Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Purge

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Purge server cache

Rob Gibsun[edit]

Rob Gibsun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rob Gibsun" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

SPA re-creation of an AfD-deleted article. Some new sources, but all of them insufficient to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A closer look on the new sources: ref #1, only a passing mention as part of an announcement. #2 interview fluff as part of an announcement campaign, no independent detailed information #3 passing mention with a short quote #4 trivial schedule entry #5 whatever that is, it's not independent in-depth coverage #6 VCU's self-promotional feelgood bio record. In short: All of the sources fail to be independent neutral WP:RS with significant in-depth coverage. Still far WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is no venue for promotion of new artists. Salt the title if it get's deleted (a new version can be prepared in draft namespace in a year or two). GermanJoe (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University[edit]

ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

First Muslim Dynasty[edit]

First Muslim Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "First Muslim Dynasty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This isn't an actual term that anyone uses in this context. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Index64[edit]

Index64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Index64" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable software. I can't find any reliable secondary sources about it on the web, in GBooks or on GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

PasCocoa[edit]

PasCocoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "PasCocoa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

open source compiler, tagged for notability since July 2011. Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to or merge with Free Pascal, of which this is a part. Not notable in and of itself, but a potential search term. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

John Shaw (photographer)[edit]

John Shaw (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John Shaw (photographer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article has referenciness but the sources are all primary (e.g. Microsoft said X, sourced to Microsoft saying X). No independent sources are cited. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Shaw's notability is probably best evidenced by his publications, there's a review [1], an interview [2], a review of one of his videos [3], a review here [4], and there'd be a ton more in dead tree archives of Outdoor Photographer, Popular Photography, etc. These meet GNG and AUTHOR, and the NANPA award is pretty much the highest honor from the largest nature photography organization in the world, perhaps qualifying him under ANYBIO as well. I would agree with the nominator about one thing, the Microsoft thing is not convincing. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Simone Kliass[edit]

Simone Kliass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Simone Kliass" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unremarkable person - minor voice over credits are not enough to make him notable Gbawden (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Likely delete - I'm not Brazilian or speak the language but I found what may be her IMDb and links at News but nothing that seems to have outstanding independent notability. @Victor Lopes: can probably translate some of the links but I'm sure he will also think it's non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The first source is her CV in a website of an association of people who work with their voices. The second one is a story about her in one of Brazil's largest newspapers, so it's a fine source. The third one is a project by students of an university in São Paulo, nothing too relevant encyclopedically speaking. The article would be better if it had one or two more major sources. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Audiation[edit]

Audiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Audiation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No evidence of notability: the only references are to the work of the person who coined the word, & the article clearly expresses that person's opinion. More like an essay expounding Gordon's views than an encyclopaedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - From what I see, there's no article for Edwin Gordon and no other good move target with my searches finding particularly good here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Pedlow Skate Park[edit]

Pedlow Skate Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pedlow Skate Park" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I can't find any significant, independent coverage. I notice that the notability tag has been there since early 2009. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd say that a significantly sized public park or public leisure facility is normally notable and that this just about qualifies. I have fixed the dead link reference and I see that the new reference says that park is larger than previously stated so I have reflected that in the article. RS references are hard to come by but it did host the 2013 Southern California Summer Skateboarding Expo and I have added a reference for that. I don't think there is much scope to further expand the article but I think it is legitimate to have a short article about a subject that is just about notable enough to include. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres[edit]

Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Can easily be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games, with all information unique to this article failing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Similar discussions such as Pencak silat and Wushu have closed as delete. If this discussion results in delete, I'll likely nominate the rest of the similar Athletics articles jointly.

