Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JodyB (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 30 March 2015 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew JC Jackson). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 21 March 23 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INetClean

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

Filtering software that doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. No reliable secondary sources provided, I can't find any, and the article gives no reason to think they exist. —Cryptic 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina–Marshall football rivalry

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

Fails WP:NRIVALRY as none of these sources establish said "rivalry"--or even use that term. They played each other yearly from 2005-2013 because they were in the same conference, with no other significant events occurring. Everything here is WP:ROUTINE. Tavix |  Talk  23:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep - As anyone who has participated in AfDs for college football rivalry articles will tell you, I am no easy "keep" !vote for CFB rivalries. I believe that such articles must clearly satisfy the general notability guidelines to qualify for inclusion as stand-alone Wikipedia articles. No, this East Carolina–Marshall rivalry series is not Alabama–Auburn, Florida–Georgia, Michigan–Ohio State, Oklahoma–Texas or UCLA–USC, but it is a legitimate college rivalry that evokes real emotion for the alumni and fans of these two programs. Here's a sample of the the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources:
Mind you, this is what I found with a simple Google search in the space of 20 minutes; I have not even bothered yet to run searches in Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, or Google News Archive. Sure, the coverage is local and regional (in three states: North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), but this is a rivalry between Mid-Majors, and the coverage does have depth and detail discussing the history and significance of the series as a rivalry. These are not passing mentions or trivial uses of the word "rivalry." The coverage is of sufficient depth and breadth of this series as a rivalry to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, and there is more out there to be found by searching. The only reason I'm calling this a "weak keep" is because of the relatively low number of games in the series to date (15). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, though these appear to be local media outlets in the Carolinas-Virginias where the two schools are located. Did you find any coverage of this series as a notable rivalry in national (or regional) media outlets? Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have backed out the previous close and relisted this, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard: The Virginian-Pilot is also located outside the immediate market of East Carolina and Marshall -- over 130 and 460 miles away, respectively. These are not all hometown newspapers for the two universities. Moreover, the coverage is significant and discusses the history of the rivalry and its significance to the two schools in some depth. I do agree with Cbl62 to the extent that national and regional coverage should be accorded greater weight in determining the notability of CFB rivalries, but weak national coverage (e.g., one and two-sentence mentions of a "rivalry") is not weightier than significant coverage in regional media. What we really need is a more detailed specific notability standard for sports rivalries for a greater measure consistency in these rivalry AfDs. More importantly, we also need to better define the meaning of "significant" coverage for all AfDs -- the present standard is surprisingly malleable depending on the subject area, the editors involved, and the closing administrator applying it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying that The Virginian-Pilot is a non-local source, which helps bolster the case for notability. While national and regional coverage are better than local coverage, I think we should rely on Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline rather than a more detailed specific notability standard for sports rivalries.

    S Marshall (talk · contribs) provided a convincing argument for doing that:

    Our notability rule is very old and very simple. If it has significant (more than a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (note plural) then it's notable. If it doesn't then it isn't. This rule is simple and simplistic and it leads to simple and simplistic outcomes, and I understand why some editors want something more subtle and nuanced ---- but there are really good reasons why it has to be simple. You see, there wouldn't be much point going through the effort of researching and writing an article if people could come along and randomly delete it, would there? So we have to have simple, clear rules that are consistently enforced. That's what enables people to write content without going through a committee process first.

    This is why it's so important to stick rigidly to the WP:GNG even when it gives outcomes that might seem anomalous, such as in this case. It will certainly take careful thought and good editorial judgment to keep the article on the right side of WP:FRINGE. But it's a much more serious mistake to delete an article on a notable topic, or to try to re-define notability so it means something other than significant coverage in reliable sources.

    —S Marshall at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll)

    And:

    In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't "count" towards notability. Editors have started to use "notable" to mean "a worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write an article", and we need to kill that off. Let's be clear here: notability isn't an encyclopaedic concept. You can bet that the editors of Britannica aren't sitting around obsessing about notability! It's purely a product of Wikipedian culture and it exists only because of our open editing environment. The meaning of "notability" is simple and simplistic and it's quite clear from the GNG: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. That's it. The reason why it's so simplistic is to provide us with an objective test which was meant to cut through these endless, circular notability debates. This lady passes it, and with all due respect for the ingenious arguments offered by other debate participants, the alternative view that the sources somehow don't "count" is quite untenable.

    ...

    I don't think my position is an "argument". It's a fairly uncontroversial statement of what notability meant when it was devised. In origin, notability's not an encyclopaedic concept, it's a tool for detecting and eliminating marketing spam. I don't believe the editors of any paper encyclopaedia including Britannica ever think about notability (but then they wouldn't have articles on Australian boxers' daughters very often either, of course). I think the idea that notability requires being notable for something is tautological; but I suspect you mean notable for an achievement of some kind, don't you? If so, that's a very new school idea that only surfaced in the last three years or so.

    —S Marshall at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Gartner

    Cunard (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep meets WP:N. Sources are a bit more local than ideal, but it meets our sourcing requirements. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am persuaded by Cunard's arguments above that the coverage is not local in nature and instead consists of coverage in major metropolitan dailies. As he notes, these are major news outlets with substantial circulation and not just local or small-town newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The teams play one another a lot because they're in the same league/conference. Suggestions that this rises to being a "rivalry" are pure synthesis. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to AirTrain JFK. czar ⨹ 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal 1 (AirTrain JFK station)

Terminal 1 (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Station is not notable on its own, aside from the rest of the AirTrain JFK system. Article reads more like a travel guide and there is no historical or technical information about the station that would not otherwise be appropriate to be in its parent article. I am also nominating the other 7 station articles below for the reasons noted above:

Terminals 2/3 (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminal 4 (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminal 5 (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminal 7 (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminal 8 (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Federal Circle (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lefferts Boulevard (AirTrain JFK station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

–Dream out loud (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the AirTrain Newark station articles and I was planning on nominating them as well, pending the outcome of this nomination. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this were the case, I would nominate those to be redirected as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are sufficient reliable sources to verify notability. JodyB talk 23:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Casey

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

Article on a WP:FRINGE advocate supported by two sources, one self-published and the other unreliable. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, User:Gene93k User:JzG/help, I took a quick look, starting with the most recent (2013) book, which is published by a major house. that induced me to put his name and the book title into a news google search; came up with a handful of investment newsletters (one that advises buying gold describes him as a "famous contrarian speculator and libertarian freethinker" and did a book interview [1]) This is a far cry from Charles Schwab or Goldman Sachs, but I'm not certain that all of these newsletters be dismissed as fringe. The first link was to an author interview on Reason (magazine). Do you want to perhaps take a second look, maybe do a little more searching and then make a better-supported justification for AFD? E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My error, thanks for correction User:JzG/help - do you want to rethink?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the nominator's 'root' username is @JzG:, signature points to a sub user-space page.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy? Splendid. Please add some. Otherwise the article violates policy, you see. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty sources that prove notability. I've added a few.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked over the sources and there just isn't enough to establish notability. The Forbes articles are the most directly about him, but they are opinion pieces, which Forbes does not take responsibility for. So, they are not reliable. Several other sources are primary or trivial mention. There isn't one in-depth reliable source. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's just enough coverage of him in independent sources to pass the WP:GNG bar. Add in the fact he wrote a # 1 Bestseller book, notability is established.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Porter

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite limited participation, we almost never keep articles about local branches of this sort. A7 might have done it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCI Ralston

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

Does not meet WP:BRANCH criteria for a separate article: Local town chapter of the Jaycees; no significant independent coverage found, just rehashes of the organization's own output. Closeapple (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per own nomination: Based on what little coverage exists on the web, it appears that the vast majority is just republished JCI Ralston press information about local events. As an example of not being able to get any independent depth of coverage: The article (which contains no sources) claims that Ralston somehow "restructured" to become part of JCI instead of the U.S. Jaycees, but I can't find it even when I search for it, and the Ralston website doesn't even address it and shows either or both logos arbitrarily on the website. No sources, so no verified claims to merge to any other article. --Closeapple (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate vote by nominator, put the entirety of your rationale in the nomination statement. You can comment, though. Esquivalience t 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the article is advertising, and there is no indication that this particular sub-unit of the organisation is notable in it's own right. -- Whpq (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Artus

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

This BLP has no reliable sources (only IMDB). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - Padenton's also reminded not to nominate articles which have only been created 10 minutes ago - We want to keep newcomers not scare them off, Thanks. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC). 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor (film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM ― Padenton |☎  21:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Original Russian:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SK1 & all that shizz (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Witch (band)

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

Band that has been tagged for notability since 2008-and considering the EL took me to a Ralph Lauren page, I'm pretty sure they are no longer in existence. Wgolf (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well looking up waking the witch I didn't seem to get anything for a band was the thing. But I probably might withdraw....Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, no, if all you did for a Google search was type in "waking the witch," just the once, then yeah, that'd give you a lot of hits for a Kate Bush song or a book by that name. So what stopped you from refining the search? "Waking The Witch" + Leeds gives you 12,000 hits.[33] "Waking The Witch" + band gives you 40,000 hits.[34] Kinda sloppy there, man. Nha Trang Allons! 18:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Riddick Jessie

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

Perhaps worth a merge/redirect to Eugenics Board of North Carolina, but I couldn't establish that Jessie meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Hopkins

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

Autobiographical article created by new user with edit summary Created Professional Profile. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn: he has had an interesting life, but I see nothing here that suggests encyclopedic WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Household Names

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

I couldn't establish that this seemingly-promotional article can meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Shearer-Nelko

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

Not notable. She has been runner-up and finalist in some contests but has not won any prestigious ones. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject clearly passes the GNG. Winning contests isn't a requirement for notability, being noticed is. Nelko and/or her work has been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources, including several already in the article and others such as [44][45][46] and so on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Clansmen

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

I declined G4 as the article differs from the previous one. I can't, however, see any increase in the showing of notability, and the article is only referenced to the team's own site. University sports (with the exception of The Boat Race) do not receive great attention in the UK, unlike the position in the USA. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD

I'm not an admin, but I hope that no one minds me jumping in here to close this - please let me know if this is an issue. I've taken some time reading through this and the previous discussions, and I fail to see any significantly new points raised in this discussion, and the general overview of this is tending towards a no consensus overall. While there do appear to be sources, and it may pass GNG, it does not appear to have significant MEDRS, or if it does, these are yet to be raised. Additionally, issues have been raised over the style of the writing and it's sutability for Wikipedia.
Overall, therefore, there is no consensus to restore the content at this time. However, there is a consensus that, if the issues are addressed, this may be restored to mainspace in the future through a DRN discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View RFC/AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL))

History

I've noticed a growing trend on Wikipedia which diverges from our initial goals with a dangerous precedence being set. Our goal is to document the world based on verfiability and notability. It is here that we have the right to document the unusual apart from the usual with a neutral point of view. Mainstream acceptance has never been a requirement, while this social phenomenon is unusual to rare there are enough secondary reliable sources to deem it notable. I feel in many ways the previous close was against consensus. We have the term no consensus for a reason such as this case when there is no consensus. The ensuing dispute only emphasizes the lack of consensus.

Upon reviewing the sources, this topic has been covered both academically and by mainstream media including a documented shooting which the perpetrator directly specified incelism as a motivate. I've added an additional six citations to tokyogirl's version the argument that this lacks notability or is not a social condition simply does not hold. I am requesting that the current version be moved to the mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a way of reviewing decisions, even Del Rev. And an RfC at WP does have the advantage that it can essentially do anything. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is notationally true, I would point out that an RfC that lacks consensus cannot do anything; the default is that things remain they way they are (which, in this case, means the article remains deleted.) I'm still marginally side-eying the idea of using an RFC as an end-run around the somewhat stricter standards of DRV; but it is clear at this point that this particular RFC is never going to reach the level of support that would be necessary to restore the article. --Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration. Not having sex is called celibacy, and we already have an article that covers this mainstream, traditional issue. "Incel" does not exist outside the fringiest realms of fringe science, there has been no change in the sourcing attempts in this article over the years. It's the same people, Donnely and Gilmartin (both have had BLPs deleted) ,cited pushing the same fringe. If this closes as no endorsement to restore, I'd like to see at least a 1-year moratorium on recreation and in indefinite topic ban on Valorem. We shouldn't be subjected to the same degree of POV-pushing and advocacy year after year after year. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration. Not having sex for mainly religious reasons is called celibacy. That is why the Celibacy article belongs to the Wikiproject Religion. And PLEASE respect other editors decisions, we had this discussion like in December 2014. Hafspajen (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • - no restoration- Comment I think Coffee's idea to make it an RfC is a good one, as more eyes is good. As far as mainspace, I don't see any improvement on the material discussed when it was nominated for deletion. It is still cobbled-together material written like an essay to give an imaginary condition some form of substance. The fact that someone committed homicide and blamed this, and that people would take that at face value, is alarming. The result was merge but none of the material is mergeable. Hence should not be in mainspace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration. This is plainly a neologism; I don't see any particular evidence that the sources cited below are talking about the same thing. To the extent that it's worth covering, I would expect it to be initially covered by a subsection of the Celibacy article (which could get its own article if and when it becomes clear that there's enough noteworthy material to support an independent article); but I doubt that it is really noteworthy enough or has sufficient coverage to support even a significant section there. The idea of going straight from no mention on the main Celibacy article to having its own article seems bizarre to me. Beyond that, the appropriate place to take this is DRV, not here; I don't feel that it is at all appropriate to use a RFC to try and restore an article that has received such extensive discussion in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, @Tarc: I have been nothing but civil throughout this debate. I was never involved any prior debates regarding this topic except the last DRV. This encyclopedia is founded on debate and discussion. To suggest a 1 year topic ban because I civilly requested further discussion on a subject (a second time) is nothing short of the thought policing we built this encyclopedia to destroy. What I do is what we should all do, surf through topics and subjects deemed notable and create or restore them. This is how we expand this encyclopedia, and was how we built Wikipedia. I have a history of challenging consensus, UFO sightings in outer space, Dieselpunk, Justin Knapp, and The Halal Guys. Upon reviewing the sources in this article, I see the same prejudice to concepts we are unfamiliar with. Web MD and others show the undeniable notability of this subject and show it is distinct from celibacy. Though the term is an oxymoron, to say that it makes the concept null is absurd. We document what is notable not accepted:
  • Olson, Carl (2007). Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780198041818.
  • Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth ; Anderson, Sally ; Davis, Regina ; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38 (2): 159–169. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
  • Hawes, Joseph M. (2002). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781576072325.
  • O'Brien (editor), Jodi (2008). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. SAGE. p. 120. ISBN 1412909163.
  • Lehmiller, Justin J. (2014). The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 232. ISBN 1118351215.
  • Dirk van Zyl Smit, Sonja Snacken (2009). Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford University Press. p. xliii. ISBN 9780191018824.
  • Vines, Matthew (2014). God and the Gay Christian. Convergent Books. ISBN 9781601425171.
  • Hinsch, Bret (2013). Masculinities in Chinese History. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 126. ISBN 1442222336.

It is clear this subject has notability I am seeing significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Published works subject to editorial review is notable, Web MD is notable. There are 15 other sources in the article subject to both peer and editorial review. Prior debates all deletes are revolved around WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:I HAVENTHEARDOFIT. If this subject is not notable I need an explanation as to why. Please breakdown each individual source and compare it to the sources found in celibacy. We do document the unusual, it is as simple as that. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same squeezing-blood-from-a-stone that one sees from partisans all this time in this project; name-drops, unreliable sources, aspects that are already addressed, and so on. That's the part you keep whiffing on; sex abstention is a long-documented and much-discussed thing, but it is a choice one makes. What is fringe and non-notable here is the pseudo-scientific view that there's an "involuntary" aspect to it. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are they unreliable, that seems to be the trend when dealing with topics considered unusual. First claim the source is fringe (which in this case it is not) and then claiming sources are unreliable without divulging into why. We are looking at published sources subject to editorial oversight. By your definition nothing is reliable and one can always use that argument. Valoem talk contrib 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valoem left a message on my talk page about this discussion. I would certainly have seen this discussion and participated, even without that note.

