Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. After quick work by Llammakey, there are now 3 blue links to different ships named HMCS Thunder. That editor appears to have been in the process of populating a new Canadian ship set index article when nominated. Also the nominator may have made the same mistake as I did in assuming this was a disambiguation page: under the rules for set indices, multiple redlinks are permitted anyway.(non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Thunder

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

Only one link exists under the page. Abbottonian (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Standard ship index page. Also, there are now two links with another on the way. You really need to do your homework before nominating things for deletion. Llammakey (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Pierre Calonne

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

Autobiography of an appointed former city attorney in two small cities. This started out as a mostly-unreferenced resume. Having trimmed it down now (with a lot of pushback from the article's subject), there's little here to show how he's notable enough for WP:POLITICIAN. News coverage in WP:Reliable sources is limited to short local press articles announcing his appointment and resignation. The only thing he's been elected to so far is the city attorney's department of a notable organisation, and the only award he's won so far is from an organisation of unknown notability. Can't find anything else about him online to show how he meets WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional autobiography of a non-notable appointed public servant. I am sure that this man is competent in his job but, in my opinion, it was unwise of him to try to write an encyclopedia article about himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete City attorneys are very rarely notable for such. Nothing here is more than run of the mill. The recognitions mentioned are handed out far too often to be good for including an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Airlines Flight 84

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

This is not such a straightforward case. This newly-created article is largely an improperly-done copy-and-paste of the content in the Frankie Housley article, complete with old access dates for references, some of which are now dead links. It is also the wrong name (possibly deliberately but in good faith, considering the inexperience of the article's creator), with National Airlines Flight 83 (the correct flight number) existing as a redirect for several years. It seems to me that any notability rests with the flight attendant Frankie Housley and her actions during the aftermath of the crash, rather than the crash itself; and the crash is adequately covered in the article about her. Even if the crash itself is judged to be notable and worth a stand-alone article, I can't help thinking that it is better to start again by expanding from the redirect with new prose and newly-accessed sources than to persist with renaming this article over the top of the redirect and cleaning it up. YSSYguy (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Of course, a commercial airline plane crash that killed seven people and destroyed the plane is notable and deserves an article. Frankie Housley is also notable, and two related articles are appropriate in this case. Every problem identified by the nominator can be fixed easily through normal editing and a move over the redirect to the correct title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why "of course"? If one article adequately covers a subject, why would we have another one about the same subject? YSSYguy (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@YSSYguy: The crash article should have more detail about the causes of the crash, the pilot and co-pilot, other casualties, rescue efforts, the investigation, any safety changes made as a result. The Housely article should have more biographical details about her life.

Comment: WP:ONEEVENT indicates that we should not have two articles on the same subject, a biography Frankie Housley and an event article. Normally in these circumstances, where the person is famous for just one event, we would keep the event article and redirect the bio article to the event. Editors need to think carefully about which of the two articles should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: A quote from WP:ONEEVENT: " The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, that is what it does say, but it doesn't apply here. It was a single event that involves the person and the event itself. There is little justification in this case for two articles on the same subject. I say we pick one and redirect the other. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Frankie Housley. While tragic, this is just a news event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Rpclod (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both the accident and person are notable. It is perfectly reasonable to have articles on both - e.g. Neerja Bhanot / Pan Am Flight 73 and Barbara Jane Harrison / BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The event is notable in its own right, but the person would NOT have been notable without the event. So the event article should lead and the person article should be merged into it with a re-direct!!--Petebutt (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The significant ongoing coverage about this event is about Frankie Housley, not the crash itself; so the article to keep is the one about her. Logic and WP policy mean that the answer is not to move this copy-and-paste with an incorrect name over the existing redirect; but to delete this, clean up/expand the Frankie Housley article and then change the Flight 83 redirects' target to Frankie Housley. Then we have one article covering one event, with the focus correctly on Housley, because it is her that has received the ongoing significant coverage more than fifty years later; the crash itself is only listed in air crash databases. YSSYguy (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Barefoot