The previous nomination closed as no consensus due to my overly ambitious attempt to combine all similar articles from this multi-sport competition together. ~ RobTalk 21:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 22:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 22:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all individual athletics articles of this competition, and keep only the general listing at the Athletics article, as proposed. The individual articles are excessive per WP:INDISCRIMINATE # 3. Kraxler (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gabb Drilon[edit]

Gabb Drilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gabb Drilon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I can't find reliable sources in English indicating that this person is notable, or even to back up any of the statements made in the article. If there are such sources in Tagalog, maybe the article can be saved. agtx 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's nothing to suggest good independent notability and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Qpids.--RioHondo (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fun School 6[edit]

Fun School 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Fun School 6" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Cant find anythig that establishes notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect all Fun School articles to Europress, the developer. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the series article is always preferred to deletion. Redirection is more useful than deletion. As it stands, all of the Fun School games appear to lack significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) FS6 had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Probably could have just redirected the lot to the dev boldly with little fanfare. Might just want to withdraw the nom and do that, @TheLongTone. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 19:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I think you'll find that the first four Fun School articles and Fun School Special have a number of reliable sources from magazines and related manuals. The latter two on the other hand has archived sources linking to their homepages. Some time ago, the main Fun School article was a mess with no sources at all. My idea is that all groups of games have their respective articles. It would be nice that Fun School 1 till 4 and Specials could be have French sources related to the Amstrad CPC versions. If the idea of individual articles for each game doesn't work, I propose a complete merge for the articles or partial merges for two articles: Fun School 1 till 4 and Fun School 5 till 7 and Fun Special as a standalone article. What the articles could really do with are sources indicating any awards won and number of copies sold (so far Fun School 2 has that kind of source). In the meantime, I'll see what magazine coverage I can dig up for this particular article. Deltasim (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll find—nope, didn't find. Let's see those sources. Unless there are several magazine reviews of each individual game, there is not enough reliable material with which to write an article, and each should be redirected to a list. Worldcat listings and primary source links to dev's website do not count towards significant external coverage. – czar 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative redirect of Fun School 6 to Fun School if Fun School can be improved (or to Europress per Czar). As Czar points out, only significant coverage in reliable third party sources can be used to demonstrate notability. So even though manuals and other self-published sources may be sufficiently reliable to cite in an article they still don't demonstrate that it meets the basic notability threshold. The existence of old paper-copy sources for the other Fun School games is the reason my !vote is tentative. If additional sourcing can be located sufficient to demonstrate notability then I'd change to "keep".
In the same vein, I disagree that all Fun School titles should be redirected. Appropriate WP:VG/RS-vetted RSes seem to exist for several of the prior titles (e.g. Amstrad Action, Your Sinclair, and Crash for Fun School 4; Amstrad Action and Your Sinclair for Fun School 2), and other sources may also plausibly qualify as reliable pending a discussion at WT:VG/RS (e.g. ST Format cited in Fun School 2 and Amiga Format cited in Fun School Specials are sister-publications to the RS-approved PC Format; CU Amiga cited in Fun School Specials is a sister-publication to the RS-approved Sinclair User). But with that said, it's clear that all of the articles need more work. WP:VG/GL suggests that video game articles have a minimum set of elements including coverage of development/history and reception. As they stand now the articles are more focused on the details of the games (lists of game elements) than on the circumstances surrounding the games (development history, reception, educational significance, etc.) and they may fall afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I was invited by Deltasim to comment here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC))
@Thibbs, video game trivia#2 says that similar articles should be merged unless there are sufficient sources for splitting it out. I don't think anyone would object if someone built up a "Fun School 4" section to the point where it needed to be split out, but is it realistically in the cards right now? – czar 19:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I find VGSCOPE to be persuasive but not controlling in this case. Or at least not to the extent that I'd feel comfortable casting a group !vote within a AfD on a specific member of the series. In my view a good AfD-multi request should name the best article as the primary example rather than one of the least developed. But again, VGSCOPE is persuasive and I would personally have no problem with a more complete merge without prejudice regarding future splits. It's worth considering that split out material can and should re-use the RSes presented in the parent article and that in the meanwhile (in the time it takes a section to reach the point of splitting) a single article citing all appropriate RS-es would be much more stable and AfD-resistant. I could go either way at this point. Further development of the substance of the articles will ultimately be the deciding factor. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

African Unification Front[edit]

African Unification Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "African Unification Front" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

