is not enough coverage about the subject for WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source is not a passing mention/quote but in-depth treatment. She is quoted at length here and she is leading a protest here. She is known as a speaker on legal issues. Clearly a notable mover-shaker in the world of Nigerian politics and meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being quoted at length actually shows there was nothing better to publish, or chosen to publish but her own words, and then to make matters serious, WP:GNG means nothing if the article still exists for advertising, so in this case WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT apply, and are taken seriously when articles simply are supported by triviality such as mere quotes and other mentions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CKYZ-FM

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which began airing a test signal in 2016, but which is not properly sourceable as having officially launched its permanent signal as of today. Per WP:NMEDIA, however, a radio station does not get an article as long as it's still only planned or testing -- the time for an article is once reliable sources can be added which confirm that the station has officially and permanently taken to the airwaves, not the moment it gets a license or starts testing. (The testing phase can, for example, reveal unforeseen problems, such as interference with another station or with radio communication infrastructure at the airport — see CHNO-FM if you don't believe me on that one — which complicate or postpone or completely kibosh the real launch.) No prejudice against recreation if and when it's properly sourceable as having permanently launched, but radio stations that are still only in the testing phase don't get advance articles on Wikipedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 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, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going by just WP:GNG this radio station fails the notability criteria completly. A short news article on a local news website for its possible launch is definitely not enough. Apart from that there is absolutly nothing on them out there, except for some appearances in a few radio station listings. Its not even clear if this radio station has actually started broadcasting. Since there are no sources on them out there, this article will never have more content than CKYZ-FM is a radio station which exists. There is no direct SNG for radio stations, imo the failure at WP:GNG alone should be a sufficent argument to delete the article. There is an essay at WP:NMEDIA. It says: Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. There is no evidence that any of that is true for this station. Therefore I think the article should be deleted. Of course if they time meet the notability criteria at some future point, it can be recreated. Dead Mary (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Fougere

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

Delete. Single-sourced BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor and non-winning mayoral candidate in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:NPOL. As always, city councillors are not automatically granted a presumption of notability just because they exist -- outside the very narrow range of internationally famous global cities, a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if she can be extremely well-sourced as more than just locally notable for more than just the fact of existing as a city councillor. But with just one source here, which is local coverage in the context of announcing her unsuccessful run for mayor, that standard has not been satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too low a level politician to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a largely unsourced vanity page on a non-notable politician. An unacceptable BLP article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden fox footwear

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

Apparent promotional page. Literally all sources are bad, a basic WP:BEFORE turned up no evidence of RS coverage of the company. Created by SPA who makes many promotional edits concerning footwear. David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable secondary sources discussing the company or their products. And Golden Fox Footwear was deleted for lack of significance in August, with the deleting admin unable to find any sources, either. --bonadea contributions talk 05:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was created by ... the same SPA! As far as I can tell they have zero non-promotional edits - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing information followed by also trivial and unconvincing information, there are some thin claims of significance but it's still so thin, there seriously cannot be any actual substance, there's no inherited notability, as always, from anyone or anything. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- blatantly promotional page based on dubious, promotional sources. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Articles like this are a good evidence why WP:CSD G4 should be extended to apply to PRODded spam. Reyk _YO! 07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' -- obvious spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qazvin Tramway

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

No sources. No verifiability. Probably WP:TOOSOON as well. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find any notable sources relating to the tramway. Possible WP:HOAX? Nordic Nightfury 13:48, 27 September 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, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Blanton

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for office. This is not an automatic pass of WP:NPOL; if you cannot show and source credible evidence that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability because election. But literally all we have for sourcing here is primary sources, like his own campaign site, his own press releases about his own campaign, and his profile on the website of a directly affiliated organization. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if major party nominees for US congress were notable, which our guidelines say they are not, this would not extend to 3rd party candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TNT this one; badly written and sourced vanity page of a BLP; and an unremarkable person to boot. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royganj M.L High School