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

This person has not nearly achieved notability. The company in the article Capulet Communications does not have an article itself as it is not notable either. The article seems to be written like a news release, it lists things which he was part of, none of the which are notable. A Google search of his books hasn't brought up anything. It is also worth noting that the subject of the article has made edits to the page and its talk page. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I was consulted about this article and whether it was deletion material and it in fact is, none of this actually establishes any independent notability or substance and there's nothing there's the capacity of notability in anything else. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. The nominator writes above: It is also worth noting that the subject of the article has made edits to the page and its talk page. Having noted this, I went to take a look. I notice a single edit to the article itself, made nine years ago; and a number of polite and tentative suggestions made on the talk page. That one edit hardly seems promotional; since that time, the biographee has I think been a model of what a biographee should be. Am I missing something, Nikolaiho? -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, I just wanted to let people know about the fact that the person had been involved in the page (WP:COINOTBIAS). Technically, he did edit the page which is a WP:COISELF and I found another case of this with an edit by User:Leelefever [here] who seems to be his friend according to [this]. This may be irrelevant and is not the reason for why I am nominating this page for deletion but I think that people should be aware of this. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. And thank you for the response. But let's be careful not even to appear to denigrate biographee-contributors where possible. We can't expect biographees to start off fully (or even vaguely) aware of Wikipedia's set of rules and guidelines (after all, very many contributors who aren't biographees start off under serious misapprehensions, yet some go on to become fine contributors); and after that one direct edit/addition (which I find constructive), the biographee's stance and talk page contributions have been admirable. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests that WP:ANYBIO or other notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see an apparent COI problem, but the subject is not notable just yet per encyclopedia standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This radio station is not available in your country

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

Do we really need a page for a "message" played by "Radio"? Abbottonian (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's really no good place for this. There's no need for an article like this and the message itself wouldn't fit into the article Sign-on and sign-off since it's not a sign off itself. It's more along the lines of HTTP 404, but it doesn't fit there either since the page does exist per se - it's just not available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With geoblocking. Thanks, JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge wth geoblocking. Trivialist (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject has no evidence of being notable. And wikipedia is not a dictionary. JMWt (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, essentially a dictionary entry. Also, fails GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything can be merged to Geo-blocking, that is fine, but I doubt it. Completely uncyclopedic and not notable. --T*U (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Anything useful to geoblocking. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources included. Naturally if there was verifiable content, it could be added to Geoblocking or if there was enough: Geoblocking of internet radio stations. But I a not seeing such content in this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narek Aslanyan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that the Armenian Premier League is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus established that the Armenian league isn't fully pro Spiderone 09:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Two of the sources in the article were dead but later replaced with working unreliable sources, and the other two are still the same unreliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deleting pages with armenian,georgian footballers and many other leagues means vandalism.and you people a doing this by voting.professional football is not only in England and Germany.Armenia top league is fully proffesionall league and somehow surprising ,but the second division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_Armenian_First_League is also fully proffesional.this is the documents from Arm federation http://www.ffa.am/uploaded/2015/Kanonakarg16-17.pdf .the guy who creates this article,if you an armenian,and i believe yes,please find out there to read exactly ,regarding Arm league being professional.Kolya77 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.armsport.am/ru/news/2016/02/10/Артур-Азарян/682565 this is ref.right on the end,it's in russian.Турнир будет иметь профессиональный статус до тех пор, пока футболисты связаны с клубами трудовыми договорами. Это касается и Первой лиги Армении, которая имеет профессиональный статус. And i'm pretty sure that on the official documents by FFA this can be found also.but first of all, someone who understood armenian language have to respond.and help with translation.and point where exactly to look.cause google translate does not really helpKolya77 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also i would like to add this ref regarding Azerbaijan - http://www.pfl.az . It says clearly in english - The official website for Azerbaijan PROFESSIONAL football league.what other proofs needed ? the professional league is running from 2008. So actually Armenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia at least, discriminated on wikiKolya77 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to understandthat there is a difference between a league being professional per the sources above and being "fully professional per WP:NFOOTY. Secondly, Iwould ask you to review the quote above. It does not confirm full professionalism or in fact any level of professionalism, it merely states that the competitions will be considered professional if players have employment contracts. If anything this confirmsthat there is no obligation for any club to be professional. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down,probably google translate does not translate correctly.he said that both competition have professional status.but previously he commented the rumorous that armenian teams will not be allowed to play in eurocups because the league has only 7 teams,after Ulisses withdrew.he said(the licening director) that everything is fine ,both 2 leagues are fully professional ... this is why i'am asking somebody who understands armenian to help with translation.because i'm 100 % sure on the documents from FFA above,is writing that the league is professionall or semi professional or whatever.but is PROF:)