They exist, but I wasn't coninced that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG (lathough it seems like something which should be notable). Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Sending WP:APPNOTE to KrakatoaKatie, Optim, Tameamseo. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Randi Ettner[edit]

Randi Ettner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Randi Ettner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Delete (from nominator). No evidence of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. "Energy psychology"? Really? The only thing I can find which comes close to meeting notability is publishing books. However, I can find no evidence of any of the books getting any kinds of review/notice in any big place. Just blogs. Barcaboy2 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerald Konwea[edit]

Gerald Konwea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gerald Konwea" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. He is a founder of a non-notable website. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 08:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm torn between weak keep and weak delete. The latter would be based on WP:TOOSOON as this is a budding, but not fully blossomed, entrepreneur. The references show him being feted in "10 to watch" and "50 to watch" lists, but they are by the same author and I do not know the status of the publication. The web site is only partially functional, which is the source of my "too soon" feeling. I'll got for weak keep to give the fellow a chance. The article can always be deleted later. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete People included on "to watch" lists do not gain notability for it. That is a prime example of a person clearly not being notable yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

CliqIt[edit]

CliqIt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "CliqIt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. The sources in the article are unreliable as they are nothing but a self-promotional website that anyone can add content to promote themselves. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 08:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Blatchford[edit]

Mark Blatchford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mark Blatchford" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article fails to meet the general notability criteria for BLP's. Also created by a suspected sock-puppet account. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Too much about promotion, too little about pre-existing notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -- his first appearance in the media is far too recent for him to be notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Andrew East[edit]

Andrew East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andrew East" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not notable. Is on the KC Chiefs roster but he is yet to play. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is some extra sources on the talk page but only this local piece looks good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Sources exist to establish notability per WP:BASIC. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Although I agree that this article doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON, the sources that exist are enough to establish notability. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Oshwah: Basic primer regarding establishing notability under the general notability guidelines: WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The Vanderbilt athletics department and Senior Bowl websites are not independent sources; they're entities too closely related to the subject and have a vested interest in promoting content related to the subject. Recruiting and NFL Draft websites, such as the CBS Sports profile, are generally treated as not significant coverage. Sports blogs and fan-site such as "Anchor of Gold" (really SBNation.com) are generally treated as not reliable sources because their writers are not professional and their content is not subject to professional editor review and control. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: 1, 4, and 6 above are primary sources (either the university he played for or a bowl game he played in). 5 is routine coverage on a draft website, given to all those eligible for the draft. 2 and 3 are on a blog specific to the university he played for, which is only a local source. With 2 and 3 really the only non-routine coverage in a secondary source, two local sources is not enough to pass WP:GNG for a college athlete. Keep in mind local sources cover college athletes largely due to the notability of the team, not necessarily the notability of the individual. A decent athlete at a Division III school might have a few local pieces on him/her, but that certainly wouldn't be because they're notable. ~ RobTalk 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Search again, there are many sources. His notability is increasing by the day in its own right. Andrew Eckart (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Eckart: Can you provide links to some that you see as significant? I'm seeing plenty of minor coverage related to the draft or small mentions, but nothing particularly substantial. I don't doubt that he will eventually be notable, but we shouldn't predict this, as per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ RobTalk 00:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Tennessean is definitely a reliable secondary source, and pushes me to a weaker delete. I still don't think the combined reliable sources are enough to pass GNG yet, but it's definitely closer. The Vanderbilt Hustler is a student newspaper for the university he plays for, so more-or-less a primary source. The engagement stuff is not really indicative of notability, as all of the articles I've seen regarding it have focused on Johnson (inherited notability). And while I agree with his placement on the SI list, I think it goes without saying that it has no bearing on notability. Just to articulate my specific concerns more, I'm seeing very limited regional coverage and no national coverage whatsoever. I don't majorly factor local coverage into notability of college athletes because such coverage generally stems from the notability of the team, not the notability of the player. ~ RobTalk 05:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep coverage is coverage, and notability can be acquired through many paths. One of those can be through a significant amount of press for getting engaged at Wrigley Field. People get engaged at Wrigley Field many times a year, but this one got a lot of press. Couple that with the other coverage and I'm looking at a clear pass of the general notability guideline. Engagement to someone else can indeed be a path to notability. For example, Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are two (albeit more "extreme") examples where notability came from who they got engaged to (and eventually married).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disney Fine Art[edit]