    I revised my position on this several times during the DRV. On reviewing what was said there, I'm still of the view that there's an encyclopaedic article to be written here, based on Tokyogirl's draft, but I think the article should be called "Sexual inactivity". I'm now persuaded that we should not have an article called "Involuntary celibacy".—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm inherently dubious about this as an encyclopedic subject, there do seem to be sufficient references to justify it... that some men are driven to violence as a result of mental problems due to a lack of an outlet for their sexual urges seems well supported, even though distasteful. It is (from my understanding) fairly well known that a lack of 'sexual outlets' can cause psychological issues, even if the text as it stands it not particularly descriptive of the issue. That the subject in and of itself seems misogynist is not a reason for exclusion... that the lack of sexual relations with women can cause psychological problems for men is a legitimate topic, and the article can be improved through the normal editing process. Reventtalk 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore tho I am not quite sure of the title, or whether we might not need several articles. As was earlier mentioned, "Not having sex for mainly religious reasons is called celibacy." -- but that's actually a reason for keeping this, because there are other reasons for celibacy than that, and the referenced content in the article shows it. I think it absurd to ask for a topic ban for something that has been patiently worked on undisruptively despite opposition, which might conceivably appear to be represent a show of prejudice against the topic. If so, policy would be to disregard !votes that appear to have such a basis. But in the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to ask if there was any support for it before going ahead yet again--it shows prudence, not canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore to mainspace - this issue has been discussed to death, and time and time again the result has been "delete". Even the initial result of 'merge' was a de facto deletion because the editors of the article it was supposed to be merged with (Celibacy) did not want the material to be added. Therein lies the whole problem: even the name, "involuntary celibacy", is an oxymoron as celibacy is a voluntary condition by definition. The name originates from internet forums and is associated with the (now deleted) fictional condition of "Loveshyness". All this is very shady, and very much a fringe theory to my knowledge. The whole concept of there being some sort of condition preventing men from having sex, is ridiculous and close to a conspiracy theory. One of the arguments for the editor who wishes to re-instate the article is that Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the Isla Vista shootings of 2014, believed in the condition and that him believing in the condition of "incel" was mentioned in several news articles. To me, this is not sufficient grounds for an article and I think it's time to give it a rest and respect the outcome of the previous deletion and request of undeletion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that the merge was in fact a deletion (as you admit yourself), was improper--that's not what merge means, and doing deletion under the pretense of a merge is one of the indications of possible prejudice against the article topic. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, DGG. The topic was deemed unfit to have it's own standalone article, so the result was merge and keep as a section of the celibacy article. Editors of the celibacy article overwhelmingly agreed the content did not fit in the page, discussed the matter extensively, got moderators involved and asked for other people's opinions. It was then decided to remove the information from the celibacy article. Then someone created an article for Denise Donnelly, as a way of keeping a mention of "incel" on Wikipedia. The article was marked for deletion, and consensus was it should be deleted. A subsequent deletion review also ended without a majority supporting recreation, and the previous deletions were not deemed improper. Making this attempt number four. As I said back in December, I would not oppose to a compromise, provided it is a reasonable and workable compromise that both the supporters and opposing views can agree on. Call me optimistic if you will, but I think a lot of the problems people have with the article is based on its name. An article titled sexual inactivity (covering both voluntary and involuntary sexual inactivity), or perhaps a mention at sexual frustration (which is exactly the same thing as "incel") would also suffice. A lot of the sources used to justify an "involuntary celibacy" article do not specifically mention the term involuntary celibacy, and the same can be said for many potential sources mentioning the phenomenon of not having sex (while wanting to). I'm sure this gives us some leeway with how to name the article. Once we can agree on a reasonable title, I think that would really smoothe out the process for @Valoem. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that celibacy is always "a voluntary condition by definition" is wrong. The main (and before the late 20th century, the only definition) is "the state of not being married". Webster's Practical Illustrated Dictionary of 1943 lists only one definition: "celibate state; single life". No marriage == celibate, according to those dictionaries. You might be used to people using them differently (you might also be used to people thinking that alright is a single word), but that doesn't remove the importance of marriage in the primary definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This book seems to suggest that involuntary celibacy has been the subject of significant academic research. The Telegraph suggests the phrase "involuntary celibacy" has become a part of the internet vernacular. This book and this book both have an entire chapter devoted specifically to involuntary celibacy. There is a large body of high quality source material and I have not seen any arguments as to why we wouldn't create a space for the information contained in these sources. Regarding Celibacy, it seems to have much too heavy a focus on religion and involuntary celibacy should be on that article as well, probably using Summary Style. Webster's definition of celibacy doesn't even mention religion and the Free Dictionary only mentions it under one of the two possible definitions.[47] CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - CorporateM - the sentence involuntary celibacy does occur outside marriage ... is just a pure logical mess . Or you live in celibacy - and then do not have any sex, or you are married - and that is NOT celibacy per definition. Also Donnelly is not a professor, that book is not serious. Your first reference. Just look at [this history]. Blocked User :Candleabracadabra created this page as a pure disruption. Hafspajen (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And about that note in the The Telegraph: Last week, 18-year-old Ben Moynihan was found guilty of attempting to stab three women to death in Portsmouth over the summer of 2014. During the spree, Moynihan taunted police with a series of bizarre notes that blamed his actions on his inability to lose his virginity. Women were "fussy", he said, adding that he'd "[grown] up to believe them as a more weaker part of the human breed". Just in case you were about to mistake him for a misunderstood romantic, he helpfully added: "All women need to die and hopefully next time I can gouge their eyes out." '- Wow, great. He is suffering from incel (Involuntary celibacy)? Also The Telegraph doesn't mention it as a widespread use, but in dank corners of the internet and it does not mention it as a term but something cited or as a citation: (as [so called by them] 'involuntary celibacy' ) - just check source. In these dank corners of the internet, a whole language has developed for 'beta males' to bemoan their 'involuntary celibacy' and discuss techniques used by Pick Up Artists (remember Julien Blanc?) to attract the opposite sex. - This is how is mentioned in The Telegraph. I am praying already for all those woman not to walk in into these traps. Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Denise Donnelly, a Georgia State University associate professor of sociology, and how might I ask does this make the subject not notable? Also the current version being discussed is not that version posted by Candleabracadabra. Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly in favor of moving to article space under another name - Sorry, but the inherent contradiction in "involuntary celibacy" seems to me to be more dubiously notable than the subject of "involuntary abstinence" which seems to me to be a much more neutral and very likely less trendy title. Sexual abstinence seems to me to be both a much less problematic related term, and on that basis I think "Involuntary abstinence" is a more acceptable title as it is less problematic in terms of actual linguistic meaning of the words, less RECENTist, and probably overall a better fit with COMMONNAME. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with this is that sources certainly state the condition is Involuntary celibacy, this would contradict common names, would it not? Valoem talk contrib 19:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary has pretty similar definitions for both terms.[48][49] and both terms seem to have plenty of source material.[50][51]. Each term seems to carry slightly different connotations. I think either term would be fine, with a redirect and a section documenting the debate about definition. CorporateM (Talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the previous discussions that this thing has NOTHING TO DO with real celibacy. Celibacy is religious. This is a kind of sexual frustration - and I offered as a solution this many times as a workable compromise -to add it there - but Valoem and the other re-creators doesn't and didn't want or wanted to hear about this compromise. Overall no compromise at all. Sexual frustration is frustration caused by a discrepancy between one's desired and achieved sexual activity. Of all above explanations that is exactly what the incel is. Sexual frustration is an article that has two lines, by the way. If incel would find its way to this article, added as the term incel means this and that but it is not celibacy only called celibacy - in the word strict meaning, but ... this and that. I said all the time that it should be added there but nobody will listen, but instead try to reinforce its connections with real celibacy -and in this case it becomes a fringe theory. But it is perfectly acceptable to add it to sexual frustration I strongly encourage that solution, as I actually always did, and still do as an emergency solution. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BUT - as the article is written now: Involuntary celibacy or incel (also sometimes referred to as "love shyness" or being "love shy"[1]) is a term used to describe individuals who are routinely celibate for involuntary reasons as opposed to doing so voluntarily.[2][3] Well this to start with - is wrong. The very description of the first line is already not encyclopedic because it serves this as a regular definition. And celibacy is voluntarily. The article will set up a totally different definition. And people of course will say ; nooo, celibacy that is not what it is defined in the Oxford dictionary , cos I read that on Wikipedia, they say something different. And I guess that is exactly the meaning with this crusade. Than it continues The term has gained popularity in recent years - that's one bit that is OK - and goes on but has been utilized in the past by persons such as Theodore Parker and Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, as it applied to unmarried persons and Christianity. -Well, I doubt the part about Karl Barth. He was talking about Paul the Apostle in the cited part. Hafspajen (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Celibacy is not necessarily "voluntary" if you're looking at the primary definitions of the term in actual dictionaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. "Involuntary celibacy" is an oxymoron, and this is the firs time I ever whote bullshit on Wikipedia and I feel this is the time I really need to say so. Hafspajen (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

  • Comment Is "Involuntary celibacy" some buzzwords or jargon used just to label a potential condition or is it officially being used as a diagnosis or etc? It is a risk of turning Wikipedia into a statement instead of a summary collection of documents if this is all hearsay or a collection of observations for now. I took a look at the page's references and they seem to be a collection of personal views or make trivial mentions of Involuntary celibacy without elaborating what it exactly is. Other references seem to speculate what it is and number 6, 18 requires a log-in in order to view the source. However prison would impose involuntary celibacy as highlighted in source number 10. Source number 13 I think needs to be removed because being castrated was a condition for accepting the job as a eunuch. Source number 19 is small mention on allegations and speculation of Involuntary celibacy. Source number 21 is the Washington Post reporting or relaying what Elliot Rodger labeled himself as a alleged involuntary virgin. Along with source 22 as another allegation of his "incel". Source number 23 is reporting on supposed "incels" on a forum related to Elliot Rodger which the forum PUAhate no longer exist. Source 24 is just reporting on Elliot Rodger and only make a small mention of Involuntary celibacy. I think source 19, 21, 22, 23(possibly 24) also need to be removed. The sources that stood out to me as describing Involuntary celibacy would be 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 17. I'm beginning to lean towards a deletion or merger of the article now after checking out the sources on the subject. --Rent A Troop (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who altered my comment? I was asking a question at the beginning and it has been removed. The question wasn't directed at a single person --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rent A Troop: How did you come up with merger or deletion. The guidelines established by GNG would suggest that even those sources would be enough to demonstrate notability and allow a separate article. Valoem talk contrib 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say it is suggested, but Wikipedia:Notability also mentions, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." There is also this section, "No 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 mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." WP:NRV. "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." WP:WHYN. I also think allowing this page to be restored would be borderline WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm not entirely sure on that part yet. --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be clear, I saw this discussion here highlighted here recently. I take no position on the question asked here in this RfC, and I have not been a fan of Wikipedia's DRV process at all for some time now. However, this RfC appears to be trying to circumvent DRV though, which I'm sure has its own process(es) for review (?), and should not, IMHO, be circumvented. Might things need changing at DRV (with a lot of "new blood" to start out with)? Sure, but this isn't the way to start that kind of process. No Wikipedia article is so critical that it can be used to circumvent Wikipedia's established processes. Really people...nothing good can come from an RfC like this. Guy1890 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, maybe it can be moved or piped to the DRV location? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a DRV would be better, as it stands the content in this article is notable. Review WP:GNG shows this passes each and every requirement. Denise Donnelly also passes WP:PROF two closes should reflect the lack of consensus on this topics, not deletion. Valoem talk contrib 09:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not notable. The impact is on people's psychological health, hence needs some consensus-type references indicating that it acually exists...which it doesn't have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This not the requirements set by WP:GNG, to suggest that this must be an accepted medical condition and to apply WP:MEDRS is wrong, social conditions are notable the sources are more than acceptable and define this as a social condition. Valoem talk contrib 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there may be a nugget of viability here in discussing a medical or social condition, but it has been warped and co-oped by the fringe nuttery of this "love shyness" bullshit. THAT is the true fringe here, the people who have been trying for several years to advance their agenda by using the Wikipedia as a PR vehicle. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and restore The word "celibacy" has a certain meaning which is more loaded with implication than the content of this article is trying to express. The title should be deconstructed so as not to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM and reflect the sources which discuss this concept without using this term. In my opinion, the major barrier here is a troublesome title and a lack of definition and differentiation of this concept versus similar concepts. I oppose restoring this article without a name change from the use of celibacy because in my opinion, that word is the source of most trouble and that trouble will not go away without ceasing to use that word. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be clear, I agree with what Bluerasberry said above. The word "celibacy" has a certain meaning which is more loaded with implication than the content of this article is trying to express. If the article shall ever be written that it should be going something like :
1) The word Incel is a neologism coined by a blog site supporting young men with difficulties .... etc, etc.
2) It should pass on the historical references. Anyone who studied some history of ideas would react to that, because it is wrong.
3) Should also contain a reference to the celibacy's true (Encyclopedic) definition.
4) All this done, then start developing the issue according to the incel- community, but still staying stricly NPOV.
5) (Preferably - but not necessarily) could be added to sexual frustration, considering that the article sexual frustration is only two lines, and it is the very same topic. Not to celibacy though. Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:@Blue Rasberry: Do you have any suggestions what the new name should be?--Rent A Troop (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Rasberry: I'll skip over the questioning and get to the point. You're saying the article has a problem with the title because its a coined phrase and violates the WP:NEOLOGISM. So you want the original title removed and have Wikipedia create new phrase to label it. That process doesn't make any sense. --Rent A Troop (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we rename this it would be pure WP:NEO, there are more sources out there than just this blog. Sexual frustration is not involuntary celibacy, the two are separate conditions one can be sexually active and still frustrated, Incel defines a very specific condition which each source suggests is separate. I believe some parts of the article is sexual inactivity, the other belongs strictly to involuntary celibacy. We have to start somewhere. Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem Rent A Troop WP:NEO is a policy about making new terms. As I understand, "Involuntary celibacy" is a neologism because it is purported to be a technical term with a certain meaning which is not obvious by the words themselves (so it is jargon), but it also is not used in most of the sources cited. The sources cited are describing one concept, but the problem is that many sources give this concept a different name. Per WP:NEO, Wikipedia should not apply a single term to the concept when so many terms are used. However, there can still be a Wikipedia article on the concept. WP:N does not require that a concept has one accepted term to describe it. If a concept appears in WP:RS, even if that concept is named by many terms, then it can have an article.

I oppose restoring this article without a rename. The term "involuntary celibacy" is too contentious and much too much of a distraction, especially since that term is not used by most of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bluerasberry : I see what you mean now. "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." I still think the author of the page has a source problem. It could be titled "Denial of Sexual Relations" as one possible suggested title, but I don't think that would be all encompassing of the subject --Rent A Troop (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've held back on this for awhile to see how it would develop. But now that I've had time to look into it properly, I'm not seeing anything in this assortment of feeble sources that would justify reversing the results of earlier discussions. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and sooner or later if you're on the wrong side of that consensus you need to accept that reality and move on. You shouldn't get to endlessly rehash the same discussion again and again every couple of months in the hope that people won't notice and your preferred change will make it through by stealth. So, take no action, I guess. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore. I feel that we need to write Wikipedia for our readers, not ourselves. I don't see it as far-fetched that someone might come here and type 'incel' into the search box. Right now, when they do, they get a page about an ovarian cancer drug, which is almost certainly not what they were actually looking for. Obviously keeping the article nutjobbery-free is going to be a challenge, but we've handled worse before. HiDrNick! 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is already a problem, when someone shoots people and cites involuntary celibacy as a reason. If it is not abiding by MEDRS then material like that can stand despite being so obviously problematic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The funny part is that I agree, I feel that we need to write Wikipedia for our readers, not ourselves. But we can't write things in an irresponsible way. There are content issues here. Hafspajen (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But don't we hash out content issues on article talk pages? There's no deadline - articles don't need to be perfect to appear in main space. HiDrNick! 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't read the arguments please read them yet. There are plenty. Also it is a strong suspicion of WP:NEO, that made many editors to vote against, now and before. I don't have anything against the editor personally at all, but I do care for not going out in mainspace with definitions that are not crystal clear. It is much about the Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. ... As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead. - As user Tarc noted there is a possible suspicion of people trying to advance their agenda by using the Wikipedia as a PR vehicle and maybe a possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interest too. Even if not, still it is a subject that is rather ... not based on a broad coverage as it should be to cover the intention of the article. Also, several compromises were offered but rejected, and this makes it even more into a possibility that it was meant to promote the term. As we said again and again, the article sexual frustration is only two line, and we have pointed out that if somebody is interested in writing about this kind of topics there is an article, underdeveloped and has the same kind of topic; it is describing about the same thing. Hafspajen (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that sexual frustration needs immediately and massive expansion, but how does that issue make involuntary celibacy non-notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided give an in depth determination that this is not WP:NEO. If Tarc's note does have any truth please look through the editors history to make that determination. As an uninvolved editor (historically I've had no connection until the last DRV) I find such accusations in conflict with the good faith we preach. We are all trying to establish articles based on guidelines. I have not seen one against its inclusion hold any weight. Valoem talk contrib 00:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said possibly. I said even if not ... but sometimes I find people want me not to think at all, because of AGF. I don't find that the sources provided give a real in depth determination that this is not WP:NEO. Have tried to think about the compromise thing instead? Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since it looks like people might have a hazy idea about the definition of celibacy, I copy over the definition, so we all know what we are talking about (it is the state of being unmarried - used in the sense of complete abstinence from marriage; generally for religious resons...):
<blockquote>Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world.</blockquote>
  • The Oxford Dictionary is formulating it as: The state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. To abstain is defined as: Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
1. Abstinence from sexual relations.
2. The condition of remaining unmarried, especially for religious reasons.
1. abstention from sexual relations.
2. abstention by vow from marriage.
3. the state of being unmarried.

Hafspajen (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This only confirms that celibacy and involuntary celibacy are not the same and needs separate articles. By this definition terms that are oxymorons such as Dark light or Black White have no place on this encyclopedia. The term used to define this condition just so happens to be an oxymoron, but that does not make it any less notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"involuntary celibacy" is a minor, non-notable neologism, is the point of all this. If "sexual frustration" is truly a notable medical subject, then expand that article. "Incel" and "involuntary celibacy" are terms that do not belong anywhere on an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to you, but not according to the GNG policy established on this encyclopedia. Valoem talk contrib 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here we go again. Why can't this topic be added to sexual frustration, may I ask? Because it isn't sexual frustration? Cos celibacy - it isn't. Actually it is only 1 editor who doesn't like this idea - Valoem. What's the point? What's the agenda? Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, one can be sexually active and still frustrated the term is liberal in that sense, but I would be okay with a move to the term Sexual inactivity with a subsection on this particular topic. It has more correlation. Valoem talk contrib 17:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to the GNG guideline, no policy, it is a non-notable neologism. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the facepalm? We are not going in circles I am disagreeing that sexual frustration is a suitable merge for reasons I clearly stated above. Involuntary celibacy is due to inactivity and defined as such by a few sources, frustration encompasses much more than that. Sure maybe a few sentences there is good, but we uses sources to determine if the subject is independent of sexual frustration and also independently notable. They certainly suggest so. Valoem talk contrib 20:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7, "Creating a Sexual inactivity or an Involuntary sexual abstinence article just to cover involuntary celibacy would be needless WP:Content forking. As was already pointed out at the Celibacy talk page, we have enough articles about sexual inactivity, voluntary or otherwise. These articles (including the Asexuality article) refer to one another, and to have another article doing the same is overkill. If the involuntary celibacy topic is not to have its own Wikipedia article, but is sourced well enough to be covered on Wikipedia, it should go in one of the existing articles about sexual inactivity. The Sexual abstinence article is about voluntary and involuntary sexual abstinence. So, yes, an Involuntary sexual abstinence article would be a violation of WP:Content fork. But it is a valid point that we should stick to the terminology that the sources use for the topic. If the sources don't refer to involuntary celibacy as a form of sexual abstinence, then placing it in an article called Sexual abstinence can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy." Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You guys do whatever you want, I have reached my limits of being able to discuss this politely, my next edit might be something I might regret. How many times are you supposed to start a thing all over again? We had a discussion like a year ago, opposing the merger of an article, and now it started all over again, at article Celibacy - starting adding involuntary celibacy New Age definitions like New Celibacy, New Love and New Sexuality and other deviant definitions from some book writen by someone who clearly stated my own definition is not from the dictionary. I precisely succeded to convince Vaoem that Involuntary celibacy can be different celibacy, when somebody else starts this discussion merging it again with celibacy... We had this discussion with Flyer22, Casliber, Tarc, Mythic Writerlord and User:Turris Davidica for ages, it feels like it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On top of it a parallel discussion with this discussion Talk:Celibacy about suddenly merging -Involuntarely celibacy (the very same subject) into Celibacy again. ... Twin solutions suggested in the same time? Both going against previous consensus? Is this a technique meant to let everybody drop down by pure exhaustion until nobody ever cares any more so they later can just walk in add what it was opposed and discussed rather till absurdity until everybody just doesn't care any more? It is not a discussion but a case of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't know how Wiki functions any more, but it is a seriously twisted discussion, allowed all over again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again - and I sincerely don't care any more. Let Wikipedia be used to spread whatever it suits anyone. Nobody else cares either. I have other things to do, that I might get paid for in the future, too. This discussion any any other new discussions in future looking like this is just a major waste of time. Wish Coffee and Drmies should never had allowed this. Thought that Wikipedia processes were not about how to exhaust everybody else and than take home the game by bringing up the same subject ten times a year, but was constructed in a somewhat different way. Not the please let me have just an another round of AfD - style. Previous consensus and all the editors opinions of course is not worth a sheer shit. Well, sorry, told you ... I am out of here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, the notability process looks something like this:

Step #1: Decide whether the subject gets its own standalone article. In this case, the answer seems to be "no". (Re-read the lead paragraph at WP:N that begins "This is not a guarantee..." for the relevant "rule".)