Many users here on wikipedia thinking that in eastern europe people are living in jungle,are playing football between the trees.but the reality is completely different.At least 3 leagues from East(Azeri,Armenia and Georgia), and i belive Latvija to (but not sure) are fully professional like english premierliga or spanish bundesliga.Kolya77 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In stating that the competition can be considered professional if the players are contracted to their respective clubs, the source does not specify a size of contract. The notion of full professionalism requires sources to indicate that the level of remuneration is sufficient that players need have no other source of employment. this indicates that there is a reasonable level of money involved in the competition and it is this assumption about the level of cash that is used as a proxy to determine the level of likely interest and therefore coverage of a specific competition. If you look at something like the attendences provided by Soccerway, you will see that no team attracts a crowd on average of more than a thousand, the highest average is 850 and the lowest just 300. There is simply no way that a club with this level of support could afford to maintain a fully professional squad. This also means then that the first division cannot as it is composed of the reserve teams of these clubs. I do not doubt that there is a degree of professionalism, and perhaps all players receive some compensation, but there is no way this league is in any way comparable to the Premier League, La Liga or Bundesliga in terms of professionalism. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment.we talked in different ways.i see no reason to continue,cause you gyus ,Fenix and others, know only to delete articles and make yourself proud by voting and also adding on every wiki article that transfermarket is not reliable.this 2 thinks you are executing perfect, day by day.congratulations. Regarding attendences.the average you wrote above.this makes me smile.this actually has nothing to do with professionall status. In Moldova,the country i live we have 50-100 spectators on every match,somethimes even less.but the top league is fully professionall,players are training every day,sometimes twice a day,have professional contracts.but in real ,the way they play is AMATEUR to be honest ,and 90% of players earned in the league maximum 200 Euros Monthly.in many cases they don't get paid because some our prof clubs are out of money.and all moldovan football players probably dreams every day to play let say in Azerbaijan league,which is actually full of money(oil).and only 8 clubs.and then i read that Azerbaijan Top League is considered by wiki guys not fully professional it makes me smile.ok.i'm happy at least that Albanian 2 tier league have prof status on wiki:))have a nice day everyone.Kolya77 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the guidelines for inclusion of footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khlaif Gharaibeh

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

Subject fails notability criteria per WP:ACADEMIC. Fjmustak (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No impact on field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as by far nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, quite noticeably shown by these contents. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Smigel

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

Delete: irreformable business/personal promotional article. Quis separabit? 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 99% of dentists are not notable. Smigel is one of the exceptions. The New York Times published a 20 paragraph article about him signed by a staff writer when he died this month. Back in 1981, New York magazine published a "Irwin+Smigel"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvwNnYw4HQAhULs1QKHWxpAyIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Irwin%20Smigel%22&f=false several page article about Smigel and his innovations. A Google Books search shows that he is discussed in many books. So, he is notable. How can the article be personally promotional? He is dead. Yes, the article has problems, such as uncited quotations, excessive red links, and overenthusiastic language. As for being "irreformable", I disagree. We have editors here on Wikipedia for a reason, and there is no reason why this article cannot be improved dramatically through a logical series of edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per TNT. There may be a Wikipedia article in here somewhere but this is not it; this cannot remain in WP. If somebody actually does the work to find the WP article that might be here I will change my !vote but this is an embarassment to WP and cannot remain. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article isn't great at the moment, but the sources above provided by Cullen328 (the NYT obit in particular) prove he passes WP:GNG easily. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be updated, and the references need to be fixed, but it meets WP:GNG; I don't see any compelling reason(s) to delete it.

N. GASIETAtalk 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve. Article is poorly sourced, Smiggel is notable as sources borught to AFD by editors above establishes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before this is closed out, I just want to reiterate that I believe this is pure business promotionalism. Quis separabit? 12:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and improve after closing. This article passes WP:GNG. However needs to be improved. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McLaughlan

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

Delete: I don't know -- maybe it's me but isn't this article about a failed (serially) political candidate? Fan club article about Twitter personality, IMHO. I am ready for the brickbats. Quis separabit? 02:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate who lost. No other plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very young political activist (b. 1996) who attracted some attention by filming a minor documentary (sources for this are primary, a listing at a film festival) and by running for Parliament (headline: "Teenagers Running for Parliament") I wish him a long life and success, but it's WP:TOOSOON for an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindil Beach Markets (Rock Band)