Disney Fine Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Disney Fine Art" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Let's sort this out once and for all, this article has repeatedly had attempts to speedy delete it and repeatedly added (and re-added) notability template. From what I can see it is certainly bordering on advertising with no claims to notability that I can see (it tries to suggest notability by claiming association with Salvador Dali and an award-nominated film). I can only see commercial and public relations links online about this product. Fails WP:GNG, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Global Alliance for Self Management Support[edit]

Global Alliance for Self Management Support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Global Alliance for Self Management Support" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Promotion -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:SOAP promotional stuff, fails google news test - 786 on Google web search, most of these self published. If no independent English news sources, then not going to have any RS and not going to meet GNG. -- Callinus (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Iar Elterrus[edit]

Iar Elterrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Iar Elterrus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Let's try this again. This was created back in 2008, and then nominated for deletion twice under the belief that the author could find reliable sources about the author. However, both the Lithuanian and Russian copies have now been deleted and I still can't find evidence that this individual is notable. I don't know what more we can add than the number of novels. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra Quinn[edit]

Alexandra Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alexandra Quinn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Previous afd closed as no consensus but this is a clear case of someone who fails PORNBIO being notable only for doing underaged porn. Given that the sources only discuss her in that context it's a clear BLP1e and quite harmful. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no where near notable for roles in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: She might not meet PORNBIO, but she definitely meets the GNG. Beyond that, the nom's suggestion that sources stating she did underage porn are harmful to the subject is a serious misunderstanding of BLP, which doesn't at all require that we say nothing that might disparage a living subject. It just requires that disparaging statements be linked to high-quality sources. Nha Trang Allons! 13:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: meet of PORNBIO and GNG. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How does this performer pass PORNBIO? Only award win is scene-related and does not count. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. A porn star known mainly for one event, getting caught working under age. Fails PORNBIO per my comments above. RS coverage since the 1991 incident appears to be passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - She passes the general notability guidelines and not as BLP1E. In addition to the underage controversy, she was featured in the book about the murder of Christopher Walsh, Nobody Walks, as the girlfriend of one of the murderers. A chapter is also devoted to her devirginising a fan as part of a publicity stunt in in Embedded. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:BLP1E for the underage controversy; mentions in a book are trivial. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, this is in not trivial [5] and Quinn is not a "low-profile individual" to satisfy WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My tack on BLP1E is a bit more conservative; if the subject would be otherwise unknown save for the event, then deletion is warranted. As for the book, non-notable title, non-notable author put put out by a middling true crime publisher is not what I call a stellar source. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thomas Dunne, a small subsidiary thereof, is. Tarc (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I hesitated between keep and delete but Morbidthoughts arguments swayed me to a weak keep. -- fdewaele, 19 July 2015, 13:13.
  • Keep per MorbidThoughts - She's been mentioned in a few books and the underage controversy looks adequately sourced so seems better to Keep imho. –Davey2010Talk 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted as per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 22.  Sandstein  10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG and is not a WP:BLP1E. Aside from the coverage on the discovery of her underage performances in adult films, there is also coverage of her stripping career during her hiatus from porn. The article is titled "Topless dancer says she was fired for not letting patrons touch her" and was published by The Commercial Appeal on October 30, 1993. By the way, this and most of the other sources used in the article that aren't online can be found at newslibrary.com. The "Porn industry torching tapes that starred underage actress" article published by The Hollywood Reporter on November 1, 1991 can be found here. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Andhra Box Office[edit]

Andhra Box Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andhra Box Office" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I don't see any evidence that this is a notable website. The only references I can find to it (excluding the alexa-type websites that just analyze the site on its own) is the fact that the IBT newspaper uses it as a reference. I think it says more about whether the IBT is a reliable source when it's doing things like posting box office results based on comparing tweets of Andhra Box office and some twitter post called "Tolly BoxOffice (of which I can't even find a website). As such, I don't find evidence of substantial coverage on independent reliable sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Simon Balle School[edit]