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

I could find zero independent sources to prove that the high school actually exists. High schools are generally kept but this particular case, I couldn't find anything on the web. This user has uploaded some pictures at commons claiming to be the school but the images doesn't demonstrate the existence of the school. Jim Carter 11:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Benefit of the doubt (AGF). The photo is quite clearly identifiable as a school building in tropical or sub-tropical Asia, it will be unlikely that all schools in developing countries have web sites or even much written about them on he Internet (they certainly don't here in Thailand which is nevertheless more developed than some parts of Europe). High School articles, in so far as they are not blatantly promotional, are hardly toxic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Here the question is not if it is promotional or toxic, I cleaned the article myself. But the question is if the article is a hoax (or coined) or not. I challenge that the article is a hoax and I don't know how anyone can prove me wrong. The pictures are not a solid proof of existence, I can take similar pictures and claim it as school. It is not even a source that can prove that they are school. In India every old building looks like that school. I could find zero sources on the web or anywhere. AGF is not a solid argument when the existence of the subject is in question. As WP:OUTCOMES even mentions that: "high schools are usually kept *except* when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Jim Carter 16:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even I would have been positive if I could have found the name of the school on Google Maps, any school not even in Google Map whereas other schools around that location are listed. I'm skeptic about the subject's existence. Jim Carter 16:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a deeper look, even the existence of this "Royganj" village is disputed, I could only find the Upazila on the map. Jim Carter 16:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. The idea behind my comment is 'AGF'. That means not automatically assuming it not to exist and definitely not going so far as to assume it to be a hoax. I appreciate your concern but I don't think we can suggest that every unverifiable article is an invention, particularly when they come from regions known not to be as technically developed as others. I think the likelihood of a hoax to be extremely slim. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Chris. I don't believe that we keep unverifiable articles on Wikipedia. One of the fundamental policy is verifiability. I would never have tagged it for AfD in the first place if I have found at least a single source identifying the school. But that is not the case, AGF is a guideline and V, RS are all long standing policies. I don;t know how I can make an exception in this particular case. Jim Carter 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability under NSCHOOLS, the relevant guideline, as there is absolutely no coverage of the subject.
A fundamental principle of notability is that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"; furthermore, "[n]o subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not . . . a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity . . . ." Also, "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The community has clearly and recently expressed its unwillingness to relax these standards in response to systemic biases, such as a lack of coverage for subjects in developing countries. Wikipedia is not a directory, even of harmless subjects like schools. Rebb ing 16:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that high schools of confirmed existence are considered notable on a per se basis, like populated places, highways, mountains, and rivers.~~Carrite (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". This is a case where zero sources exist, so the action consistent with long-standing consensus would be to delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will yield the point and get out of the way on this one. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:VERIFY, with no sources provided in the article or found during the course of this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -Chandaikona M.L High School is the actual high school which is located in Raiganj Upazila. This name may be a variation of spelling Raiganj.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a legitimate school, there may be Bengali language references. I found the corresponding article in the Bengali Wikipedia by looking at the images in commmons. I'm also not sure if this is the same school as Chandaikona M.L High School mentioned above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note at User:Moheen Reeyad's talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sujod

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

I have been trying to clean up the villages in southern Lebanon for the last couple of months, but I have still *no* idea as to where this place is located. I cannot find anything even remotely similar mentioned in http://www.localiban.org/rubrique505.html The only source talks about "the mountain of Sujod." If nobody can find this on a map, then I suggest we delete it. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is a Sejoud in Jezzine District, located here...is that it? If so, it should be moved to that name Huldra (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either. The only reference I found used this wikipedia page as it's reference! Mattximus (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tz database time zones. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

America/Indiana/Indianapolis

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

My research failed to turn up significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and as such all of these articles appear to fail the general notability guideline. I am unable to find a more applicable notability policy or precedent for either keeping or deleting articles over time zone database locations, though many other such articles exist, so this is somewhat of a test case. Since they appear to fail the GNG, I recommend deletion or else redirection to either Time in Indiana or their geographic localities (such as Indianapolis, Indiana). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list of these tz database time zones is at, appropriately, List of tz database time zones. I'm not sure what to do with the individual listings. The tz database is unquestionably notable. The list of zones it defines, also not a problem. Individual content for each zone? I'm not sure. It seems unlikely that they'll have specific, GNG-passing discussions on their own. But on the other hand, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and surely this is a gazetteer function? For the record, there's this big list of Indiana-specific ones because the tz database tracks regions that have had timezone changes during the Unix epoch, and timezone management in Indiana is a mess. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I totally agree that the database and list of individual zones are notable. I'm just not convinced that the individual zones should have articles themselves (usually). There does not appear (at least with these zones) to be enough depth of coverage to justify each having their own article; what little coverage there is seems to be fleeting at best, and not enough to produce more than a stub or start class article at best. The gazetteer function can be accomplished by a better formatting of the main list article, with the coordinates and associated location for each zone being linked and the list being broken down into more manageable, sortable sections by region (America, Europe, Asia, etc). I would not be opposed to redirecting the zone articles to either "Time in _____" (in this case Time in Indiana), the associated location for the zone, or to the main list of zones in place of deleting the pages if consensus is that retaining the pages would enhance the gazetteer function. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an interesting find, Ks0stm. :) I think the proposal to redirect these to articles like Time in Indiana sounds like a good solution, but at least some of these time zones cover multiple states. How do we handle that? A Train^talk 21:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a Magical Christmastime World, I'd like to support retention of these tz time zone articles, to be honest, along with the specific history of why they're each necessary. That would often provide some overlap with (for example) Time in Indiana, but they're not precisely the same thing. I'm simply unconvinced that we can construct such an article without original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tz database time zones. Given the lack of secondary sources I think the nominator's reasoning is sound, but if there's a parent article why don't we just redirect there instead of deleting? Like Squeamish Ossifrage, I would also love for all of these articles to be fleshed out with time zone ephemera but I guess we're not going to get that. :) A Train^talk 16:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to List of tz database time zones. Having a separate page for each obscure entry is overkill and WP:UNDUE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus is clearly against deletion (not one commenter supported the nominator on that argument), and so may be interpreted as a "keep" result in that sense, but editors are divided beyond that. Please continue to discuss through normal channels whether to keep, merge the content, or just redirect. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley

AfDs for this article:

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

The page is nothing but listcruft that lacks any real assertion of significance. Mentioning someone in a song isn't in itself a really noteworthy trait anyway. Since this is not a place for excessive listings per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's best to just delete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this list does prove something - that Presley's influence over music is so profoundly vast that artists of all different genres, from country to hip hop to rock to indie pop, have referenced him in numerous times in their music, and that seventy years after his commercial peak, he is still a huge part of Western culture. P.S. I promise that if this list is left alone that I will add numerous refernces to it! User:MagicatthemovieS 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Cultural impact of Elvis Presley which discusses that. Anything on his influence over music is best placed either there or in his main bio. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion before and it was decided that it should be left alone. Shouldn't we defer to that decision? User:MagicatthemovieS 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. First of all, that ended in "no consensus" rather than an outright "keep", though that wouldn't prevent future AFD nominations regardless. Secondly, just because something was kept before doesn't necessarily mean it should still be kept. Things can change over time, and that discussion was from 2008. Article standards have substantially changed since then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley Also keep the history and link to it on the talk page so if someone wants to recreate this list on a more appropriate website they can. There's also a list of "Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley" which was nominated for deletion in 2007 and closed as no consensus that should also be redirected. BigGuy88 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is kind of like articles like Cultural depictions of Cleopatra or The Devil in popular culture or any __ in popular culture article only more focused. I fail too see why it needs to be deleted while the aforementioned articles have not been.

That's irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't like it" but this kind of list is standard practice on WP.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this "standard practice"? I can't really think of any similar pages like it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "List of songs about...", for instance List of songs about the environment. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never saw that before. In any case, whether other things exist (or don't exist) is a moot point per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that the "other stuff exists" policy had some effect on AfD discussions, but I have never seen it to.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make my view more clear: I would like to see a lot less popular culture, original research lists. However I do watch the AfD's and it is very rare when one gets deleted. Obviously lots of people like them and others are not offended, and WP policy is not taken that literally or seriously as, in fact, I would like. Deleting this one would either be an unfair exception or else a start of a long and difficult campaign to get rid of the rest. Take your pick. Sounds like a big waste of time to me. Not my job to change people's attitudes.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing (or not existing) is NOT a valid reason in itself for maintaining this, in case that point wasn't already clear. Just because other pages are mistakenly kept doesn't mean this one should be. It also doesn't make sense to vote "keep" on something you feel should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Songs about Presley are discussed by several sources, including George Plasketes' Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point; just because something is discussed doesn't automatically mean it is noteworthy. Referencing a person within songs isn't exactly in itself a significant trait. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs referencing Elvis Presley is a bit tenuous for a list, but there are a significant number about Elvis Presley, which is, in your terms, a significant trait. I would note that a lot of the songs listed here as being 'about' Presley really are not, but if you brush away the chaff there's enough there for a decent list. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I never said or even suggested that being about Elvis was significant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did. I just stated my opinion that it is significant. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Right now the list looks like a link farm for the performers of the songs rather than being about the songs themselves. The article is largely WP:OR, i.e. who determines whether the song is "About" Presley vs being "Substantive reference" vs "Nominal reference"? Most of the content does not have citations so it's also the case of WP:V not being met. With a redirect, anything useful could be pulled from the article history.