Step #2: Following the advice at WP:FAILN guideline, specifically "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages", figure out if there is a "closely related notable article".

Options: This subject has several possible candidates. Given a subject that can be described as "unhappy because he can't get married and/or otherwise find a (voluntary) sexual partner", you could reasonably focus on the "unhappy" part, on the "not married" part, or on the "no sex" part.

In this discussion, different editors have different ideas about the most important focus.

  • If you focus on the "unhappy" part, then the obvious merge candidate is Sexual frustration.
  • If you focus on the "not married" part, then the obvious merge candidate is Celibacy.
  • If you focus on the "no sex" part, then the obvious merge candidate is an article like Sexual inactivity.

None of these are perfect, and nobody's "wrong" for preferring one over the other. The choice just shows what each person believes is the most important or most unique aspect of the concept. (As a tactical measure, if you really want to see incel mentioned in the mainspace, I'd suggest that you cling to any suggestion for a place to mention it at all, even if you think it isn't the ideal solution.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, regarding those merge candidates, I don't see why the focus has to be one or the other. As you no doubt know, sexual frustration can be due to any number of reasons, including marital aspects; so the Sexual frustration article can validly address the no sex, the unhappy, and the not-married aspects. The same goes for the Sexual abstinence article, which already addresses different reasons for not engaging in sexual activity, including the involuntary factor that is noted in the lead. And as for the Celibacy article, like others, I don't see why involuntary celibacy cannot be covered in that article. If alternative definitions of a term are significant enough, we are supposed to cover those different definitions in one article; we ideally should not create a separate article just to cover each definition of the term. And like you noted in the Canvassing section below, celibacy is not always voluntary. Nor does its definition always focus on marriage. All the fuss over this involuntary celibacy topic escapes me. As you know, I've been involved with various contentious sexual topics over the years at Wikipedia; I never thought this would be one of them. And the application of WP:MEDRS to non-medical aspects is silly. As anyone can see, the topic is not completely or even mostly medical. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The focus has to be one or the other because of a technical limitation: a page title can only be redirected to one page. However, there is no requirement that all mention of the idea be limited to one article. The subject could be mentioned (briefly) in each of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I stated, "I don't see why the focus has to be one or the other," I was not speaking of a WP:Alternative title matter, or simply of article titles. But while we're back on the subject of titles, you stated, "If you focus on the 'no sex' part, then the obvious merge candidate is an article like Sexual inactivity." I don't see that as the case. If it's a "no sex" matter, then, in this case, the text would fit fine in the Sexual frustration article. In my "21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated that a Sexual inactivity article is not needed; I stand by that. I was/am stating that while "no sex" is the main focus of sexual frustration, sexual frustration can be due to any number of reasons, and that it's much the same for sexual abstinence; sexual frustration and sexual abstinence can be due to one or more reasons. I therefore do not see why involuntary celibacy has to focus on the sex, the unhappiness, or the not-married aspects (especially since marriage and sexual activity usually come hand in hand); depending on the context, the focus can be on any of those three aspects, whether the content is in the Celibacy article, the Sexual frustration article or the Sexual abstinence article. And involuntary celibacy is not simply about the unhappiness anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

  • Note to admins - Valoem has left messages for 5 editors about this RfC, 4 of whom have opined in favor of the subject matter; Edison (voted keep in AfD 1 & 2), Mangoe (keep in AfD #2), Tokyogirl (worked extensively on draftspace restorations), S. Marshall (permit recreation in DRV). This appears to be a pretty bald-faced violation of WP:CANVASS' vote-stacking prohibitions. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editors I asked are editors who were previously involved which is allowed per WP:CANVASS not to mention every other editor here was involved in previous debates favoring the deletion side. This is not canvassing, but a request for comment and in this case there needs to be a balance. To jump to every possible option to nullify any arguments I have shows your inherent bias against this topic. Valoem talk contrib 02:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either you're not reading or not understanding; the only editors you contacted were those who voted in your favor in the past. That is not permissible, per the link provided. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the discussion, you will notice a natural canvass of all previous editors involved in the discussion. To ignore that two people pinged here was DGG and @Jimbo Wales: is hardly acting with neutrality. It is uncomfortable to me, that an article so well sourced does not have a place on this encyclopedia. By this standard anything not accepted by the mainstream can be deleted which is counter intuitive to NPOV we are trying to create. As per DGG this is a circumstance which views much be balanced I've asked editors with an extensive history of being fair and balanced. It is clear I am here to help build this encyclopedia and often it is impossible to go alone. The last DRV only highlights the growing problem on Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Here, let's read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) again. Can you explain why you did not notify any of the roughly one dozen regular non-IP editors who opined to either delete or merge/redirect? Tarc (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need they are already here and I love how bitey you get. Topic ban this topic ban that, not very conductive behavior, but I guess it's your right. Valoem talk contrib 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is boiling down to a competency issue. You clearly were selectively biased in who was contacted wrt this RfC, but are unable to recognize this fact. I'll leave this tangent in the hands of any admins who wish to do anything about it. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for being sure of approval, when I was contacted I recommended first expanding the article, as Corporate M is in fact doing. Most people who contact me and have some experience here recognize that I do not tend to give unqualified approval, or necessarily the response that was expected. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include you in the list of canvass targets, as IMO this person contacted you in more of an advice-seeking role rather than a solicitation to come vote as the others were. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it is OK to notify user who were involved in previous debates - but this running around and re-creating things in all possible ways and looking for new ways to go around old decisions -it is definitely WP:Forumshopping. Hafspajen (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It is almost certainly canvassing if you are only notifying editors that have previously voted in your favor. The way to address it would be to also notify those that voted delete to make sure everyone is aware of the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this from seeing Valoem's canvassing flashing up on my watchlist. I would be extremely concerned to see our deletion processes shortcircuited by this RFC in userspace. The correct place to test the waters is DRV where the discussion will be seen by a wider spread of users then those who have this location watchlisted. This smacks very much of asking the other parent and trying the backdoor because you don't like the first answer you got. I'm sorry but this discussion can have no validity and this discussion needs to go to DRV. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I am assuming if this version if moved to the main space it well be AfDed again. The previous DRV was closed improperly, of course there is no consensus to allow restoration, but there was also no consensus not to allow restoration. The arguments for this version of the article are vastly stronger than the calls for delete. Anyone with an understand of WP:GNG can see the sources listed pass notability guidelines. In the end this requires AfD not DRV. The close should have always been no consensus, not delete. Also this is an RfC and I am requested comments from established editors with a solid history of neutrality. Per WP:IAR I really don't have a choice in this matter, I can't see how we can be fair and balanced when deletionists naturally canvass each other and I am expected to fight alone. If I ask for any help I get smack with canvassing does that seem reasonable to you. Valoem talk contrib 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean you didn't get the answer you wanted so you simply refuse to accept the outcome? What deletionists are you referring to? I have never seen the term deletionist used pejoratively unless the person using it has absolutely not interest in hearing views that do not agree with theirs. Not happy with the DRV? You can ask AN to review it or raise another one later with better sources. At some point you have to accept that the argument went against you and until you actually try to tackle the concerns that led to deletion you are back to throwing insults instead of having a colleagiate debate. Sorry but I'm not engaging with that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware that deletionist is a pejorative term and have been nothing but civil throughout this discussion. Discussions are based on strengths of arguments not voting. I provided reliable sources, if you think they are unreliable then the discussion must provide a reason. You stand correct in the fact I do not accept the previous outcome. My questions were not answered and the issues and reasons regarding the delete were unsatisfactory. I've provided more than enough sources to establish notability. We document what is notable and verifiable on this encyclopedia, not what is accepted. Spartaz did you review the previous DRV? We cannot have a notable subjects deleted this set a terrible precedence moving forward. Spartaz I kindly ask you to review the subject matter, look over the sources and assuming your neutral please make a decision regarding that article's place on this encyclopedia. If you find sources sub-optimal please explain why and compare them to sources provided in the celibacy article that way we are comparing apples to apples. Valoem talk contrib 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Please don't be such a drama monger. We can't have notable subjects deleted as this sets a terrible precedent so you say but this has been through AFD and DRV and the consensus of that does not seem to be with you. This really smacks of refusing to accept that the discussion went against you. And... you shouldn't conflate my concerns over the process with taking a position of the article. I'm entirely neutral on that since I frankly don't care whether or not we have this article. What I do care about is that you are trying to short circuit the established systems to try and change the outcome and that I saw you canvassing participation in this discussion on my watchlist. This is what I am objecting to and is what I am calling you out on. Oh, and have I seen DRV? Um yes. I think you will see from the records that I have been a DRV regular since 2006 and that for a period of 18 months until about a year ago I closed most DRVs. On that basis I think I can authoritively say based on my experience that your emotional characerisation of the process is .. well .. misplaced.. to say the least.... Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Both AfD and DRV were not one sided. If it was we wouldn't be here. There is a clearly lack of consensus in the first close and the DRV should state no consensus not to allow recreation. So don't Oh Please me, my rational is more than founded. This article deserves another chance at the AfD's. Look at the sources, Wikipedia is not a vote and we have WP:IAR for reasons like this. Valoem talk contrib 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are becoming ridiculous now. You say that there was no consensus to delete but a closing admin found one and DRV declined to overturn it. No consensus to overturn or not, DRV is quick to act in obvious cases of wrong calls and the closing admin has been hauled over the coals at DRV over other closes but still there was no consensus to overturn. That certainly doesn't suggest that the close was fundamentally wrong or misjudged. Possibly a marginal call perhaps but certainly not the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six is it? Dial down the emotion, stop relitigating this AFD/DRV and go find better sources. Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me an example of a source you deem reliable, and please show me what is wrong with the sources in the article. No one on the deletion side wants to see this article restored so quickly because is calls into question their judgment of WP:GNG guidelines. Spartaz please take a side, review the article and tell me what is wrong. Valoem talk contrib 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read my earlier comment where I explained that I do not have a position on the article and that my beef is with your attempts to bypass the existing consensus building mechanisms. I'm also getting increasing irritated by your irrational argument and hyperbolic statements but I'm predominantly interested in seeing process followed correctly here. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the title "Involuntary celibacy" is not an oxymoron,because celibacy can also be voluntary, which is arguable the usual state of affairs, and is thus discussed in our article on celibacy. My doubt about it is only that I am not sure it covers all aspects, but since I have nothing better to suggest, and it is used in the literature, it does seem to be a satisfactory descriptor by our usual rules. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no, that is a complete contradiction. Celibacy is a choice; you can't call not choosing something to be an "involuntary choice", it's an oxymoron. "Involuntary celibacy" is not science, it is not a medical or psychological condition; it is a neologism. Wanting to have sex, being told "no", and how to deal with it used to be a fun movie trope, from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to Revenge of the Nerds. It's not science. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a recognition that it's notable at least as a trope? DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more than TOTUS was. I think some form of "sexual frustration" may be article-worthy; there's science and reliable discussion around that. But applying this "incel" movement's term to that is what the problem is here. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion that "celibacy is a choice" keeps being repeated, and a commonsense look at the actual dictionary definitions shows that it's not true. An unmarried person is celibate, according to the primary definition in every dictionary I've looked into. That person might not be chaste, and it might not be voluntary (see anyone for whom getting married is illegal, anyone who is recently widowed, anyone who is getting divorced against his will...), but according to the primary dictionary definitions, and historically the only meaning of the term, a person who is unmarried is, without exception, "celibate". I have not yet seen a single dictionary definition that says celibacy is usually a choice, much less that a person who is involuntarily unmarried isn't celibate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is sitting on the fence Valoem - stop trying to twist facts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the canvassing really is getting out of hand, and the way you are using Jimmy Wales' polite reply to your badgering as an endorsement of the article, I personally find a bit distasteful. You are doing everything in your power, it seems, to attract people to support your point of view when a majority before did not. It is not people's imput you care about; it is for people to side with you and agree with you, so that you can bypass earlier decisions not to include the material. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked editors of the highest caliber, why did they agree? Because I am canvassing? This topic has a place on this encyclopedia plain and simple. Discuss the topic at hand not the editors involved. Valoem talk contrib 21:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They agreed because most of them agreed with you before, so you knew they would again. There are other "editors of the highest caliber" who disagree with the recreation of the article and the endless campaign for it's restoring, but you did not ask these editors. You only asked those you knew would be on your side, and asked specifically for others to help you and side with you. Those are not the actions of a man who is interested in hearing a wide set of opinions, who is welcoming to opposing views. Even the Jimmy Wales thing wasn't about how much you respect the man's judgement... it was a way for you to wave it in people's faces: "Jimmy Wales thinks it should be kept! Jimmy Wales endorses me!". Clearly you are on a personal vendetta here against "deletionists" who are "biased". But you yourself aren't biased at all, right? 195.240.150.14 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the editors you canvassed a higher caliber then the ones who voted to delete this - apart from the fact that you think they are more minded to restore this? Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have a solid history of dealing with each subject objectively. When you review an AfD history of any editor you want to see that discussion can change their opinion, after all it is a debate not a kangaroo court. You want a balanced number of Keep to Deletes, when an editor is only one sided its show an inherent bias DGG and Wales are some editors to my knowledge have been neutral throughout. Valoem talk contrib 21:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining a solid history if dealing with each subject objectively? What criteria and evidence did you base that conclusion on and why did you not consider anyone who voted deleted to meet your objective criteria on? I do presume that you undertook the same level of due diligence on the deleting voters as you did on the keep ones to find your higher caliber cohort? Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I explained quite clearly above didn't I? Valoem talk contrib 21:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not or I wouldn't have responded. Please answer my question and explain why none of the delete voters were considered higher caliber editors, And re your note on my talk page, its not a personal attack to challenge a user when they are not making a logical or rational argument. Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given this statement on Coffee's page where you acknowledge that you deliberately choose keep voters who you thought you would support you, would you like to correct you claims about higher calibre editors above? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, I do not think any of the editors he asked would give support unreasonably. The AfDs and the Del Rev were contested and were not overwhelming decisions. Are you possibly stressing this issue because this time it might be your position that is not supported, or at least it will have to be re-defended from scratch? Consensus in the RW about what is or is not Fringe changes. changes. New people join and have different opinions. Earlier people leave. People find better sources. Some people might be more persistent--I had more or less given up on this one, but not because I thought I was wrong. One of the characteristics of WP is that no decision is stable. This is very frustrating when one thinks one has finally gotten the right position accepted, but if people challenge it, it needs repeated defending. Some things I was sure I'd finally won on, I subsequently see I may be in danger of losing. It can be frustrating, but that's one of the inherent characteristics of our way of decision making; stable decisions could only be enforced by authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG if you select editors with a known predisposition to keep material it doesn't matter how carefully they consider the material. Its still canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion on possible forum shopping is taking the deliberations off topic for the future of the page. It is good to know as the possible motive for some people commenting, but continuing it here would be distracting --Rent A Troop (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to feel we should not have this as an article because it is obviously causing a great deal of distress to some people and I dare say the topic is not particularly important. I personally can't understand why we have such a problem but I think it must be something to do with the term "incel" which has no connotation for me and so it is a feature I can't satisfactorily take into account. I note from WP:NOTCENSORED that it is permissible to remove content on the grounds of it "being objectionable" although that is not generally done. Perhaps this is an exceptional case. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again. It applies to "such things as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism ... content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States. " It does not apply to sexual topics that make people uncomfortable. That is never the grounds for removal of such material, except if deliberately intended to shock or offend or insult, and of no possible encyclopedic interest. There is no conceivable sexual or sexualized practice I can imagine that we would not have an article about on grounds of offensiveness, if it is notable. That it makes people uncomfortable is, if anything, an indication of importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a subject of importance - it's just wrong, which is why medical sourcing guidelines should apply as the subject matter concerns people's health and wellbeing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Strongly urge procedural close of this AFD. This is a bizarre situation which has been mucked up in the process of short stroking. The User:Valoem put this forth as an RFC, not an AFD (although regrettably included afd in title of RFC). The RFC, which is traditionally a 30-day process, has been converted (by an admin who closed two of the AfDs linked above) bizarrely to an AFD, which is a 7-day process. My reading of the RFC was that the editor was asking if he could (using IAR) bypass the most recent DRV, and use the RFC process to get article restoration in the page's most current form in order to commence a new AFD. Migrating the process to deletion discussion directly has conflated the original discussion with a direct deletion discussion. Arguments above conflate restoration with keep and no restoration with delete; these assertions, while partially connected, are not identical. I'd like to see the RFC run its intended course, then see a AFD unconnected to any other procedure. Previously involved admins (and I'm looking straight at you User:Coffee) should not take any further administrative actions to either process. BusterD (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • BusterD: I'd say you aren't looking very straight at all, as it seems you have a very skewed perception of WP:INVOLVED. Me acting in the role of an administrator in a topic area in the past, does not mean that I am disallowed to further administrate that area. Let me quote the policy for you since you seem to be so misguided: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Good day, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under normal circumstances we'd be in agreement. However, 1) User:Coffee closed the second AFD in a way with which I'd take issue and myself label No Consensus. Then 2) that same admin closed the Donnelly AfD in what the closer called a "non-standard, procedural close" adding comments like "too much of our good editors' time has already been wasted in this hopeless pursuit" which seems to indicate a preference in outcome of this current procedure. And then 3) this spectacularly poor choice, given the previous connection. I'd say the above puts Coffee's actions here at least within the range of reproach and I believe abstaining from any further admin action on this subject would be the wiser course. In my opinion, the only creditable way out of this bog is for an uninvolved admin to procedurally close this AFD leaving the RFC in place. In the unlikely event this RFC request for restoration is granted, a clean AFD procedure might weigh the issue itself more fairly, without the clear prejudice of someone who has given the lengthy but unenlightening discussions on Talk:Celibacy more weight than a formal procedure deserves. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an AfD. it is a review of a DR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This procedure is listed as an AFD, set to expire in less than 24 hours. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. That decision was endorsed at DRV. So, your personal "issue" with it holds no bearing here, or anywhere else for that matter. 2. That close was never disputed, and still stands as an administrative action. Your inability to understand my closing rationale, has no bearing on that, and shows only that you can't have possibly followed how long this community debated this matter. Furthermore, your attempt to state that it was a supervote, or that I close AFDs according to my personal opinion, is an accusation that I do not take lightly. So, I'd suggest you open a DRV if you actually want to back that up with more than hot air. 3.1. That "poor choice" was made per an agreement between Valoem (the opener of this RFC and requester of that very action) and myself at my talk page. Please try and educate yourself a bit better. 3.2 Read my above comment, then read it again, as it seems you are really failing at comprehending WP:INVOLVED. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: asked me to comment regarding process. I agree with @DGG:'s prior comment in that NOTBUREAU applies. Technically speaking it would have been ideal if the OP went through the correct bureaucratic channels. What that means exactly, I don't know, or even care to know. If a consensus is established one way or another, I don't think it matters on which page it is established nor is it sensible to start the discussion over somewhere else. If an admin can MOVE this page to the proper location, without disrupting the discussion, that could work. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second break