Simon Balle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Simon Balle School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Cannot establish notability per WP:N. Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 09:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the consensus is that secondary schools are notable. With some English schools being newly rebranded as academies, some will have little contnet as yet, but that is not a reason for deleting them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Naij[edit]

Naij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Naij" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. The sources in the article are unreliable as they are nothing but a self-promotional website that anyone can add content to promote themselves. The only reliable sources I can't find is on ref 8 "Thisdaylive". Ref 1 is "Alexa Internet" (database for website just like Internet Movie Database, IMDB) and doesn't establish notability, ref 2 "wakapost" is a blog, ref 3 is also "Alexa Internet", ref 4 "Naijaonpoint" is a local blog, ref 5 is still "Alexa Internet", ref 6 "facebook website", ref 7 "Opera website" (self romotional: does not establish notability since is not independent of NaiJ.com) ref 9 "Wakapost" and nothing more. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 07:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep :Naij is the most popular Nigerian news website online and you can verify from the Alexa rankings. TechCabal and TechLoy are the foremost Nigerian tech news websites and the links have been added. I think you do not understand the local Nigerian context which is why you say Naijaonpoint is a local website. However, I will find other reliable sources too. Thanks. Wikimayor (talk)
Wikimayor is high time you familiarize with WP:Indentation and learn to sign your comment. That aside, the sources you provided lack editorial control. News reporting from less-established outlets such as "Naijaonponint", is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Majority of the sources you provided are personal web pages, Internet forum posting and any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Alexa Internet and Internet Movie Database are largely not acceptable. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 09:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wikicology: Alexa.com is not a social web site like IMDB. Alexa gathers statistics from internet traffic and is considered one of the main "site analytics" engines. So Alexa ranking is to web sites what h-index is to academic papers. Although I suspect that it is more scientific than the h-index. LaMona (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks LaMona, of course Alexa.com is not a social website and incomparable to IMDB but the content of both web seems to be a user-generated contents. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 01:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a bit of reference cruft here, but the Alexa ranking (which is high, and probably quite notably high for Nigeria) and the partnership with Opera (as related in many references) convince me. LaMona (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The content of Alexa Internet seemed to be a user-generated contents and may not establish notability. Meanwhile you don't even imagine why your presumed notable "Naij.com" has not been significantly discussed in multiple independent reliable sources like The Punch, Vanguard, The Guardian, Thisday and The Nation among other reputable sources in Nigeria. LaMona, if you ask me why "NaiJ.com" has not been the subject of these reputable Nigerian reliable sources, I will simply say "Naij.com is not notable". Don't forget that webpages were only ranked amongst users who had the Alexa Toolbar installed, and could be biased if a specific audience subgroup was reluctant to take part in the rankings and this had earlier caused some controversy over how representative Alexa's user base was of typical Internet behavior, especially for less-visited sites. In 2007, it was established and reported that "Alexa rankings" contradicted data from the comScore web analytics service, including ranking YouTube ahead of Google, an obvious aberration. This aberration does not only annul the reliability of "Alexa Ranking" but give an insight to why I may reluctantly compare it with h-index (in the case of academic). We simply cannot base our primary inclusion criteria on "Alexa Ranking". Wikigyt@lk to M£ 01:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Familiarizing with the WP:Indentation and should get the hang of it soon. Opera and MTN are two major players in Africa and do not partner with just anyone. That aside, giving internet connectivity to a million people is a big deal and in my opinion, notable enough. I still don't agree with your submissions about Alexa - I can't think of any other website ranking service that is as popular or reliable, but you can check any if you do and compare the results. You also keep insisting that there are no multiple independent sources but there are links to mentions of this partnership involving Naij in The Guardian and Thisday, two of the examples that you yourself mention as well as IT Web, an independent and notable South African tech website. Wikimayor (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikimayor, I cancelled your second "Keep" vote as editors are disallow to vote twice. Having reminded you of that, I can't see an evidence that Naij.com has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists or it partner with notable organizations. Having partner with "MTN" and "Opera" is not an evidence of notability, its just an evidence that the website is functioning. The evidence of notability must show that Naij.com has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. In the case of a website such as Naij.com, an independent source would be multiple newspaper coverage of the site. "IT Web" is blog. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 10:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikicology, I also mentioned that the coverage in The Guardian and Thisday, but I see you have ignored that. LaMona has done that and recognised the notability, but it would be great to have another unbiased editor do so too. Wikimayor (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Waqas Ahmed[edit]