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

Delete. Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong sourcing -- literally right across the board, the sourcing here is to blogs, university student newspapers (which NMUSIC makes a special point of deprecating as not able to carry a musician's or band's notability), their own website and/or their own hometown alt-weekly. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to build a WP:GNG case for a band who haven't passed any NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this as delete, but treating it as a prod. There was only one !vote, and it appears to mainly go towards Anyoption. There have been 2 relists, and the last one didn't garner any additional participation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyoption

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

Fails WP:CORP notability. This article was created by a promotional editor (now blocked) with absurdly weak sources, mostly Forex websites deemed non-reliable at RSN in a September 2016 thread.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a circle of Belize/Cyprus financial entity related promotion by several other socks (see September 2016 COIN thread), with identical sourcing issues plus vague assertions of awards from non-notable sources:

IQ Option (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Justforex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

— Brianhe (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the awards themselves are not significant, so at this stage I do not yet see them as having sufficient notability. That their url ends up on the blacklist makes them more spam than ham. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein. Your !vote comes across that it may be only about the Anyoption article listed at the very top of this page, per the singular grammar used in your !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! Does anyone know why the official website (iqoption.com) is blacklisted and how can I remove it from the blacklist? I'm currently trying to make this article more relevant and source-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrusl u (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arashi Tadataka

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

The only proof this artist worked on this manga is a user-generated site, which is the only site that has information on this artist in English: [1]. I can find no sites mentioning this person in Japanese. This may be eligible for speedy deletion as a hoax, but in the least this person fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this person satisfies the basic notability requirements of WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Entry Mein Entry

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

Film that keeps on getting reverted back-it falls under way too soon and has no notability to be found. (Personally I like to know how a film has a run time when it isn't coming out for at least another year) Wgolf (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to this article in India Business Times, this film has been shelved indefinitely. That is why we should not have articles about future films unless reliable sources report that principal photography has begun. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vapor project that never satisfied WP:NFF. And to Wgolf's point about the runtime, yes, and how do we know who the cast is and what their roles are? In this edit the IP adds Prem Khan to the cast. This was a guy who was spamming himself across the project a few months back. Article was previously redirected to No Entry#Sequel which might be a valid alternative to deletion provided the IP doesn't restore it again. However I lean toward deleting as it is unlikely to become anything. I think he's brought other articles out of redirects recently. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence that it started filming. The above source that it was shelved means that we're going to need some kind of reliable sourcing for this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- A project that never satisfied WP:NFF- "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." As an interesting question, how did the editors of the article managed to gather the info about the starcast and even the running duration?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Even the cast of film has not been finalised yet. Redirecting it to parent article is an option but we would need to semi-protect the title. Anup [Talk] 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic theism

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

Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".

Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.

There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...

My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.

I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.

The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.

The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.

8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG

The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.

One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.

Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.

The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.

KSci ^(talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources currently in the article, though they are few, are strong enough for the concept to meet the general notability guideline. Part of the argument in the nomination would apply to agnostic atheism as well (i.e. "the meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism"). Furthermore, I disagree; agnosticism isn't an alternative to theism and atheism, nor is it mutually exclusive with atheism, one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. In regard to "One of the citations is a broken link": per WP:LR, "Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online", but rather merely that it exists.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy. We have an article on agnostic atheism, so this could stay too. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article suggests that "agnostic theism" is a discussed concept, let alone notable. Wikipedia is not an essay.--Rpclod (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MRD2014 and @Godsy, thank you for providing your comments. Here are the applicable rules.

The WP:RULES case for deletion: I came to edit this article to add citations and detail, but I couldn't reliable sources for "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" being a notable philosophical term. Yet the first line of the lead:"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism." I believe this article from line one is in need of support and violates the following WP policies. unless reliable sources can be found for all of the content, which appears to be original research. Our article needs reliable sources showing that "agnostic theism" is a noteworthy topic of discussion. Here are the relevant Wikipedia "nutshell" descriptions with links to the relevant section.

From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.

From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS

This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.

My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.

From "WP:neologism" WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

Taking a look at the first citation, for example, where the lead defines the term "agnostic atheism" of the article. The following is not supported by the citations:

"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."

The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic. Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined.

At best, the way it is now, the article builds the definition using original research from a single lay source and no sources on 'agnostic theism". A valid citation must be someone with credentials in philosophy telling us the meaning of agnostic theism'.

If you think I'm wrong on the above please straighten me out. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. If reliable verifiable sources can establish that this is a term with notable use rather than a neologism, I'll withdraw the deletion request.