Anyone who has viewed my edit history knows that my primary objective here is to make sure subjects and topics which pass GNG find their way on to the main space. This is not a subject that I personally suffer from, but one which warrants my interest. Any accusations of fringe pushing is unwarranted. I implore all editors involved in this discussion to look at what we cover here based on WP:GNG:

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 or list.

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Yes, [52] dedcates a section to the subject, [53], and this [54]. Each of which gives extensive coverage and is only 3 of the 20 sources which discuss this subject. The last source is from 1985, which showing this subject has been studied prior to Denise Donnelly.
Yes, these sources appear to have been subjected peer review and/or editorial oversight. I implore anyone to discuss why any of these source may not be reliable.
Because many are actually just placing together of the words "involuntary" + "celibacy" - hence treating at some sort of entity is (a) a neologism and (b) original research
  • "Sources" including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
The tone in this article is sufficiently neutral and I am seeing a wide range of coverage in newspapers, books, documentaries, and academic journals.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
It appears right now we are suggesting Denise Donnelly as a primary source. Only two of the sources provided in the article are from Denise Donnelly. Secondary sources have been abundantly cited.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
Two objections regarding this topic involve WP:MEDRS and the term involuntary celibacy being an oxymoron that could become a neologism. As stated prior, it is incorrect to apply MEDRS as this is not a medical condition, but a social condition similar to Celibacy syndrome in Japan. The second issue involves the term, I am willing to compromise on this and move the topic to Involuntary sexual abstinence. This would reduce oxymoron issue. It also appears this term has also received considerable coverage in scholarly sources: [55].

In fact this source here from the The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 distinctly differentiates between voluntary and involuntary abstinence. It is incorrect to merge this topic into sexual inactivity or sexual frustration, sources provided all suggest these are different topics. Valoem talk contrib 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It does still appear that involuntary celibacy is the common name. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a neologism used in fringe social circles to describe an otherwise ordinary topic of sexuality. You can post 6k worth of rebuttals today and another 6k tomorrow, but none of it will alter that truth. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the truth? Are you suggesting that no matter how many sources are provided this will not be notable? I recommend you reread the pillars of Wikipedia and WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The truth that had been told to you by a number of editors who have suggested expansion of the sexual frustration article, which is what this topic actually is, rather than dredge up this neologism which a consensus of editors at DRV already decided was not article-worthy. Despite your best efforts to tilt this unofficial RfC to your favor, by canvassing like-minded editors who you felt would vote in your favor, there appears to be no consensus to restore "involuntary celibacy" itself to article-space. Time to accept that and move on. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No the consensus is no consensus to delete and is the very reason why no consensus allows the article to be retained. Most of the sources do not mention sexual frustration. Involuntary celibacy may lead to sexual frustration, but is not the same as sexual frustration. Please find a reliable sources that say "Involuntary celibacy is the same as sexual frustration" and I will gladly close this RfC. I implore you to find sources to support your claims, I have sources to support mine. Arguments on Wikipedia are not a vote, but based on arguments using established policy. No argument against recreation is supported by policy. If naming is the only issue, I will compromise. Valoem talk contrib 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same, it's some neologism for some form of sexual frustration. It would fit well as one paragraph among others in the article, it would not fit in celibacy, as it's not a form of celibacy, which is by definition voluntary. "Celibacy" and "abstinence" are as well two distinct topics, celibacy is a part of abstinence, the voluntary part, usually with some kind of (religious) vow or such. Incel would like to be a new buzzword to hide the "frustration" bit, as frustration doesn't fit in the manly picture the frustrated "incels" wish to have of themselves, it's not only a neologism, I'd call it new-speak as well. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sänger: Sources? This is again suggesting that anything named after an oxymoron is a non-notable neologism. Please direct me to a guideline that oxymoron's can never be notable. Sources distinctly mention this term and this term alone, thus not a neologism. Valoem talk contrib 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's...not even remotely true, Valoem. The article does not exist at present, and the reason it does not exist is because a consensus of editors have deemed it so. If there is not a clear consensus to restore, then the status quo will be maintained. This is how the project works. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Valoem has presented sufficient significant coverage in multiple and diverse reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant inclusion. The Journal of Sex Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal which clearly meets WP:IRS and arguably WP:MEDRS, so is Sexuality and Culture. A History of Celibacy, a best-selling and well-reviewed book on the overall subject, also written by an academic, contains a section directly detailing. Then we have the WebMD source, written by a respected medical journalist and reviewed by another physician. These four sources all meet IRS and all directly detail the subject, at least as a social situation. I see no argument above refuting this assertion. This source and this one seem to help indicate the common name for this subject. I'd like to point out that in no previous procedure has the outcome for this subject been deletion yet the subject has no coverage on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole discussion is an abuse of process and a runaround the existing pocess because Valoem doesn't like the answer he already got from DRV. As such it can have no validity in establishing any consensus - especially as Valoem has shamelessly canvassed for like-minded individuals to vote in his favour and any admin who attempts to use this ridiculous page to restore the article would be showing dangerously poor judgement. As the location is locked only an admin can close this. Please can someone bring this farce to an end now. If Valoem wants to establish any consensus he needs to go to DRV - once he has allowed some dust to settle and given everyone a breather from this. Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again we have IAR for these reasons. The answer from the last DRV should be no consensus to delete please do review the discussion. RfC is a perfectly sound place to discuss this. If it is a DRV you want then move the discussion to DRV, I have no issues. Valoem talk contrib 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
um no 5 previous discussions that did not reach a single conclusion to maintain this material does not a good case for IAR make - plus IAR to condone canvassing is most certainly not any standard under which anyone can reasonably say the encyclopedia is improved. Spartaz Humbug! 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Deletion Review closed as "There is no consensus to allow the recreation of the article"; what you think the close should have been is not relevant. Regarding WP:IAR, you'd have to demonstrate how the project would be improved by allowing this exception. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are explaining the outcome of the latest DRV in your favor again, Valoem. The outcome was indeed "no consensus", in the most literal sense of the word: there was no consensus on whether or not to restore it or keep it deleted, the community was simply too torn on the issue. You can call that a tie if you wish, but you can't call it a victory and it in no way strengthens your case for restoring the article. There was no consensus then, and there is no consensus now. It's an endless vicious circle that's not going anywhere. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If DRV is not AFD round two, then it shouldn't be used to change a merge outcome to a delete outcome. Normally such a DRV would either approve the actions of a closer, or disapprove the close. If it validates the close, it validates a merge of content, not a deletion. Since no discussion of this subject has ever closed as delete, and a merge was disallowed through talkpage discussion (by many of the same editors urging no restoration in this discussion), the only option is recreation and another AFD. The versions put forward make it clear this newer version is significantly better sourced than the one discussed in the second DRV. For better or worse, thanks to User:Coffee, we're now in a new AFD, so editors might want to make better deletion arguments than "I'm tired of doing this over again." At least three of the editors asserting keep/restore are long established and have never discussed this subject, so we're not rehashing. Valoem has put forward a set of sources meeting all the criteria of IRS. Some are merely incidental mentions, but most support the core sources which directly detail and come from RS. I'd urge all participants to put aside history and discuss the subject of this AFD, as the article exists in userspace. BusterD (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what happened. The old AfD found a consensus to merge, it was done so, ten down the road other editors at Talk:Celibacy decided that the material was not relevant to the article, so it was deleted. "Involuntary celibacy" this pointed to an article that did not mention it at all, thus was deleted. "Involuntary celibacy" is a bastard child; disowned by its parent, unwanted by the distant relatives, and orphaned on the streets. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let's find it a home. I think my narrative holds up pretty well to the events as they occurred. It's a defacto delete. No formal process concluded it. But we're in a fresh AFD and none of that matters anymore. The page has been recreated with new and more thorough sourcing. In my analysis of sources, I didn't mention the incel community or its sources. I'm more interested, like the sourcing, in the prison population, or incarcerated mental heath patients, or eunuchs, or people who are socially inept (like gamers;-). None of these groups can voluntarily end their enforced celibacy, and all of these groups are sexual human beings too. Tarc, as one of the "five horsemen", you have earned my strong respect and deep appreciation. I hate to differ with you. But here we are. "Incel", I can do without. Incel, I could see merging into sexual frustration. "Involuntary celibacy" meets GNG as a social situation, based on presented sources. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the sentiments, thanks, and no hard feelings; it's ok to disagree. It was a de facto delete, sure, but IMO that's kinda where we fall on this since there was never a consensus expressed at all to have a straight-out "incel" article; the excising of the content from celibacy doesn't mean they get their article back. I'm not opposed to an expansion of this frustration article as long as it doesn't become "involuntary celibacy" in all but name. Tarc (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As wikipedians, we usually tend to agree. That's grand. So we have some common ground upon which to build. What's the best outcome? I agree that Donnelly and Burgess aren't sufficiently notable for inclusion. But I think their research, backed by A History of Celibacy and the WebMD page, taken together meet the standard for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If Celibacy needs not apply WP:MEDRS criteria, neither should Involuntary celibacy. I can see Rich's point that a page move is possibly necessary, but that's for later, part of what Warden calls "ordinary editing". BTW, where the heck is ARS now? Could use those votestackers (that was a jest, folks) right now. Anyway, I've got an early call, so I'm off to bed. Thanks for forgiving our differences. As I mentioned to CorporateM (a mentee of mine, I'm proud to say), I'm loyal to the process. Even when we disagree, over time wikipedians tend to get it right(er). Good night. BusterD (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involuntary sexual abstinence probably would do. Covers the part, is not an oxymoron and if written carefully it might work. I am fine with it if others agree too. Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for others, but I'd be okay with such pagespace. It might satisfy Rich, who strongly desired a pagemove if kept. I very much appreciate your willingness to consider such an outcome, User:Hafspajen. It's somewhat more than I anticipated from editors who seemed to feel strongly in earlier processes. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, I don't see any reason why this couldn't be covered by a sentence or section in Celibacy. It's clear that the authors in question are not notable enough for an entire article based on their fairly fringe views; and I'm not convinced that they're all talking about the same thing, so I don't think they particularly provide any evidence that we should have an article lumping their views together under an arbitrary neologism. But we could perhaps devote a sentence or two to them on the Celibacy article or on Sexual frustration. I agree that the main thing is that we can't use the term 'involuntary celibacy'; the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to promote neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third break

  • Aquillion it has been discussed that celibacy is not an appropriate redirect. Per discussion incel is different from sexual frustration. Policy based rationale shows this article has enough sources to pass WP:GNG, there is no reason for a merge. Valoem talk contrib 23:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus for "incel" to redirect anywhere or to be be brought back to article space on its own. Seeing how there's been over a week's worth of silence, this is essentially a dead issue. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no time frame, you know this, I've been busy and have been focusing on restaurant related articles. The term incel is the most stated term since was are uncomfortable with the term being an oxymoron we are going with Involuntary sexual abstinence, the term incel warrants some mention in the article and a redirect. Valoem talk contrib 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you have been spending your own time on isn't relevant. The point here is there has been no consensus achieved to overturn the deletion/merger. That isn't a debatable point. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If User:Valoem persists in including "incel" I can see why some editors above have lost patience. This is an AFD procedure. Generally speaking in such procedures, a "no consensus" outcome defaults to keep for now. Since it seems that previous talk page consensus won't allow a merge to the most appropriate target, and there's no clear consensus for deletion and many strong policy and source based reasons to keep, I'd argue that the page should be allowed to be restored for now, and consensus remeasured at some future date, say 3 to 6 months. After the procedure is closed and the page restored to mainspace, a requested move might be the best course. I concur that "incel" is not yet notable enough for inclusion, and might never be; on the other hand the common human state of wanting sexual contact and being unable to make such contact (per WP:COMMONNAME involuntary celibacy or whatever name the community deems appropriate) seems to meet GNG, based on presented sources. It's for a closer to decide. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're mistaken; Valoem is appealing a standing AFD, so this is a DRV discussion, not an AFD discussion. That means the existing consensus to merge or delete stands unless he can show consensus to overturn it. The page was, after all, already merged properly under AFD (and that page was later deleted appropriately under AFD); the appropriate place to appeal either is DRV, not here, and regardless of where he takes, the default is that both those AFDs stand and the page remains deleted. Strong consensus is needed to overcome an AFD result and restore an article, which is plainly not present here. This entire RFC is a bit of a policy runaround; I think the appropriate response is to close this discussion and advise Valoem to go to DRV again if he has any concerns about the deletion. He even admits that he was aware of it and that he is trying to "ignore all rules" to get the article restored, which means that he knows that was the appropriate thing to do under policy; he filed an RFC instead because he thought -- incorrectly -- that an RFC would give him a lower standard to get the AFD result overturned. But that is not the case; the AFD that removed the involuntary celibacy article is the current "default", and absent any sense of consensus to overturn that result and restore it (which is plainly not forthcoming), it will remain deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there was a second third AFD with a delete outcome, why is it not listed above? The Donnelly AFD is not a discussion of this subject matter. Am I missing something? BusterD (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The 'merge' AFD was valid and remains binding, and the Denise Donnelly AFD was also taken as an AFD on the subject, as its closure says. If you object to those conclusions, the appropriate forum is to take it to DRV (where it was taken before; it seems reasonable to conclude that Valoem realized it would fail there again, so he sought to push it through another channel.) Regardless, it is clear there is no consensus to restore here, nor that any is likely to arise; and I feel that numerous detailed, well-articulated arguments for why this is a neologism that cannot support an article have been put forward. It is unquestionable that it cannot be restored without consensus; a non-consensus outcome defaults to the current situation standing, not a radical overturning of a previously-established result. I am confident enough in both Coffee's grasp of policy and appropriate approach to controversies like these to be reasonably certain that they will not do so. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • When deciding on a proper forum for this discussion, administrator User:Coffee had several options available, and that user chose to list this at AFD. So it's not a DRV, otherwise Coffee would have chosen to list it there. While that admin has honorably kept the discussion open the same time period as a normal RFC, AFD rules apply here. Many editors apparently assessing the desired outcome as delete have treated this AFD like a DRV and primarily used previous discussion as evidence (irrelevant to this process). Editors asserting keep largely seem to have treated this process as an AFD, have presented applicable sourcing from multiple independent reliable sources and argued not against overturning, but as keep on the merits (an argument not valid in a DRV procedure). This IS AFD round three. To my reading there's been little clash on the merits. There have been lots of expressions of frustration, but little in the way of delete assertion. I'd say there's a strong consensus to keep, based on strength of argument, and virtually no consensus to delete, based on arguments presented. Despite assertions of canvassing, I was not canvassed to this process and had no previous involvement with the subject. Most of the keep asserters above fit that profile. IMHO, IAR was a proper rationale for this forum choice, though I wrongly objected and cast unfortunate aspersions at Coffee initially. For those comments I have personally apologized. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this thing is classifiable under any normal wiki-nomenclature. "Incel", whatever it is, is an orphan topic that no one wants to mention in existing articles and is undeserving of its standalone home. I view this as a sort-of straw poll to get a measure of where editors are at, and so far nothing has really changed from the last go-around. Valoem keeps repeating "it is reliably sourced so gimme an article" as if it were a tautology, but obviously several editors reject that assertion. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, if we disregard the people pulled in through canvassing, I see a strong consensus to leave deleted, and a great deal of discussion on the merits. It is clear that this article is a neologism sourced solely to one or two fringe commentators, neither of whom provide enough sourcing to support even a mention in another article, let alone an article devoted entirely to their theories. Most of the people arguing 'keep' seem to have no real argument beyond a strong emotional belief in those fringe theories. Outside of Donnely and Gilmartin, the supposed sources they've dropped do not actually talk about the same thing, which means that the arguments premised on that track (which is most of the 'keep' arguments on this page!) can be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus to overthrow decisions There's no consensus to merge this to celibacy, as it's not related to celibacy, a volunteer condition. There's also no consensus to create an own article for this neologism for some special condition of sexual frustration. There is a consensus to expand the article about sexual frustration with a paragraph about this special one, and you may feel free to do so. But...there is also no consensus to create a redirect to promote the neologism of some fringe theorists "incel", so that should not happen as well. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration: Holy Jebus, what's with the filibustering? If you can't say what you think in a paragraph, then learn how. Last I heard, closing admins didn't judge by weight. Me, I'm just unconvinced, and no, Valoem can save the trouble of writing Yet Another 1000-word essay rebutting these few sentences. Not going to work. Nha Trang Allons! 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The X Factor (New Zealand series 2)#Shae Brider. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Brider