Waqas Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Waqas Ahmed" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename 2012 Paros rape. Article demonstrates clear ongoing impact in Greece where illegal immigration is a highly contentious issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Malik Shabazz. Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a Muslim did something very bad"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it? Huldra (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTWHOSWHO.  sami  talk 00:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Brennen Burleson[edit]

Brennen Burleson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brennen Burleson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Can't see how he meets the music notability criteria. Performed at art camp, contestant on very local TV isn't anywhere close Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Victoria Siegel[edit]

Victoria Siegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Victoria Siegel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article created by block evading sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Should be deleted per G5. -- WV 06:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Baba Macnee[edit]

Baba Macnee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Baba Macnee" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article created by block evading sock of indeffed user. Should be speedy deleted per G5. -- WV 06:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ZigZag (2015 video game)[edit]

ZigZag (2015 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "ZigZag (2015 video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not prove notability. There are no references. Anarchyte 06:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ketchapp and speedy close. @Anarchyte, why didn't you just redirect to the developer's page before coming to AfD? – czar 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Princess Sophie Napoléon[edit]

Princess Sophie Napoléon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Princess Sophie Napoléon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article created by block evading sock of indeffed user. Should be deleted per G5. -- WV 06:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Catherine Napoléon[edit]

Catherine Napoléon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Catherine Napoléon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Created by indeffed user while using a sock. Should be speedy deleted per G5. -- WV 06:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs[edit]

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article de-PRODded by article creator and possible COI editor without reason stated. Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:NGRIDIRON (non-admin closure). MrWooHoo (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sloan Thomas[edit]

Sloan Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sloan Thomas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. A quick check on Google Books and Google News yields no results. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination per WP:NGRIDIRON. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (by nom) According to Sloan Thomas's NFL Profile, Slone has only appeared in 1 game on the Tennessee Titans. Would this qualify as "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues:...the National Football League..." per WP:NGRIDIRON? Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Even if it's only one measly game.--Yankees10 04:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I withdrawed, and I non-admin closed and speedy keeped. Sorry, I'm trying to get myself familiar with the deletion policy. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:41, 1 August 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.

Max Perlman[edit]

Max Perlman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Max Perlman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't qualify under WP:NBASE. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 04:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jack Marder[edit]

Jack Marder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jack Marder" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NBASE. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 04:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Gould[edit]

Jeremy Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jeremy Gould" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't satisfy WP:NBASE. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 04:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rodent of unusual size[edit]

Rodent of unusual size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rodent of unusual size" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I can find no evidence that any of the comparatively large rodents on this page are actually ever referred to by the phrase "rodent of unusual size", or that anything in the world is, other than the fictional creature from The Princess Bride. I would delete this page and redirect to The Princess Bride. bd2412 T 04:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to The Princess Bride, with a tip of the hat to the Giant Rat of Sumatra. This phrase is indelibly linked to the movie. Even the Smithsonian magazine thinks so. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Princess Bride. This article seems to be a borderline joke when it says the expression "can also be used" to describe various species, with the protest rat being the punchline. I guess that would fall under WP:OR. Borock (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sudip Roy[edit]

Sudip Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sudip Roy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

A borderline promotional article with a very limited number of citations and questionable notability - by which I mean I'm not seeing a lot of awards or history-related achievements to speak of. I invite community input on the matter to find consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably delete as my searches found nothing particularly outstanding (here and here). SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 04:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-administrator close). MrWooHoo (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mike Green (running back)[edit]

Mike Green (running back) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mike Green (running back)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:V and a search on Google Books and Google News doesn't find him, but other people in the NCAA. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn nomination per Rob. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:07, 1 August 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.