KSci ^(talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There are plenty of scholarly papers that talk about Kierkegaard's agnosticism - and he was certainly a theist. Also see section on religious agnosticism in https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism . Also, wikipedia articles are about concepts, not terms. JimWae (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name.

From: WP:3PARTY

Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.

I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.

@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means. If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism. Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.

@Godsy @MRD2014 I don't think the existance of agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.

Thank you all for your participation.

KSci ^(talk) 01:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.

From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."

From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

From: "WP:Independent" WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."

The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected:

"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."

At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:

KSci ^(talk) 03:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shitty writing is not a rationale for deletion. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy. This term gets just under 600 hits in Google Books, many of which are prima facie WP:RS, so this meets the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that there are a notable number of people using this term or it would not have 600 hits on Google's hit counters. The problem is that this doesn't address the problem I think we must address. That problem is that we cannot use Wikipedia voice to open up an article telling readers "Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism," without reliable, verifiable, sources, including third-party independent sources that define "agnostic theism" and "theistic agnosticism" and specifically define these terms to attribute the meaning the article claims. The one citation cited doesn't use either of thes terms, nor does it define them. Without the requisite sources we are not in compliance with the important Wikipedia policies and guidelines I listed above. We can't use our own reasoning to arrive at conclusions, we can only say things when they are properly sourced. KSci ^(talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) KSci ^(talk) 04:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism, as nearly as I can tell.~~ Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hmmmm... Although Patar knight's "but it gets 600 hits" argument isn't as effective as actually putting up three or four book links for us to examine here, a quick glance at the Google Books hits for the term quickly verifies that what they say is true: this is a readily used, scholarly term appearing in multiple published sources and seems a concept about which an article can readily be moved past a simple dictionary definition. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a thing on social media; I've seen people labeled themselves as such. Our core readership might be looking for this article. If it is not kept, the closing sysop should take serious consideration to redirect it or merge instead. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience. KSci ^(talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to agnosticism - There are enough sources to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia, but I fail to see a compelling argument for why we need a stand-alone article for a neologism that seems to so clearly be a flavor of agnosticism. Indeed, that article touches on atheism and theism, quoting e.g. Kierkegaard. I'm surprised not to see anyone else suggesting a merge. If, in the future, this concept begins to take up an undue portion of the space in the agnosticism article, and/or if the body of literature on the concept sufficiently distinguishes it for a stand-alone article, then I wouldn't be opposed to spinning it off again. At this point, however, merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative. KSci ^(talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judwaa 2

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

Okay found this one on accident looking at a IP edits-seems to have a messy history and page was started in 2010 for a film that is apparently not even in production yet! I can't find any notability for this yet. Wgolf (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to our notability guideline for films:

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."

This applies perfectly to Judwaa 2, which has been delayed by casting issues. There is no female lead actress yet, and principal photography has not yet begun. Too soon for an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Another problem article restored by 98.169.246.130. Fails WP:NFF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judwaa#sequel where a possible/planned/announced sequel can be spoken of and sourced[2] even when not meriting a separate article. If or when it meets WP:NF the thing can always be properly resurrected. Wgolf? Cullen328? Cyphoidbomb? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, MichaelQSchmidt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll yield, though I do worry that this IP user will find it an attractive target for future un-redirects. His edits have been problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, redirect but also semi-protect the title (Special:Diff/744866263). Anup [Talk] 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Siegel (producer)

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

Insufficient evidence of notability—the article's sources are unreliable and/or mention the subject only in passing. Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person exists, but I have been unable to find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability generally and BLP specifically. As noted by the nom, there are three sources in the stub, two of which are unreliable and one that has less than significant coverage of the subject. A quick online search shows that there have been zero news articles about this person. As I've noted at AfD before, producers are so common as to be run of the mill, and most have no creative input into films or music, but are rather just non-banking financiers or fiduciaries. There is no evidence that the subject here has done anything beyond signing some contracts to allow films be made from the decedent's works of fiction. Since this is such a clear case of abuse of our charitable standing, I'm invoking WP:SNOW and WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the article has been repeatedly recreated, I see no need to salt it. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. despite limited participation, because it's clear that there is no notability DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panigrahi Labs

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Coverage consists of a single Crunchbase article and some startup coverage. Otherwise I can only find LinkedIn and social media stuff. Article is more promotional than informative. Jbh ^Talk 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Finding no significant coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:N at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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