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

Contestant on reality TV show does not equate to notability, nor does being a convicted murderer. Fails GNG Mattlore (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Marrocco

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in any source, and no secondary sources, despite being tagged from November 2014. mikeman67 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From NRVE: However, 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. IOW, it's not enough to claim that sourcing is likely to exist; even if you don't add it all to the article in one shot, the onus is still on you to prove — not just assert, but "show your work here and now" prove — that a GNG-satisfying level of RS coverage does exist. As well, a WP:BLP is required to have at least one reliable source in it right off the top — but this has none, which means it was technically eligible (and still is) for an immediate WP:BLPPROD. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I disagree. NRVE also says that if coverage is likely to exist, deletion is per se not appropriate, whether that sourcing is produced or not. NRVE also says that if sourcing exists, it need not be directly cited at AfD. What that means is that I don't have to produce a webliography of sources that come up immediately in GNews, because asking me to do so would clearly be a time wasting tactic. Because if you want to see those, you need only click on the link at the top of this AfD, and it takes you straight to them. I haven't claimed that unspecified sources exist. I have claimed that specified sources exist in GNews, and I have told you exactly where to find them, and other sources are likely to exist because of the nature of the office (what I had in mind was biographies, law reports and other discussion of his judgements). What that passage you cited from NRVE is talking about is sources that are claimed to exist in cases where the nature of the topic (ie very trivial, obscure, etc, which this one isn't) makes it unlikely that any sources would exist. This, as a government source, is clearly a reliable source. As is this from the Law Society. So BLPPROD isn't available. James500 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources exist about the subject. This story in the Ottawa Herald describes his temperament inside the courtroom. This article in the Law Times discusses him as a potential Supreme Court nominee chief justice of the court. --Enos733 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, both of those sources fail to count as reliable sources. While there's no reason to doubt that they're accurate, what they aren't is either substantive — they contain no substantial information about him, but merely namecheck his existence in the process of being simple lists of names — or independent of the subject — they're the websites of organizations he's directly involved in, and thus don't establish notability. By similar tokens, the president of a company doesn't automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because he has an "our president" profile on the company's website — and the mayor of a city, even a large one whose mayoralty constitutes an automatic NPOL pass, still doesn't get to keep an article whose only source is a list of the city's mayors on the city's own website. To establish notability, a source has to be reliable and substantive and independent — a source which is one of those three things, but fails to be the other two, does not establish notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say that the second most senior judge of a province passes the notability bar by virtue of his position. Certainly passes WP:POLITICIAN: "...judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." Not a politician, of course, but unelected judges are still covered by that notability guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that too, but the expanded criteria in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians says nothing about judges, which suggests to me that this policy includes elected judges only. I could be wrong, though. I just have a hard time believing that every judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is automatically notable. There are literally hundreds of Canadian judges in inferior/provincial courts. Of course the fact that he's an associate chief justice makes this a bit different. mikeman67 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was elected judges only it would discriminate in favour of American judges, which we try to avoid on Wikipedia. I didn't say every judge in Ontario was notable (there are well over 200 of them), and I don't think that's what holding sub-national office means in this instance (it's really phrased to include judges of American state supreme courts, which is only a tiny fraction of them, whereas all Canadian judges are judges of the provincial courts), but I think the second most senior one in the province certainly is. That, to me, is pure common sense. No policy or guideline is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a political position of note - I've been in so many discussions to eliminate content. We should have really good reasons to delete an article, not really good reasons to keep it. Just because we can delete an article, doesn't mean we have to. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marrocco received some news coverage for being a lawyer in a high profile case (U.S. official trying to 'influence' case Bambi hearing told, appeared in The Toronto Star, August 8, 1991, Thursday, METRO EDITION). Additionally, his promotion to his current rank received media coverage (Bambi's man called to the bench, appeared in the The Globe and Mail (Canada) on November 9, 2005 Wednesday). He’s a high ranking judge, and he’s gotten a smattering of news coverage, so I’m voting keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, as well as many more potential sources, were found on LexisNexis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - fails notability. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ambrose

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

Fails WP:Notability (sports). Lacks any recognition. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... So? A 2.2 victory isn't notable (per guidelines)... Plus it's his only accomplishment. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, no media coverage outside his victory (minus blog and team bios). Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage? All the sources are about the same victory. Outside of that, nothing exists. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty poor attempt at a sock puppet account, Buzzards. Your userpage states you're from Northern Virginia. The IP editor has made 10 edits in total, with only four in the last two years, and they come to this AfD. Just by chance. And their IP address is from Virginia Community College System. In Richmond. Northern Virginia. I'm looking at a row of ducks right now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great investigative work. :) Why would I? My opinion has weight. The anon made numerous edits on Team Novo Nordisk... Richmond is 2-3 hours from NVA; Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia, are closer. I would take this seriously, if Lugnuts wasn't a biased editor. He said: "I'm not even sure why you exist on here TBH", and stalks my contributions, he injected himself in a conversation between me and an admin. I think that demonstrates Lugnuts' stripes. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Paperpencils and Lugnuts are inclusionists... They edit on English time. Puppets? Crazy, isn't? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised this issue at ANI for further discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (effectively withdrawn) (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 04:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Glasspool

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

Fails WP:Notability (sports). Lacks any recognition. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing at OTC isn't notable, "Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games)." While he rode a UCI World Championship - didn't notice before nominating, he lacks media standing. No interviews or articles (excluding blogs and team bio); his page can't be expanded. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sander.v.Ginkel's expansion. However, his website could be biased. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Also note copyv issue re http://www.scchiphop.com/scc-bio.html j⚛e deckertalk 01:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South City Commission

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO ― Padenton |☎  19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Even with my opining a keep, I am closing discussion as article was already speedy G5 deleted. AFD is now moot and superfluousness.Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Rahi filmography

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

No reason for this to have its own article. All the information is also at Sultan Rahi. I'm not sure what the policy on filmography pages is, but this one definitely seems superfluous.  Liam987(talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I don't know if this would count as an WP:A9 specifically since he was the producer and not the creator of the music, but the consensus here was clearly to delete even before the main article was deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Fazio production discography

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

Contested prod-a disography that is way too soon for someone with just a few albums. Wgolf (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Per nom. Also, article was previously speedy deleted [56]. Article was then re-created by the author (admittedly with some additional content). Article creator has since improperly removed CSD tag. ([57]). Article creator's rebuttal Talk:Nico_Fazio_production_discography#Contested_deletion indicates the goal of the article was clearly promotional.
Also related is the article here: Nico Fazio, nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Fazio. The AfD notice for the Nico Fazio article has also been removed improperly twice already ([58] and [59]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padenton (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Nico Fazio article was deleted today per AfD discussion, so this article now meets WP:CSD#A9 03:30, 6 April 2015 (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 delete. Nakon 05:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puthiya Swarangal

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

Per WP:NFF ― Padenton |☎  19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt spelling:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tamil language:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Appreciate your efforts, but please read WP:RS. Blogs are usually unacceptable for sourcing. I know its been years, but perhaps you could track down some reliable sources (in any language) from which the blog information was obtained? Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Guillen

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

Article that keeps on getting the prod/blp prod/speedy removed by the page creator. Autobio with not much reliable refs for it. (and was he really discovered by Mel Gibson???) Wgolf (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping illness

Sleeping illness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that this is an new and unique medical condition. Relevant info can instead be included in the article on the village. I cannot find any medical sources on the sickness, only news reports with speculation. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep per it's current state. A new editor that goes by the name "Srhesler29" vandalized this article several times. I have revered this yet again. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 19:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing By Advantages

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

This is a long article about one of those goofy business-management processes that comes with its own language and acronyms. Most of the sources are primary - either publications by the method's inventor, or conference proceedings with a common author, a single professor who seems to have adopted the approach. That professor is an author on the conference proceedings, an organizer of the conference, and the supervisor for all of the theses cited. The closest this comes to secondary coverage is a discussion in an engineering management society newsletter, which is only secondary in the sense that it is discussing previous presentations made at society meetings. Google didn't turn up any additional independent coverage. The article also reads like a copyvio - created in one shot, spurious references to nonexistent figures, etc. - but I didn't find a source. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete WP:SNOW and a well argued need to remove this in a timely fashion. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015

Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an unencyclopedic trainwreck, trying to do its own mashed-together comparison of party policies copy-pasted in places from the party's website. It's something far better handled by linking to the party's website itself, it's not a topic there's any precedent of, and it needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Although it may appear bias for/against parties, a lot of that may be due to my removal of close paraphrased/plagiarised content which has probably left the article lopsided or lumpy in parts. It was still a mess before I went at it though, and there is still more dubious content to be removed. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: as the election is being held this Saturday, I reckon a snow closure would be a really good idea; do we really want this up during a period where the article will be getting the most views? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am answering the following:
Argument 1: (by The Drover's Wife) “it's not a topic there's any precedent of”, if that were true, that wouldn’t be a reason for deletion in itself.
Argument 2: (by various) “close paraphrasing and plagiarism”, well, that is corrected by editing the article, the article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that. I’ll go through the article again to check that but I think that the close paraphrasing criticism is being applied to harshly because as I read in some wikipedia policy, close paraphrasing would be allow when there are only a few ways in which something can be said without changing the meaning, but I will go through the article again to review everything again.
Argument 2.1: (by ColonialGrid) “After all of the copyvio content is removed it's going to be so bare-bones and erratic in coverage to be pointless.”, that doesn’t make sense because the text that has that problem can be rewritten in a different way, it doesn’t need to be “removed”, it can be just “rewritten”. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.
Argument 3: (by St★lwart) “Just a long list of WP:OR”, if you think that something is original research, delete that. it’s not original research since it is based on 133 references, what the article says is based on the references. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.
Argument 4: (by Screech1616) “ it did seem like an advert for the Greens”, please explain why, if that were to happen that can be corrected. What is an advert? An advert would be an intentional effort to present the Greens above what sources say. I am not doing that, what I am saying about the Greens is based on the sources. Be free to change what you think is an advert. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.
A Text Search of the article counts the term "Greens" a whopping 44 times, "Liberal" 17 times, "Australian Labor" & "Country Labor" 13 times each - not bad for a minor party! Screech1616 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argument 5: (by Lankiveil) “I also feel that it may start to WP:SNOW”, are you trying to say that it is not winnable ? The fact that various persons have said “Delete” doesn’t mean it’s not winnable, do you see? Because I am responding to the arguments and I think I am right. This is not about the number of people, it’s about the arguments. These kinds of things that are connected to politics are delicate and there are many interests so that information is presented in only certain ways and some persons are interested in that, so the fact that there are not persons here saying “Keep” doesn’t mean that there would not be many persons that want this article to be kept.
Argument 6, 7, … : There are more arguments that people have said here, please let me a little more time to respond to them (At this moment I don’t more time to write more, not right now). I am trying to be precise and organised with the arguments so all the issues being discussed will be dealt with. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think (as I have all along) that this format is encyclopaedic - don't cherry pick my comments, read them in their entirety. And the question is who will do this work? The only person willing to do it could be you, but after you have had copyvio concerns pointed out numerous times you persist including them; I am rapidly loosing faith in your ability to constructively contribute to this project in a way that respects Wikipedia's policies and the community's consensus. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there's something right that you are saying: It's only ME that is willing to do this, you all guys are opposed to it and seem to think along the lines: "stop it, don't do it, the way things happen now in NSW is good enough for us".
Do you guys live in Sydney? Have you asked people why they are going to vote for a particular party? Many say that is because they have always voted for the same party all their lives. That means that the major parties have it easy because they have the votes with certainty, no need to make any effort to win the votes of the people. So this effort that I am doing would help people with information about what the parties promise. The information will not be 100% complete and perfectly balanced as it's only me that is doing it but at least it's SOME information and that is better than what we have now.
-----
Look what happened in Brisbane:
http://candobetter.net/node/1159
"Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections"
"Brisbane's local ABC radio station 612 ... refused any air time to local independent candidates. Instead, virtually all the available time was given over to candidates from the governing Labor Party or the Opposition Liberal National Party, who even according to the ABC's own listeners, provided little useful information."
"It was incumbent on the taxpayer-funded ABC to encourage any independent candidate who overcame Anna Bligh's engineered time constraints and had information ready for the voting public despite often limited campaign budgets. Instead, one ABC presenter effectively ridiculed an independent candidate before her audiences on one occasion, when, on Friday 20 March, the day before the elections, a morning presenter told listeners of an independent candidate who had only managed to release his policy statement the previous day. Then she remarked: "They're leaving their pitch until a little late, aren't they?" No useful information was given to the audience about that candidate."
-----
This would not only be important to people before the election but also after it so people can know if the winners of the election are following their election promises.
You know what consequence this will have? that wikipedia will cease to be relevant, newspapers are no longer relevant as are so biased, and now wikipedia is controlled by people that want that information is presented in the way that the two main parties want, not only about this topic but also on the article of the election in which you can only display Labor and the liberals in the infographic and that the election is presented as a fight only between labor and the coalition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_South_Wales_state_election,_2015). So people will realise that and see that wikipedia is biased. Don't think people will not notice. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close - the above "answers" don't actually address anything and can be boiled down to, "despite a lack of experience and understanding of policy, I think what I'm doing is right so no number of deletion opinions validate deletion". Nobody can argue with that because it's nonsense. This is obviously a Green-tinged effort, as demonstrated by the passing Greens one-liners given weight as "policy" and large gaps for major party policies where such policies have been in place for decades. Delete and salt well before polling day (Saturday). St★lwart111 23:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... and large gaps for major party policies where such policies have been in place for decades"
But the major parties don't advertise them on their websites, look, on corruption or electoral reform, what Labor and the Liberals say?
I can't find anything about that on their websites:
http://act.nswlabor.org.au/policy
http://nsw.liberal.org.au/ourplanfornsw/ Abcdudtc (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of those parties is in government - government policy is the government's policy. The other was in Government before that. But there is no requirement for either party to release an electoral reform policy just because the Greens have. The Greens have also tried to ban BBQs at polling booths to placate vegetarians (who otherwise shop in regular grocery stores with delis and butchers). It is ridiculous to suggest the major parties should therefore have polling day BBQ policies. This is just a dumb attempt to shill for the Greens. St★lwart111 23:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is a clear consensus to delete this page, but it has not yet been done and the election is being held tomorrow, I have made the page a redirect temporarily until after the election (or possibly in perpetuity). ColonialGrid (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discounting the SPIs, there is still no consensus to delete. Nakon 07:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Fruchthändler

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

See Wikipedia:No original research! --Norepy (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever in the article. As many as 80 million died during WWII, we don't have biographies on all of them, that would make Wikipedia into something quite different from an encyclopedia. (Not to mention all those other people who died in the numerous other atrocities, genocides and conflicts in the 20th century and before, like the 10 million dead in Belgian Congo for example; should we have 10 million biographies for them too, with content like "Dikembe was a carpenter from the Congo, who was killed by the Belgians. He enjoyed music and telling stories, and was liked by everyone in his village, and was sorely missed by his wife"?). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Heck, I'd support a speedy delete on grounds that no assertion of notability is made. Nha Trang Allons! 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Riordan Jones

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

No evidence of notability for this author whose works are self-published ebooks, editor who created this has been spamming the subject's ebooks. Obvious COI Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Honestly I didn't know there was a Conflict of Interest issue on Wikipedia (I didn't read every guideline). Should I just take my entry down? I figured most authors just posted info about their work where it applies and set up their own bios (since they know the exact dates when their works were copy-written and published and such). I'm not sure what to do now. I only just created an account today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawnoftyphon (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Paysan

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

Not notable biography of a living person. The sources do not show notabily - one is unreliable (OVOW), one is not third part (a promotion he works for) and the third basically verifies that he exists and is a wrestler. Existence is not enough to show notability. Being a wrestler is in itself not enough to show notability. Original nomination had no discussion other than one saying "Keep he's a wrestler".  MPJ -US  16:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Elbaz

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

The article gives no indication of the person's notability, no notable achievements listed just a biography of their non-noteworthy career. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The article says Meanwhile his own work, which focuses on tension between communities, has been featured in publications such as: Canadian Jewish News, ARTnews, The Jewish Press, San Diego Jewish Times, The Toronto Chronicle, and Time Magazine. Does this mean that individual photographs by him have appeared in these, or does it mean something more. If it means something more, then what does it mean? And where are the sources for these claims? Perhaps the creator, Dionysus the alcoholic (contributions) could explain. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought that pressing 'edit' would take me to the 'Jacob Elbaz' page to edit that so I pressed 'Talk' instead. My comment went as follows:

It is your opinion that Elbaz's career is 'non-noteworthy', not mine. I feel that his work having been published, his biography having been published in various papers, his owning of several galleries, and his founding an artists' residency is noteworthy. I could list the papers individually and it would be just as valid a claim but you would not be able to see them and test the validity if I had not also linked to his website. The question is ' Does this mean that individual photographs by him have appeared in these, or does it mean something more'? It means both. Photographs which he has taken and articles about Elbaz and his work have been featured in several publications, I will gladly clarify this on the page if this is the problem. The sources for these claims are here: http://www.jacobelbaz.com/#!press/clud I would like to say that whilst, yes, this is Elbaz's own website that does not make the articles and photographs fake. I could have listed them individually with no link and this would still be valid according to wikipedia's guidelines, however, I felt it would be better to see the articles about Elbaz and the photographs he has had featured rather than list numerous names of papers without giving the opportunity to access them. Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC

Comment republished Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for responding. For me, one problem is the verb "feature", which can mean anything or almost nothing. I see that the man has a page of cuttings; unfortunately I can't read Hebrew, but I do see some promising material within what is in English. (Incidentally, it's fine to cite sources that are in Hebrew. The fact that I wouldn't be able to read them is by the way.) So for example Elbaz waded through the water, placed a chair in the flooded field and set a frightened, stray cat upon it. He took the picture and it was posted on the front page of "Yediot Aharonot", along with another two of his pictures: source, please. Or again, He sold his first print within an hour of opening his gallery in Soho which would eventually receive such visitors as Ariel Sharon: source, please. Meanwhile his own work, which focuses on tension between communities, has been featured in publications such as: Canadian Jewish News, ARTnews, The Jewish Press, San Diego Jewish Times, The Toronto Chronicle, and Time Magazine: decide whether "been featured" means more than "appeared", and, where it does, specify, with sources. Of course you have a lot of material that needs sourcing; one way to approach this would be to delete all but the most important 20% or so, add specific sources to this rump of an article, and readd the rest of it as you have the time to specify sources for it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Please understand that this is not about opinion, rather whether the article demonstrates notability as defined by Wikipedia policy. Aspects that warrant notability for a photographer would typically be awards received, books published by publishers, and exhibitions in galleries not owned by the photographer. I am afraid his biography published in newspapers is not noteworthy enough to be a major supporting aspect of an article. If his work has been published in newspapers then you either need to link to each of those newspaper articles (not just to the newspaper itself), or to an article in a reliable source that talks about his publishing in newspapers being noteworthy. It is not enough to use Elbaz's own claim that he has been published in newspapers. This article does not have any references. It does now demonstrate in what way setting up his own "print making and framing studio, an art gallery, and artists' studios" is notable in this instance - it does not appear on the face of it to be noteworthy. The same with "running an artists' placement to allow the youthful artists of the area a chance to showcase their work", if a reliable source were talking about it then that would demonstrate that this activity was in itself notable. -Lopifalko (talk)
  • Ok, First Hoary, thank you for getting back to me. So as I understand it, if I cut out the unnecessary details, such as the cat and wading through water, change my language a little, and add specific references to the articles instead of just posting Elbaz's website and asking people to go through it themselves this would be enough?

Secondly, Lopifalko, my apologies - I didn't mean to come off as passive aggressive, as I now realise I sounded, but I was also quoting wikipedia on Speedy deletion where it says, 'In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has to pass the much lower test of asserting importance or significance'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#New_pages_that_may_require_deletion Everything I wrote is mentioned in the newspapers that I link to but they are external links and not references. If I make them specific references through footnotes does that change things? The studio, art gallery, and placement is significant and mentioned in one of the articles which is in Hebrew and the video by Hot which is a news channel owned by one of the two main telecommunications companies in Israel so should be considered a reliable source.

Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article wasn't tagged for speedy deletion. (That's something else.) This, I'm afraid, is horribly drawn out deletion -- or vindication. Yes, really: concentrate on what's most important, and link it to sources, whether in English, Hebrew, or some other language. Temporarily remove what's unsourced and less important: if the article is vindicated, you can later work on "sourcing" and readding this material. NB Wikipedia looks askance at claimed video when these are hosted by Youtube or similar: a video from a news channel should be hosted by that news channel, or by another one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it originally was tagged for speedy deletion, then I contested it and the notice changed. As for the video, it is on the news channel's youtube page - does that not suffice? If someone claimed something about Ellen Degeneres and linked to her youtube channel I doubt that would be an issue or that I would need to refer to the exact programme, the only difference here is the scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus the alcoholic (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't heard of Ellen Degeneres but a person isn't a reliable source for statements about themselves other than basic facts, so linking to their YouTube would likely not be a reliable source. Yes you definitely would need to link to the specific video, rather than the channel itself, because a reader needs to be able to refer to the exact place to see what was said so they can confirm the fact. -Lopifalko (talk)
      • I did link to a specific video though. Elbaz wasn't talking about himself on a blog or his own channel, he was being interviewed by a legitimate Israeli news channel about the artists' programme and gallery, and the news channel posted it to their own youtube page. Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to what you said ("If someone claimed something about Ellen Degeneres and linked to her youtube channel I doubt that would be an issue or that I would need to refer to the exact programme,") that indicated using her as a source for info on herself, and linking to a channel and not a specific video. Anyway let us move on and not let this distract us as we are moving in a good direction with this. -Lopifalko (talk)
  • I have now done a pretty quick edit, If I source this correctly is that the end of the...horribly drawn out deletion/vindication?

Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that this new account is acting in good faith and explain: Dear User:Paperpencils, Wikipedia does not take anyone's "word" for anything. We assume that all editors are acting in good faith, but we only allow verifiable text, i.e., all text bust be sourced to a book, institution, newspaper or other source that other editors can locate and verify. Reliable sources can be in any language, in print or on the web. But you can't write anything, not even: The Empire State Building is very tall, unless you provide a verifiable source that says so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about his time.com article? It's from an old archived paper and I can't see it. And what about everything on here? http://www.jacobelbaz.com/#!press/clud I think the person who creators/contributors of the page should be faulted for failing to list the sources of these photos properly or to do the research in Hebrew. But in no way does it warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This [60] is persuasive. It is a photo from El Baz's website, showing newspaper pages that in iclude several profiles of about him and his work, and at least one news report of a gallery show. I say "at least" because there are numerous article,you have to click on eash to expand an make them legible, and even then not all of the photos reveal the name or date of the newspapers. I am puzzled that they did not come up in quick searches, since they are only a decade or 3 old. (His gallery ownership did show up) The lack of ghits is not solved by using El Baz instead of Elbaz. And certainly the article needs to be re-written WP:NPOV and needs in-line sourcing. Nevertheless, the page [61] User:Paperpencils directs us to is persuasive evidence that El Baz is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice to User:Dionysus the alcoholic and User:Paperpencils If you are the same person, just admit it, apologize, beg forgiveness, and sin mo more. Whether you are separate people or the same person, you would be better advised to spend just a little time adding proper citations to newspapers to the page. It's easy to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edited. I'm not the same person as Paperpencils (not that I don't appreciate the assistance) and I'll thank you not to make that assumption - I have no need to admit/apologise/beg forgiveness for anything when you are the one who has clearly already formed an opinion on my character. I'm quite sure that I was already heading in the right direction as to this article before all this came up, so what would be the use in creating an alternative account? I will certainly admit to not taking the time to reference/source correctly, mostly due to laziness, but I will now add the references correctly and learn how to footnote on wikipedia but it will take a little bit of time which I can't easily spare this weekend. It may be easy for you to do however I'm a little new at this and thus, clearly, not as competent as you are at inserting citations. Am I operating on a timeline? Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, I can see now why you spoke about citing Elbaz's website, rather than to a copy of each of the articles at the website of the particular newspapers. These are pre-web. -Lopifalko (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dato' Mohd Zamrie Dato' Sulong

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

Non-notable bio, heavily sourced from "about" section of employers website. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 16:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juug

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

WP:NOTDIC, with no reliable sourcing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC  Liam987(talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Java secure coding practices

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

Pure WP:OR, which the article creator admits themselves. Suggest salting as they keep recreating this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After being patrolled, I have added several images which are part of my own research. All of the content is written after several study on the topic of secure coding. This material is need to be published on WIKI so that users who are looking for the right content will not have to run one site to other site. Now days people are looking for exact material/data what they need. A year back I was in need of same thing, then I started to research on the same data and have taken references from some tech sites then collectively I created this. This content is need of every java programmer who wants to write secure code. This article will become their first need. This article tells every possible mitigation technique for currently available attacks. I have created this article after 1 year of research and I am hoping that wiki java users will like this content more than any other. I have taken reference from OWASP and right to publish the content under creative common license 3.0.
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO
This article is based on my own research on the topics included in the article. This research is conclusion of several other practical and theoretical research which might inspired from other sources.
Delete per WP:OR
By considering that Wikipedia article should be an encyclopedic reference not instruction page. And I follow the rules and have properly told inside do and don't. Whatever is mentioned in Do and Don't is described in detail inside the article with examples and media files.
Delete per nom
This content required to be publish as Wiki Article not Wikibooks. Wiki Book is the section for reference based long books not for researched articles. I am following Wikipedia from long time back and I respect the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I have created this article by considering all the terms of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiteshsachan (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Shiteshsachan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Portable Intermediate Representation

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

The notability of this topic has not been provided in the article.   Bfpage |leave a message  14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant is not important. Notable, as defined by secondary sources, is important. PianoDan (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This IR has been recently announced, but is not used anywhere. It seems this is a case of WP:TOOSOON--not enough time has elapsed for this IR to gain multiple in depth reliable sources needed for notability per WP:GNG. Maybe when OpenCL 2.1 comes out with SPIR as the IR, this will gain more notability over time. But until then, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Doesn't seem like a case of WP:TOOSOON to me - the standard has been around for a while, and the article doesn't have to be exclusively about SPIR-V (though considering that it's completely rewritten, this choice of version numbering seems strange). There's a little bit of coverage in the kinds of places you'd expect to cover such a niche topic - Phoronix on the 2012 1.0 draft, Anandtech and TechEnablement on the 2014 2.0 version, App Developer Magazine on the 2015 release, now-out-of-date Intel Tutorial. Not exactly in-depth, true, but enough to prevent the waste of deleting the article and recreating it again in a few months. (BTW, PianoDan, some of the standards in this navbox family might be borderline but OpenCL, OpenGL, etc.? Not in doubt.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that, and general comment retracted. Still don't see this one as notable. PianoDan (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gheorghe Bănciulescu--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Stoica (aviator)

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

The man is, at best, a local hero, but there's nothing indicating notability as normally defined. Our sources are more than thin: passing mention in what appears to be a self-published newspaper (at any rate, an extremely local and small one); passing mention in an article about August Treboniu Laurian, again in a no-name newspaper; and an official press release (never a good source for history articles) not about Stoica, but about his pilot, who may be marginally notable.

So, in sum: great fellow, tragic end, etc., just not quite encyclopedia material. - Biruitorul Talk 14:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an issue with Gheorghe Bănciulescu? Are their effort not worth mentioning? Is the Paris - Bucharest route [of 1926] not a brave attempt? The fact that one of them died and the other had his legs amputated; is that not worth for Wikipedia? If not Ion Stoica, at least the event should have a Wikipedia page. In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. it's the only reasonable statement for deleting the article.--TudorTulok (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we have two separate unique sources in Romanian about both of them: Source 1 Source 2. How many unique sources do we need? TudorTulok (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the content of Ion Stoica (aviator) will be moved to the English translation of ro:Fofeldea, Sibiu, that's fine. Please let me know before you remove the article. TudorTulok (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worth checking that the event (September 1926) where Ion Stoica died was just a contest from "Cupa Bibescu": Gheorghe Bănciulescu and ro:Romeo Popescu were flying a month before (August 1926) on the same route. I believe Stoica and Bănciulescu were trying to break a speed record on the same route. Anyway, this things are interesting, and without the proper links some details will fade into the obscurity of time.TudorTulok (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that an individual is considered notable if he meets WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Thus far, no source you have presented achieves that. We either have passing mention, or the sources themselves are not particularly quotable.
I would add, too, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "the reliability of a source depends on context". We are dealing with someone who died in 1926, in other words, a historical figure. The ideal sources for such an individual are a) newspapers of the day - see here for those - and b) historical publications, both books and articles. Not press releases or news briefs from the past few years. If you want to demonstrate notability (as defined by policy), you still have a long way to go. - Biruitorul Talk 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. How about Istoria Aviaţiei Române, a book by Nicolae Balotescu, published in 1984? Razvan Socol (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear about the extent of said book's coverage of the subject: "In 1926, Captain Gheorghe Bănciulescu, with mechanic Ion Stoica on board, attempted to fly a Potez-25 plane without a stopover from Bucharest to Paris. However, the plane hit the Hirburn hill in Raymarov, Czechoslovakia due to thick fog. Stoica died as a result of this accident, while Captain Bănciulescu fractured both legs, which were amputated following surgery."
That isn't in-depth coverage; it's passing mention in a 750-page volume. At best, Stoica deserves mention in the article on Bănciulescu. But if this is the best we can come up with, then no, a standalone article simply is not justified. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we have three separate sources now. Right? TudorTulok (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, it depends on what you define as a source. For instance, like I've said, a government press release is not the best source for attesting the notability of a historic figure. Second, nothing we have so far goes into any particular depth about the subject. Essentially everything about him deals with the Bănciulescu crash and discusses him in that context. This suggests that WP:BIO1E applies:
"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered."
Neither Stoica nor the crash are important enough to warrant separate articles, and we really should treat him as the sources do, namely as a brief mention in the article on Bănciulescu. - Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should Fofeldea (similarly to ro:Fofeldea) extend the section about him? TudorTulok (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Thanks Razvan Socol. This is the book I have it at home and writes about him. I didn't know I can source it from the Internet. TudorTulok (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see anything notable enough for a standalone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of La Liga clubs

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

Unnecessary content fork, that's already covered in the La Liga season articles. Fails WP:NOTSTATS JMHamo (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA1000 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaiMai

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently the article's subject is notable, and there are now a couple of sources. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those 70 footnotes are reliable? Does the zhwp's DYK process include source vetting? Otherwise I don't see why those arguments are pertinent. czar ⨹ 01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Eggy That Could

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for this video game. bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 12:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Marshal

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

Notability far from established. This reads like a highly inflated autobiographical CV with no hint of notability in any of the claimed areas. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should have left this longer before AfD since there is a whole lot of chaotic editing going on with rapid removals and additions. Advise looking at page history.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Bangalore Mirror article from August 2011 is the only reference in this article that really stands up to scrutiny. The criteria for notability set out in WP:FILMMAKER do not appear to have not been met.
  • Delete I mean the guy seems interesting, but his only notable work seems to be a really cheap film. As I said on its talk page, that's the only reason I didn't put it up for speedy delete. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. A valid deletion rationale has not been presented. For more information, see WP:DEL-REASON. NORTH AMERICA1000 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Home Science

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

A faculty of a university needs separate page? Vin09 (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. To keep or merge is out of afd scope. (Non-admin closure)Antigng (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affluence Stop

Affluence Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Butterfly Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chestwood Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ching Chung Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Choy Yee Bridge Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chung Fu Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chung Uk Tsuen Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fung Nin Road Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fung Tei Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ginza Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goodview Garden Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hang Mei Tsuen Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ho Tin Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hoh Fuk Tong Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hong Lok Road Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hung Shui Kiu Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kei Lun Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kin On Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kin Sang Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lam Tei Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leung King Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Locwood Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Light Rail Depot Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lung Mun Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melody Garden Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ming Kum Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nai Wai Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ngan Wai Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On Ting Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ping Shan Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prime View Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pui To Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sam Shing Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Hui Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Wai Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shan King (North) Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shan King (South) Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shek Pai Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shui Pin Wai Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siu Hei Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siu Hong Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siu Lun Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tai Hing (North) Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tai Hing (South) Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tai Tong Road Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Fu Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Heng Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin King Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Sau Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Shui Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Shui Wai Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Tsz Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Wing Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Wu Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Yat Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Yiu Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Yuet Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tong Fong Tsuen Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Town Centre Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsing Shan Tsuen Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsing Wun Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuen Mun Hospital Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuen Mun Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuen Mun Swimming Pool Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wetland Park Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yau Oi Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yuen Long Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MTR Light Rail Route 505 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MTR Light Rail Route 705/706 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(View AfD · Stats)

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

Batch nomination of the above 70 stub articles (all the light rail stops of the MTR Light Rail, and the two existing articles on its routes). The station articles were almost all entirely created in January 2009 by User:Ricky@36. A very similar set of articles was proposed for deletion in January 2007; the debate was closed as no consensus (tending towards delete) but a week after they were all redirected anyway.

The nominator of the stop articles in 2007 noted that the articles were quite formulaic: each consists of a short description about how the stop is a light rail stop located "on the ground" in zone x with two platforms; it is on road y near that road's junction with road z; it serves residential developments a and b; and is on lines p and q. For pretty much all of these articles, not much has changed since 2007, except they now have a few more templates and Chinese translations (but still, mostly, no references or just a link to the MTR's website). Most, if not all, of the stops are not particularly individually notable in their own right, five-sixths of them being of almost identical structure; they are quite similar to bus stops (in, for instance, mostly not being named after place names but residential estates and other establishments or roads, and having small catchment areas). Most of them are unlikely ever to be expanded beyond stub articles.