If the article is kept, the list should be culled to only those songs that have articles themselves. Otherwise, this is an indiscriminate collection of information and is not suitable for inclusion. The list would also need to be checked for OR, for example, the White_Privilege_II article mentions Presley exactly once. Overall, I think a redirect would be preferable as this looks to be more hassle than it's worth. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. The problem is that many more people will care deeply about their favorite song than about some WP policy. Once again: "I don't like it." Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed

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

Little indication of notability. Full of WP:PEACOCK language and written as a puff piece. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed is a notable figure, activist and writer in South Yemen and he is one of the leaders of the Southern Movement.
Here are several sources to confirm his kidnapping, imprisoning and release by the Yemeni security forces as a political prisoner and also as a writer.
http://www.yemenpost.net/47/LocalNews/20082.htm
http://womenpress.org/oldsite/news_details.php?lng=english&sid=1372
http://protectionline.org/2007/09/04/brigadier-nasser-al-nouba-nasser-al-%C2%91awlaqi-%C2%91abbas-al-%C2%91assal-arrested/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/12/15/name-unity/yemeni-governments-brutal-response-southern-movement-protests
Here's also some of his published articles in Arabic
http://www.sadaaden.uk/read-news/314393
http://adengd.net/news/214646/#.V-W9M_ArLIU
Here are some TV Network interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPl2beVDZvw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waHEJZT3enQ
Please keep the page up because there are always people searching to find information about the leaders of the Southern Movement and South Yemeni writers and activists.EDQ 23:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhirak (talk • contribs)

Comment You created the article and are the main contributor. You're not exactly unbiased.

Delete fluffy article about a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We tried our best not to be biased. We will be grateful if you can please help us improve the page. Tell us what to remove or what to add. Thank you EDQ 23:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhirak (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is about leader of the peaceful southern mobility movement. Marginalized people shouldn't be marginalized on wiki too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdigrass (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: above vote is by a WP:SPA who is a possible WP:SOCK of the page creator. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna lie. I was motivated to create a WP account when I saw the issue on this pages a few days ago, when I saw it was relisted I felt obliged to vote to keep since I know about the person and the southern movement and also help edit, but I'm not a WP:SOCK. I've been following the war in Yemen and understand the South Yemen history and people. Nerdigrass (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this person was notable, the state of the article is 100% unacceptable with external links and dubious content. If someone comes along willing to prove notability and create an article with RS, then all the power to them. Delete for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marid (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that [63] and [64] both cover Marids that appear to be more influenced by D&D's instantiation of them, rather than what we see at Marid, the more traditional Islamic mythological creature, even though neither mentions D&D explicitly. Failing that, merging per BOZ would be acceptable. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus reached about whether to merge or keep yet Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. There are no reliable, independent sources that talk about the marid specifically as it is used in Dungeons & Dragons. An apparent influence is not enough; we'd need reliable sources explicitly talking about the influence of the D&D description of the marid. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not merge to Marid instead? See, that's the rub here--there are two perfectly valid merge targets: the list of game creatures, or the base article for the mythological creature on which the fictional element is based. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. There's nothing to merge as the article appears to be mostly a self-cited essay. I don't believe that Marid is a suitable target for the merge, as this content would be trivia ("cruft") for that article and could be deleted. Better to redirect to an in-universe target. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.e.coffman (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Jclemens's argument, as far as I can see, is essentially that it looks like the subject may have been influential in some way, but that we have no evidence of this. That doesn't seem like good evidence of notability. If we had a third party source commenting on its influence, then yes; currently, no. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters and /or Marid as editors may deem appropriate, but on its own the article does not establish notability through third-party coverage. Sandstein 08:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Tourism International. Definitively consensus on removal (although the article is not "unambiguous advertising" so not G11 eligible), using a redirect so that people can merge stuff if there is anything to merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2012

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam on an non notable event. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be reliably sourced, then merging with Miss Tourism International seems the most sensible thing to do. Otherwise redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2009

AfDs for this article:

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information on a non-notable topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS. The winner's name in the main article is enough here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect but there is support for removal. If people want content to merge (and no, primary sources can in fact be used as sources) they can ask at WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2013

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam on an non notable event. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be reliably sourced, then merging with Miss Tourism International seems the most sensible thing to do. Otherwise redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge if sourceable. There is no point in a redirect, because anyone looking would find the main article. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article106695287.html

[1] ttp://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article106695287.html

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Kowloon Route}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd Jobs (TV pilot)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bithiri Sathi}}