These articles could be summarized in the main Light Rail (Hong Kong) article; be merged into a few articles similar to the Lists of Pokémon; or simply redirected (which I would prefer). For the few articles that contain more than three short paragraphs, an infobox, navboxes and S-line templates (Sam Shing, Tuen Mun Ferry Pier) which don't have a rapid transit/metro station right next to them (Tuen Mun; Siu Hong; Tin Shui Wai; and Yuen Long, which should be merged into Tuen Mun Station; Siu Hong Station; Tin Shui Wai Station; and Yuen Long Station respectively) they could be kept. [EDIT: Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop could be merged into a section in Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. I'm not sure what parent article Sam Shing Stop could be merged with because there are no articles for Hanford Gardens, Sam Shing Estate or Sam Shing Hui. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The articles on the routes lack references and have not been expanded since their creation six years ago by User:KX675 (created 505) and User:Montemonte (created 705/706; apparently blocked for sockpuppetry). They should probably be redirected to and given short descriptions in Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge:
Article Into
MTR Light Rail Route 505 Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes
MTR Light Rail Route 705/706 Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes
Sam Shing Stop ?
Siu Hong Stop Siu Hong Station
Tin Shui Wai Stop Tin Shui Wai Station
Tuen Mun Stop Tuen Mun Station
Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop ?
Yuen Long Stop Yuen Long Station
The rest can probably be deep-sixed merged into an omnibus List of MTR tram stopsUseddenim (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC). Useddenim (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am extremely unfamiliar with the Light Rail system, despite being a frequent MTR user. I will, though, note that in most MTR route maps (say in-train displays), most of these stops are not named individually, but only as brief route lines around the West Rail Line. For reference, a majority of the stops' articles in zhwp has a lot more text worked in for their History sections, but sourcing would definitely require improvement. Tentatively I see spinning out Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes and giving each stop a small section a possible solution, and merge Yuen Long/Tin Sui Wai/Tuen Mun/Siu Hong into their MTR station articles, per Useddenim. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know that I'd liken them to bus stops. Looking at the photographs these are stations with side platforms, physical structures, and overpasses. This appears to be a true light rail system and not a tram system, and generally light rail stations are kept. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are more than simple tram stops, which just have a sign by the road like a bus stop. They are more akin to genuine stations, and we traditionally keep all those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination openly declares that "These articles could be summarized... be merged ... or simply redirected". Such actions are all performed by ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD. Therefore, per WP:SK, this discussion should be terminated forthwith. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per others. I think there is decent potential to expand the articles based on Chinese Wikipedia, where the analogous LRT stop articles are not huge but would altogether be too much to compile into a single overview page. I feel more ambivalent about the route pages though. Citobun (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles can be expanded based on Chinese articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good afternoon (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Good afternoon: The problem with that is, other than a few stations which have had accidents or other incidents occur close to or at them (Hang Mei Tsuen, zh), there's not much to translate other than station layout tables and bus route information (and for a few, track diagrams). Some, however, do have rush hour information (Leung King, zh) or route service history (Yau Oi, zh). Some of them definitely could be expanded, but information (e.g. line history) would end up being repeated in several articles (e.g. in 2003 route 720 services were replaced with route 751 services) (if the articles aren't consolidated, anyway) and there will probably be issues with finding sources other than fansites and blogs (most of the zhwiki articles have or should have {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}). Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Since this nomination concerns multiple articles, and there is no clear consensus so far, let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - fails notability. UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor DuPriest

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

Non Notable due to being on one TV show in 2007 and being in a couple of beauty pagents.Vedasdoom (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the Contra Costa Times shows no mention of her. Likewise a search of Inside Bay Area. There is an article on an ibabuzz blog, but blogs don't confer notability. The Entertainment Weekly material appears to be the words of the subject herself, which don't confer notability either. The two beauty contest results pages are from the pageant organization; if this was notable pageant, there should be independent news coverage. I didn't find any for those contests, but I did come across this.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom hold your mouse over "Ann Tatko-Peterson" and it shows her email address is atatko@bayareanewsgroup.com so she does work for the Bay Area News Group, and they do own Contra Costa Times. So no need to doubt what she has at the top of that site. Being mentioned and quoted in a independent reliable source counts towards notability. Primary sources aren't usually allowed for verifying information in an article, since people could lie. But that rule doesn't affect confirming notability. Dream Focus 00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I wasn't clear in my meaning about the contest sites. Having won a contest could confer notability on the subject, but only if it's a notable contest. If no journalists or other authors write about the contest and its winners, this could be because it's a small local event. Also, from reading the policies, I do agree that a blog posting by a real journalist is better than one by a random person, but it's not as indicative of notability as the same as the same text published in an actual newspaper or magazine with an editor selecting and checking what's published. Here's another item about her; not sure if it's independent.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The website listing one of the things she won says "One of the Most Popular Pageants in Georgia", so if that was true newspapers in that state might mention it somewhere. Not sure if "Miss Georgia Sweetheart" is a state thing or just one pageant. The coverage of her I mention is of her as a person, not her pageant bits. When the show was on, it was easier to find ample coverage of her in the news. Google news search isn't as great as it used to be. Dream Focus 04:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dream Focus should not be allowed / able to vote to keep the page, as Dream Focus is the creator of the page, which I see as a clear Conflict of Interest as Dream Focus has a vested interest in keeping the page on Wikipedia. Vedasdoom (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously no one would create a page about a topic that they thought wasn't notable. I don't see why Dream Focus shouldn't express an opinion. Whoever judges the consensus will take that into account.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vedasdoom is a single purpose account, [68] with no edits other than trying to delete this article and arguing at the tea house because he had trouble nominating it and assumed I someone was preventing it despite the edit history of the article showing he just forgot to post the notice there. If the first thing you do when you come to Wikipedia is try to delete an article because you don't like it, you probably aren't going to be helping the encyclopedia much. Dream Focus 02:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm seeing a single paragraph on her in the EW piece and then a short (three-paragraph) review from a local newspaper's blog. In my opinion, this does not rise to the level of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Neutralitytalk 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Dommergue

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

No reliable sources AnSq (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 1. In general, I don't believe that YouTube is a reliable source. While the sources are actual interviews, which is where I might make an exception, I think that the presentation of these ones have some problems. The biggeest of these is in the title: it (ref 6) says that it's "The Truth" about the Holocaust, which it clearly isn't. The video description further expands on this with an idiotic Holocaust denying rant. The description on the other video (ref 3) literally uses the phrase "Jewish question".
2. The Spanish article is even worse. It's much shorter and has only two references, one of which is a dead link. I suppose the second source (in French, with no link; ref 5 in the English version) is fine as long as it actually says that, although I can't verify it. Maybe saying "no" reliable sources was an exaggeration.
3. Google sites (ref 1) is not a reliable source for anything, especially people.
4. Ref 2 appears to be a direct copy of a no longer existing Frech Wikipedia article.
5. Ref 4 is to a website dedicated to Holocaust denial. I do not consider Holocaust denial organizations to be reliable sources on anything, including Holocaust denial.
6. Just in general, I don't believe that this person is especially notable.
--AnSq (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed dud sources. That leaves a book that I have not read. Searching news looks plausible, until I clicked and realized that his name was often in the comments section, not in the news story. The third hit I got on a news google search for his name was AgoraVox, and even there he is in the comments, not in the "article" about two minor anti-Semites. Many claims now in the article, such as "is a professor" I could not source. Given that he is French, possible he once taught (was a professeur i.e. was a teacher) in some sort of school, I could not find where; I can find no university affiliation. He seems to be little-known a garden variety crank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sole mention of his name that I have found so far in a reliable news source is in a blog on Le Monde discussing a petition opposing the Gayssot Act, where his name is mentioned in a list of what Le Monde calls "Holocaust deniers" who have signed the petition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riky Rick

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

Okay so I put a prod up but it seems some refs were added (though one of them not reliable), I still can't find notability in this guy. Wgolf (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. Matt Lowe

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

Claim to fame is being mayor of a small (less than 15k people) in Louisiana. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and no evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An historical figure who left the mayor's office 95 years ago; started the city-owned utility plant and was a long-time county official after that. Only a few sources are available. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayor of what is a pretty small town today and must have been much smaller when he was around. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question this Response. This person moved to delete four Minden mayor articles at 14:39 or 14:40 on March 11. He could not have read and considered each article in such a short time frame. He also copied the same reason for deletion for all four articles. Two of the articles are placeholder articles. There is more on the Lowe article, but other sources are off-line. He comes under local politician, and the size of the city is not a factor.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're referring to me, I do hope you're not suggesting I acted in bad faith. You might care to check out my user profile before you make such intimations. If by "placeholder article" you mean a WP:STUB, then so what? Stubs are perfectly acceptable, but they have to be about subjects which are notable in the first place. And yes, the size of a town is absolutely relevant to the notability of its officials if they're only notable for being officials of the town. I reiterate, there is absolutely nothing notable about this man. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to meet the minimal level of references based on GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Meets GNG guidelines. Further guidelines unnecessary. He doesn't have to meet the Additional Criteria. See the guidelines: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." i.e. GNG. There appears to be a campaign to digitally exclude from history the mayors of small American cities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Carolein Smit

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also coverage of her in a book called Contemporary Ceramics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article, adding several new references. I believe that she meets WP:ARTIST as a result of solo exhibitions at major museums. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that that the article was started by a new editor acting in good faith at a Wikipedia Women's Edit-a-thon, and I see no evidence of a COI. The editor signed up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Morgantown/ArtAndFeminism, and created this article minutes later. It is unlikely that an editor in West Virginia has a COI regarding an artist in Holland. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks Cullen; I thought due to the original relative cluelessness and promotional tone and the fact that it's the only article edited by the user, that it might be the artist herself. Striking that part of my comments. Thanks for expanding, citing, and cleaning up the article -- well done. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There doesn't appear to be agreement on the rather subjective question of whether the sources provided push the subject of the article past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd D. Culbertson, Jr.

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

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a small Louisiana town. No online reliable sources available, and based on the titles of the other sources, there does not appear to be any deep coverage beyond the passing mentions you'd expect in local newspapers regarding a mayor. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local politician. Fully sourced with NINE newspaper references. Left office 72 years ago. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does "fully sourced" mean exactly? Yes, it's easy to verify he was a mayor, but it's also easy to verify who was the class president of (name) Highschool in 2004. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayor of what is a pretty small town today and must have been much smaller when he was around. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question this Response. This person moved to delete the three previous articles on Minden mayors, all at 14:39 time on March 11. He moved against the Culbertson article at 14:40. He could not have possibly read the article in this time frame. He gave the same response for deleting all four articles. However, the Culbertson article is fully sourced, not a placeholder article as are the previous three. It has ten newspaper sources and 24 total sources, well beyond what is required for sources on local politicians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Size of city is not a factor for a mayor. It comes under local politicians.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're referring to me, I do hope you're not suggesting I acted in bad faith. You might care to check out my user profile before you make such intimations. If by "placeholder article" you mean a WP:STUB, then so what? Stubs are perfectly acceptable, but they have to be about subjects which are notable in the first place. And yes, the size of a town is absolutely relevant to the notability of its officials if they're only notable for being officials of the town. I reiterate, there is absolutely nothing notable about this man. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Billy Hathorn. I can't accept arguments for deletion based on the size of the town or the sources being available only in print. I especially can't accept an argument for deletion based on the town being smaller in the 1940s because total world population was smaller then by a factor of about three. I especially can't accept an argument for deletion based on the titles of admittedly unread sources. James500 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard local politician meeting GNG, offline resources are fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the article itself describes Minden as small shows that it is not significant enough to grant mayors de facto notability. He just does not pass the notability requirements for mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. There are some forty sources. This easily passes with proper references for local politicians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All either genealogical stuff or local stuff you'd expect to find on any local office-holder anywhere. Still no notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. The sources may be local; the rules do not say they have to be in out-of-town newspapers. There is a considerable amount of material on him, or this article could not have been pieced together. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, does not need to meet Additional Criteria, though it might. I haven't evaluated that. Stop dissing small towns and hurting people's feelings. Small town folk are people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite if kept I was asked by the author of the article, who I do not know, to comment on the AfD. It seems that it's content and sources are largely of genealogical value, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. If it's kept, it should be rewritten to exclude the findagrave.com sources (i.e., content is generally added by contributors, and there's no editorial control), which are not reliable sources, and limit the extent to which primary records from ancestry.com are used. I would also recommend stating and citing the information from the obit, like any other source, rather than saying "the obituary says" unless there's a reason to question the obituary. It seems that there's marginal notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. The original article from June 6, 2009, was 4,400 bytes and was so sketchy that it did not even have Mr. Culbertson's dates of birth and death. The rewritten work is now 26,500 bytes. It is not possible to rewrite this: it has been vastly rewritten in the last three weeks. It cannot be redirected anywhere, as it is lengthy now and would not fit under another article. The more sources found, 45 in all, the more interesting the biography became in its preparation. The key point is that he is notable as a local politician with many sources found. All the sources were put together like a puzzle in the composition of this article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm not sure that stating that the article should stay because of it's size - if the article expansion is based upon unreliable sources. It would probably be better to revert to that earlier version and either find reliable sources for the uncited content or remove it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, the use of genealogy sources is really bad here. In some cases the link just goes to search results, often it's to family tree information on ancestry (not even to primary records, which would still be an issue, but at least based upon sources with some reliability) or rootsweb, and then there's reliance on findagrave. I've done a lot of genealogy work, I wouldn't use any of these for genealogy sources, which has a looser standard than an encyclopedia article. I've tagged a bunch of poor sources.
  • I'm going to remove all of the poor sources and see if what remains might be salvageable as an article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've removed most of the content from these sources - I left a cn tag for the information about two of the wives and the birth of his son. I made some edits and put info that starts veering off-topic into notes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your hard work here. I was trying to fill in the citation needed sections but ran into an edit conflict. The siblings in the second paragraph are Floyd Jr.'s siblings, not his father's siblings. Floyd, Sr., lived from 1879 to 1958. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a source other than ancestry.com for that? I'm not sure that you're aware, but the link that you provided goes to a page that was built by ancestry.com users. Yes, it's likely based upon primary sources, but there are issues in extrapolation of that data, that's why encyclopedia articles look to secondary sources for reliable sources. Genealogical data quality, particularly by individual contributors vs. trained genealogists, can be quite poor in some cases, and for that reason met with suspicion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Sunters

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

No evidence to suggest significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Key word is "significant". Furthermore, the single listed source links to 500 error. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Link to single source just needed to be corrected. significant independent coverage in reliable sources is subjective and could be used as an argument to keep this entry to help those who might want to out more about her when cannot find her elsewhere..Google did return 43 search results. Article just needs to be improved and expanded upon. len (talk) 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codrin Arsene

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

This person clearly does not meet the notability standard EnterBit232 WR (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources consist either of Arsene's own columns or quotations of Arsene's own views. What is glaringly absent is the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" demanded by WP:BASIC, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arsene has written one article in a peer reviewed publication (well, I am being generous and assuming it is peer reviewed, I am not positve). That is no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics, and his work comes no where near the notability guidelines for writers in general either. No clear passing of any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race In The City

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

Non notable race/event. Unable to locate any reliable sources to confirm this event's notability.

The forum/blog posts (non-RS) that do turn up on searching for it suggest that the event was only run for a year or two at most, around 2005. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triple marathon

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

Seems like this article has 2 subjects, neither one seems notable:

  • One subject is a Rainforest Foundation fundraiser - no reliable sources, link to the program is dead. Rainforest Foundation has its own article, if the fundraiser is noteworthy it should probably be discussed there.
  • Second Subject is a man who completed 3 marathons in 5 weeks for cancer charities, seems like a clear case of WP:ONEVENT even if the two linked sources satisfy GNG (I don't think they do: one is one them is just a slideshow). Fyddlestix (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a term used in general, and the 2 instances of use are not significant. By the way, didn't some man recently complete 7 marathons in one week, including one on every continent? --doncram 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Experience Required

No Experience Required (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced show from nearly ten years ago with no indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Beach USA

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

No sources. No indication of independent notability. Seemingly not being shown at present. Greykit (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or look for sources? seems easier to delete than to look for sources? IrishTV (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J1 – Summer in the Sun

J1 – Summer in the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once-off show with no coverage independent of the network. Greykit (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Party (TV programme)

It's My Party (TV programme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once-off show from nearly ten years ago. Completely unsourced. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to Sleep

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

No indication of independent notability. Not even at the correct title if what it claims is true. Greykit (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Broadcast (TV series)

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

Sourced only to the network's website. No indication of independent notability. Greykit (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sprint (software)

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

Originally prodded by me with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement." Deprodded by creator w/out explanation, subsequent edits don't seem to address the concern sufficiently, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, SPA contribution, ordinary paid spam pattern (add to comparison, add page, vanish.) –Be..anyone (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. Cinteotl (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kilbey

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

I wish him all the best but this singer-songwriter currently falls short of our notability requirements for musicians. Moreover, it's clear that the article's author is either Michael Kilbey himself or someone closely associated with him. Pichpich (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Weber In Old Town

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

Non-notable television program which aired only in one market; fails WP:TVSHOW. Blackguard 07:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote to stub: I was going to suggest it be merged to Ted Weber but that article was deleted last night. As IMDb no longer accepts local programs, this is the only place this show could be recognized. The show itself isn't all that notable, but the guests that appeared on it are. Fuddle (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage (TV series)

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Customs (TV series)

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 11:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garda ar Lár

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (the one possibly independent source refers to an event that happened in the 1970s, not the documentary itself). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian de la Cortina

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

WP:BLP of a film director and actor, which makes no credible claim to passing WP:CREATIVE and relies entirely on a single reference to a community weekly newspaper (thus not satisfying WP:GNG either.) In addition, the article contains a surprising level of wholly unsourced personal detail (including the names of his parents, wife and kids, until I stripped those as an unsourced WP:BLPNAME violation), intimate and otherwise unverifiable enough that WP:COI editing by someone who knows the subject personally is by far the likeliest explanation. It's certainly possible that he might qualify to keep a well-sourced article, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but as written this has all the hallmarks of being a promotional piece about a person who aspires to attain notability in the future, rather than an encyclopedia article about a person who's already there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheMesquitobuzz 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TheMesquitobuzz 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Para Con

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the article's tone and style are problems, but considering the amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG we might think it more a matter for clean-up than for deletion. 00:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does the article need clean-up? Yes. Does it need footnotes instead of a list of citations? Of course. Should an editor go in with a chainsaw and prune those giant lists of names? You bet. But does the article cross the verifiability and notability thresholds with cited in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. Also yes, and that's why it should be kept. (And then fixed.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by 4Minute

List of awards and nominations received by 4Minute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list seems on the cusp (well over the cusp) of excessive. For example, Best Dressed Singer, Super Rookie for the month of August, and the Bonsang Award in the Style Icon Awards. The only win that seems notable is the Gaon Chart award, the Mnet would be if they had actually won, but it was only a nomination. So really what we have is an exhaustive list to showcase one notable award that was won. Also of note, allkpop.com (of which fifteen sources are) is a self disclosed unreliable source (in their words "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims". I won't elaborate on the use of twitter as a source, it should speak for itself.

Long story short, in my mind, this page is trying to make something out of nothing, trying to say that 27 notable awards were won, when really only one was. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing in here that needs to be mentioned outside of the 4Minute article, and no editorial content needs to be merged to accomplish that. That it's sourced to allkpop.com means it's also a BLP violation.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge the notable ones back into the 4Minute article. Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge to main article if it is short: Awards should be ones that are actually given to the band, not editorial superlatives like "Allkpop's band of the month". The weekly ones like Inkigayo are similar to when a TRL-like show lists their top music videos in a countdown for the week, and has nothing to do with whether they charted nationally. Aren't there some Golden Disk level awards as with List of awards and nominations received by Psy? -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC), updated 01:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've modified the lists so the Bonsangs show up in pink as they are equivalent to being nominated or a finalist. The group actually receives something for that, and are then considered for the Daesang (grand prize). -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree with the overall direction of this discussion, a few places I think you guys may be off base: the Gaon Chart award is not particularly notable or a BFD; it's new and there are a billion new awards ceremonies every year. It's just another excuse to film a TV show and create more fluff for the gossip media to talk about. The Seoul Music and Golden Disk Awards are the ones on this list legitimately considered prestigious within Korea, and the Rookie Award is considered a very big deal (I mean the real award, not the Inkigayo thing or some Allkpop mess). Not sure deleting this article would accomplish much, as a deeper discussion needs to be held to address the underlying issues. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've decided it is, after all, best to delete this article, as any attempts to trim it down and keep unsourced and not-real-award material off it is futile. The Allkpop awards and other such garbage have to be cleaned off too frequently for this article to ever stay in accordance with any kind of Wikipedia standards. Fans will just continue to add whatever they want, and harass editors who try to remove it. Korea has so very, very many awards at this point that they are nearly meaningless anyway. Unless the list of allowed awards can be trimmed to a significant few and explicitly stated in an official document, and the article locked to prevent, well, pretty much anyone from adding anything without admin approval, this article (and the others like it) will never be acceptable. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is enough evidence that this is notable and encyclopedic. However, moving it to Buddhists in the US Military seems prudent. UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Buddhist Americans

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

While significant coverage has been given to Buddhist chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, and about a single chapel located at the United States Air Force Academy I did not find any significant coverage about the military history of Buddhists in the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, this article appears to be largely based upon WP:SYNTH, as the subject itself is not notable. Individually verified pieces of content are better off in articles about chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, or about the Air Force Academy, but it appears to be too soon for this article to exist as a stand alone article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No evidence that the subject per se (MilHist of BudAms) was treated in scholarly sources. Therefore the article is WP:SYNTH. Clearly, any history may be cross-sectioned by arbitrary selection criteria; such as "History of people of ages 20-40", but one needs independent refs to establish the validity of such a narrowed down subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There might be a real topic here, with room to expand this article to deal with the treatment of Buddhist-American soldiers in World War II, and cultural depictions thereof. For example, In Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans during World War II (UC Press, 2011), the author describes the the 1951 film Go for Broke, about the 442nd Infantry Regiment, noting among other things that the film ignored "the Army's actual prohibition of Buddhist chaplains from serving in its ranks" and "represent[ed] religious difference as unproblematic."[71] See also [72] and [73] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misunderstand this AfD. No one is saying that Buddhist have not served in the past, including in the 442nd during World War II. However, the context which those Buddhist have served have not been in the context of their religion, but their race and ethnicity. Thus, why there is a Military history of Japanese Americans article, with numerous reliable sources about Japanese Americans serving during World War II as the primary subject of those sources. However, even the sources mentioned by the above editor are in the context of those individuals as a member of a race and ethnicity and not as a member of a particular faith.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the sources I noted above deal with the treatment of those soldiers' Buddhism--in WW2, the exclusion of Buddhist chaplains, some pressure to convert to Christianity, burial of killed Buddhist soldiers under crosses. There's a coherent line from "Buddhist chaplains were prohibited in WW2" to "the first Buddhist chaplain was commissioned in 2004" to "the only Buddhist chapel in the United States military is in the basement of the Air Force Academy" that isn't accurately represented if these facts are broken up into three separate articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other points, the first source provided is a fictionalized account of the 442nd during World War II, an not actual accounts. While it is relevant to the movie, it is only indirectly relevant to the history of Buddhist soldiers during World war II, and again the books primary context is the race and ethnicity of the soldier not their faith.
The second source gives a brief description of the funeral of Sadao Munemori, it only briefly touches upon Buddhist burial rights during the service. Thus not really significant coverage.
The third source only briefly mentions Buddhist chaplains, in a non-significant coverage manner. Furthermore, the context is more about Japanese American internment than about the religion of the members of the 442nd.
It appears that there might be content to add to the chaplain article, but insufficient to support a stand alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added content that specifically addresses issues of Buddhism regarding Nissei troops in WWII, and is from serious non-fiction accounts from reputable academic publishers. Hope that resolves the issue. While it is not incumbent on a deletionist to improve every article, I think it poor form to spend literally more time AfDing an article that it took me to glance at GoogleBooks and add several serious cited points. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at one of the sources which was added.
Duncan Ryuken Williams; Tomoe Moriya (25 March 2010). Issei Buddhism in the Americas. University of Illinois Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-252-09289-3. Race eventually trumped religion as nearly 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry - whether Buddhist, Shinto, or Christina, whether Japanese or American citizens, including babies who could hardly be considered a national security threat...
The book itself shows that the main context of the passage is of Japanese Americans who were serving, with Buddhism being one of the characteristics, not of Buddhist Americans who were serving, with their Japanese American ethnicity being one of the characteristics.
Furthermore, the book's primary subject isn't Buddhist military history in the United States, it is about Buddhism among the Issei in the Americas (not just the United States).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (originator): I dispute that this falls under WP:SYNTH. This is not about Group X being in the Army, and Group X coincidentally happening to be Buddhists. The article explicitly discusses the accommodations made in the US military for Buddhist servicemembers. These news articles specifically discuss the concept "Buddhists in the US military", and there are various mentions in books and museum websites of the issues arising from Buddhist Japanese-Americans serving in the US military. I'll go add in some more content, but I think this is a really pedantic jab at what is clearly an encyclopedic subject and treatment. We have parallel articles for Judaism, Sikhism, etc. and we have books and articles specifically discussing the experiences of Buddhists in the American military. Frankly, I think this AFD is a conspicuously poor use of editing time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case than there should be a Christians military history in the United States. While the sources do talk about Buddhist Japanese Americans, the main context is that they are Japanese Americans not that they are Buddhist. Being Buddhist isn't the defining characteristic which the Japanese Americans were discussed in the sources, therefore to imply context that does not exist to the sources IMHO is improper. It was one part of being Japanese in the United States armed forces.
If this is the case than there should be a Catholic military history in the United States, etc. However, unless there are sources whose primary subject is X religion in the U.S. Military and their history of service, than it isn't proving that the subject of this AfD is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thus the historical section regarding World War II can be seen as a duplication of content that falls more within the scope of the article Japanese American service in World War II, which is the actual context which the context is written about, not specifically the Japanese American servicemembers' religion. The sources used for the section are more about them being Japanese American servicemembers who happen to be Buddhist than Buddhist Americans who happen to be Japanese Americans. Even the sole source that has Buddhism in the sources title preferences that with issei, the term for first generation Japanese American immigrants.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources established are secondary and givens significant coverage to the subject. Valoem talk contrib 00:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Bunelik

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

Nonnotable survivor of Nazi death camp. I gave the article creator a reasonable amount of time to find good references. Unfortunately what we got is insufficient. THe only one ref which talks about this person in some detail is a local newspaper, half of which is a long quote from his memoir book. From it we only know that he survived death camp (without any notable activity besides an escape attempt) and also that he is a good teacher. Here are the references:

  • КОВАЛЕНКО, Світлана (2 December 2010). "Ми чуємо вас, директоре". Запорізька правда. Запорізька правда. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
    The only reasonable ref, described above
  • Стась, А. (4 May 2012). "КОМИССАРЫ УМИРАЮТ ПЕРВЫМИ". Молодая Гвардия. Форум "Великая Отечественная война". Retrieved 20 Feb 2015.
    A f.uorom entry with a copy of an old Soviet article, an interview with Bunelik about another Soviet hero; nearly nothing about Bunelik himself
  • "ЗАГАДКИ ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКОЙ ПСИХИКИ: ВЫСШАЯ СТОЙКОСТЬ ДУХА". Паранормальные новости. http://paranormal-news.ru/. 20 January 2014. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
    A cut-and-paste of the previous in some kookery website
  • Бунелик, Василь (1966). Солдати Малої Війни (Soldiers of the Little War). Львів: Каменяр.
    Bunelik's 1966 memoir book
  • Thompson, Leslie (22 February 2015). "Mauthausen Survivor: Vasily Bunelik". Bunelik. Retrieved 22 February 2015.
    A promo webpage for the book at a personal webpage
  • "Храбрость храбрость как личностное качество - Документ". Retrieved 2 March 2015.
    A student's essay, basically cut and pastes of several episodes of courageous men from all over around, from a Russian essay download website.

Conclusion: All refs but one are not good enough for wikipedia. A single newspaper eulogy about a good teacher is insufficent for a wikipedis article. Sorry. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not notable isn't a valid reason for deletion, That aside clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Dodillet

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

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vintage Feminist (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 03:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per DN coverage, not usual for these kind of writers. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, widely cited by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable, solid coverage, invalid rationale for deletion ("Not notable" does not mean anything, you have to explain WHY you actually consider the subject "not notable"). Cavarrone 05:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petra Östergren, nominated for deletion by the same editor. Yet again I'd argue that Dodillet is relevant according to our general notability guidelines not mainly because of her academic credentials (though she's closer than Östergren), but because of the role she's had in the Swedish debate regarding the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services. Mediearkivet ("the media archive", which collects articles from a big number of newspapers in the Nordic countries) gives plenty of evidence, if one can access it, and even though the Google news search the nomination automatically links to misses most texts, it hints at the fact that she's definitely quoted in notable publications well outside the academic community. /Julle (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added another reference from an interview with her about the Swedish prostitution law. She is active as a researcher, presenter at conferences, and regularly gives interviews about this controversial topic. There is a good bit I can find with a google search biased to Lexington, KY. If we look behind paywalls and in better search engines we'll find even more. But with what we have now she easily meets the notability guideline. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep J 1982 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) As above.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy Deleted per G7 (author requested deletion) Nakon 03:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chalupsky

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

Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- haminoon (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TNot notable isn't a valid reason for deletion, That aside clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Östergren

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

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vintage Feminist (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Globe

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

Non-notable contest without any WP:RS. Hits seems to be sites related to contest without external verification. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Wrong venue. Please see WP:MERGE for guidance on how to propose mergers. AfD is not the right place. Michig (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of 21st century propaganda

Overview of 21st century propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case where @Hendrick 99: might have gone too far and certainly too fast in splitting articles. This is now a split of History of Propaganda which in turn was split from Propaganda, and all within half an hour and without any prior discussion.
Now I'm not certain that this mere collection of examples warrants an article on its own. For now, it should rather be merged back to History of propaganda or even to where it came from, to Propaganda. PanchoS (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article helps to organise Wikipedia's coverage of the topic much better than the original, overloaded article on Propaganda did. It's important to consider the readers' comfort in navigating articles. KEEP this article. Hendrick 99 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moran (writer)

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

A biography teased out of a single book review and a primary source reference to the subject's own publication. No evidence of importance. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We require multiple sources. The NYT coverage is a good start, but what else is there?"
Well, a bunch of stuff:
  • Peter Genovese "Midgetville, two cemeteries, one asylum and the Death Burger: Weird N.J. hits the road". NJ.com[74] 10/27/14 (the web site for The Star-Ledger and multiple other NJ newspapers).
  • Jim Beckerman "Garden State Gothic: What the Department of Tourism Doesn't Want to Show You, These Guys Will" The Record. Bergen County, NJ 01 Nov 1997 p y01. (1054 words)
  • Dan Day "New Jersey weirdness sells abnormally well" "The Sunday Patriot - News". Harrisburg, Pa. 15 Feb 2004: J01 (An AP Story of 800+ words that ran in multiple newspapers in both the US and Canada.)
  • Libby Copeland. "Weird N.J., Celebrating The Odd State of Mind; Twice a Year, the Magazine Uncovers Something Uncanny Around the Corner" Washington Post 30 June 2004. C01. Word count: 2057
  • Elaine D'Aurizio. "Wizards of weird ; Magazine's editors expand a Jersey original into a nationwide quest" The Record. Bergen County, N.J. 03 Oct 2004: F01. 1534 words.
  • Marshall McKnight. "A Bizarro Business Goes Nationwide". NJBIZ. 17.39 (Sep 27, 2004) p. 18.
Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #3 3.The person...played a major role in co-creating, a significant...collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources found prove notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Shahryar Noon

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Pulse conference

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

No indication of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macrovirus (fiction)

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

"Macrovirus" is apparently a made-up concept. The article gives a list of things in fiction that are allegedly examples of macroviruses, but there are no sources to show that "macrovirus" is a recognized concept even in fiction. So far as I'm aware the term "macrovirus" is actually used only in a single episode of Star Trek: Voyager. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gwar. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Animated Tales Of GWAR

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

I just did a quick Internet search of the subject of this article, but based on the results, I couldn't find good enough results for it, so I'm going to assume that this was written based on original research. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i watched the cartoon Gojira4eva (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied (G5) by Nakon. –Davey2010Talk 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Karel Susanteo (Singer)

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

Singer that falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No arguments fro deletion, including from the nominator. AfD is not the place to propose a merge.Michig (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure and economics

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

While a number of the article splits @Hendrick 99: accomplished yesterday are fine, I propose to merge this rather artificial topic back to Infrastructure.
The introductory sentence says it all: "This article delineates the relationship between infrastructure and various economic issues." Indeed it isn't a coherent subject and therefore prone to remain an orphan article forever. Also, sub-sections refer to engineering and to the environment respectively, and therefore certainly don't belong here. And finally, all infrastructure is closely related to economics by definition.
So other ways of splitting the original article may be considered, but this way is inappropriate. PanchoS (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article is to relieve the page Infrastructure, which was over-crowded, and full of information that is better covered in this format. Furthermore, don't use inflammatory words like 'artificial. It's not an artificial topic, but it's not worth putting in the infrastructure article either, as it's way too off-topic for that. KEEP this article.Hendrick 99 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hendrick 99: I understand very well what the purpose of this article is, and sensible splitting of longish articles is perfectly fine. But there are always many possible ways to split a page, and this particular way seems inappropriate. No matter how you want to put it: the title definitively is artificial and "the relationship between infrastructure and various economic issues" is arbitrary. Even more, as the title already suggests (see WP:AND), this attempt at compiling the more economic aspects of infrastructure, constitutes WP:OR. And as I already stated, the conceptualization is just wrong. If we had an scholarly referenced article on "Economics of Infrastructure" or "Infrastructure in finance" that might work out, but would in any case require far more than just renaming the article. Again: let's merge this back and then discuss possible splits on Talk:Infrastructure. --PanchoS (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you, I couldn't if I tried. On Wikipedia, idiocy always prevails.Hendrick 99 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that was a bit overly-raged. I see your point PanchoS, and lets try and fix this without arguing. I still think something needs to be done about this ridiculously long set of content, and perhaps the content of this specific split is just absolutely useless. I think it might be best to remove it from wikipedia altogether. Cheers! Hendrick 99 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and possibility split. There is notable information here, that is perhaps too detailed for overview of infrastructure. However, the title is wrong in that its ambiguous - it tells you that the article is about two subjects but not the way they relate. A possible solution would be to split it into two articles along the lines of Infrastructure finance and Economic impact of infrastructure - there are already a number articles/redirects that being with Economic impact of .... Jonpatterns (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article was created by a confirmed sock of Natly 88 and is deleted per CSD G5. JodyB talk 02:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Domani (actor)

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

Actor who falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Should be Bryan Domani which is currently protected. The subject appears to be well known in Indonesia as a singer. Its a brand new article so we should give the editors a chance to provide references and demonstrate notability. -- haminoon (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (theme)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not sure if I should have speedied this, but it doesn't clearly fall under A7. Smileguy91Spread the knowledge! 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Wooley

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

Claim to fame is being insurance commissioner of Lousiana. References are primarily links to elections results; no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Well referenced, clearly notable per wiki guideleines. RoyalMate1 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statewide elected official. Well-sourced. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Val Demings

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

Claims to fame are being chief of police of Orlando, Florida, and an unsuccessful candidate for state legislature; does not meet WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incline to agree that the biographical entry may not have seen its last use and would only have to be reconstructed if Ms Demmings returns to the political arena in the 2016 cycle. It is not quite candid to assert that her only claim to political prominence was 'as an unsuccessful candidate for the state legislature' when she had support for a bid for the United States Congress only 2 cycles ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher H Walker (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Vista Park

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

Article, relying entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Google Maps, own website, etc.) with not a shred of reliable source coverage, of a neighborhood association in a city of approximately 130K. Nearly every city of this size has a dozen or more such local committees — so organizations at this highly localized level of activity are not granted an automatic entitlement to keep an unsourced or primary-sourced article just because they exist, but rather need to demonstrate enough reliable source coverage to get them over WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG. Further, this has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues since 2011, with almost no appreciable improvement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know what happened to this article or where it went wrong. The article clearly started as an article about the place, per the title. Somewhere along the line, the article morphed into an article about the non-notable neighbourhood association that governs it. I think the place might be notable, but the organisation isn't. St★lwart111 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worked it out - this edit changed the context (back in 2012). From that point forward, the article has been about the association, rather than the place. St★lwart111 02:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though even if we converted this back to an article about the geographic neighbourhood instead of the organization, I'd still argue that every individual neighbourhood in a city of 130K doesn't really need its own independent article — especially if the best we could do for sourcing would likely be the local community weekly paper. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. As I said, it might be notable but I couldn't really find anything substantive for the place either. I wouldn't have a problem with deletion, then, just want to be clear about what we're deleting. St★lwart111 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_22&oldid=654253824"