Jerome Katz[edit]

Jerome Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jerome Katz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not notable, deleted a tonne of WP:OR -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as the first AfD: clear and obvious passes of WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. This WP:NOTNOTABLE nomination which does not even explain why the outcome should be different this time deserves a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It does explain why it should be different. I deleted a tonne of original research from the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with the reasons for his notability. "I deleted stuff" is not a deletion rationale. (I do think your trimming was on the whole an improvement, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Checking for previous interactions between CFCF, the first person to RfD this article and the banned editor may reveal the real reason for this recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.217 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean that this article was created as a result of paid promotional editing, that the people who did the paid editing still seem to be active, and that CFCF dislikes edits-for-pay (as do I)? Yes, but the paid editing was discussed last time around and deemed not a significant enough factor to delete. This post-AfD edit is suspicious, possibly grounds for believing that paid editing is continuing, but it's not a big edit, and watchlisting the article should be enough to keep the problem in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The only way the above IP could know that is if he in fact were that editor. Referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
So it was just coincidence that bought you to an article whose COI issues were dealt with 8 months Go? Sure, that sounds plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.217 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
No, there is a clear chain of events that brought me here, but I don't find that especially noteworthy. After further looking into the sourcing of the article I found very little actually came from the sources and most of it was WP:OR. That plus the fact that this was a known paid write-up makes me curious as to why it wasn't deleted last time. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity what was that chain of events? As it's clear I'm sure you won't have any trouble explaining it. As for why it wasn't deleted last time that's because it easily passes WP:N. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that two WP:MED stalwarts who had run-ins with its creator are both unable to comprehend that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.198 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Party Never Ends[edit]

Party Never Ends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Party Never Ends" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Sources are missrepresented. Twitter is not a reliable source, WP:NOTE? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 02:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close as wrong forum. This is a redirect and not an article thus the deletion discussion should take place at WP:RFD not WP:AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Walter Palmer (hunter)[edit]

Walter Palmer (hunter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Walter Palmer (hunter)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Walter Palmer, the US businessman in the news for shooting a lion in Africa, does not meet the criteria for notability.
Wikipedia guidelines state :"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." (My emphasis).

This is a news item, that will be forgotten shortly. Are we going to decree notability on every person who does something that others on social media doesn't like, or who falls foul of the celebrity activists such as Ricky Gervais. The “Not News” rules should also apply here.

This person is only known for this one event, which according to policy is not enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO1E

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TOOSOON could also apply, as he is unlikely to gain notably in the future.

Walter Palmer is already listed on the disambiguation page for that name, with a mention of the event and a link to the lion. This should be sufficient coverage of the person.
It is silly to have an article in his name, with a redirect to the lion he shot.

Nor should he be listed as a “big-game hunter”, on any article. He's not a BGH, he's a dentist who when hunting. (I go fishing but that doesn't make me a fisherman.) Dmol (talk) 02:48, 1 August 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.

Islands of Mersing National Park[edit]

Islands of Mersing National Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Islands of Mersing National Park" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Can't find any evidence that there would be a national park under this name. ELEKHHT 02:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHHT 02:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Trinoga[edit]

Trinoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Trinoga" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, not even in Bulgarian. Ibadibam (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 05:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 05:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Empathy in chickens[edit]

Empathy in chickens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Empathy in chickens" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

There's no cohesive article here. The vast majority of it isn't about the topic purported by the article's title, "Empathy in chickens". Breaking it down:

  • "The ability of chickens to experience and share empathy is recognized; empathy is not a uniquely human trait. This ability is a form of emotional intelligence and is demonstrated in a hen’s apparent signs of anxiety when they observed their chicks in distressful situations; they have been said to “feel their chicks’ pain” and to “be affected by, and share, the emotional state of another.” OK, though it's kind of trivial that in many species mothers protect their young, hardly worth an encyclopedia article for just one species where that's true.
  • "Hens have been observed to play; they are considered smart and emotional." This isn't about empathy.
  • "Chickens have the capacity to form “close friendships.”" This is about friendship, not empathy.
  • "A hen is keenly aware of the courting behavior of a rooster, and responds to his vocalizing." This is about mating rituals, not empathy.
  • Then there's an entire quotation that's about chickens being intelligent, having fun, being capable of facial recognition, and having the faculty of object permanence, not about them being empathetic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into emotion in animals as a broad treatment seems the best place to start. Splitting to particular species and types of emotion can then happen in due course when appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the author of this article I was surprised to see some of the content that has been added since my last edit. I'm not really understanding some of what is written at this point and will need to go back and try to evaluate the sources.
  Bfpage |leave a message  20:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • More comment - I have added a few more sources. I thought newspaper articles were considered reliable secondary sources showing that the topic of the article was notable.
  Bfpage |leave a message  11:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into emotion in animals or chicken. I don't see the need for this, and I'm normally the one defending small obscure articles. Really, 'chickens understand mating behavior and can make friends' doesn't need its own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talkedits) 01:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Artur Zurawski[edit]

Artur Zurawski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Artur Zurawski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Previously deleted. Still doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Does WP:SPA creator have WP:COI? Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since article only includes external links with no references at all. Two of the external links seem to duplicate each other content-wise and little if none of them could be converted reliable sources. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject has worked steadily in film and television since 1996 and has turned out hundreds of titles, including directorial credits for TV series episodes, theatrical features and shorts, as well as music videos. He is also a well known photographer. As of this writing, the entry has 11 inline cites, with a number of others, in the Polish press, which may be added. His name is already linked as cinematographer on two features, Jackpot (2013 film) and Mardaani, with other of his many credits presenting potential material for articles. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

*Keep 29 Cinematographer credits in films I think it's makes him notable. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Katerina dunaway (talkcontribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sofiamar (talkcontribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm 01:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

3SwitcheD[edit]

3SwitcheD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3SwitcheD" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Discussed notability at Talk:3SwitcheD but don't feel it is resolved. The Gamercast article is something towards notability, as it is a review; the other two references don't seem to be reliable reviews. It is unclear that this is more than a run-of-the-mill computer game.Sending WP:APPNOTE to X201. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Boleyn: I tagged it because of the state it was in - it hasn't improved much since. Sources may come to light during this discussion, but at the moment my opinion, in order of preference, is Move to Draft followed by Delete - X201 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm 01:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Wyllie[edit]

Aaron Wyllie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aaron Wyllie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. agtx 15:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Just passes NFOOTY as the ref noted below indicates he played 11 minutes in an fully professional league game one season then about twenty in one game two seasons later. However, the player is now absent from FPL competition, so GNG has to take priority here. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject passes the football-specific notability guideline because he has played in a league listed as fully professional, i.e. the Scottish second tier in 2011–12, as confirmed by the Soccerbase reference present in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Struway2: thanks for pointing that out. However, looking more closely at Soccerbase, he seems to have played twice in FPL matches for a grand total of about half an hour as far as I can see. Given the article comments that he left Ayr to concentrate on his studies I think it is fair to say that he is gone from FPL competition for the time being at least and so GNG is the overriding factor here. I have adjusted my comments accordingly but still feel this is a non-notable individual. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NFOOTY has this: "Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute." Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the fact that he came on as a sub, it's the fat that in several years he has played less than an hour for in fully professional leagues. Normally players get a grace period when they make their debut's, but there is no consensus that scraping over the NFOOTY line and then fading away means you are notable, quite the opposite in fact. Given that this player has slipped down the divisions, I think he needs to show GNG explicitly, not just a technical NFOOTY pass. Fenix down (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho you opposed because he failed NFOOTY (which was conceded even by the supporters) and you did not recognize the vast coverage to pass WP:GNG, virtually claiming that no amount of coverage can override NFOOTY. You cant't eat your cake and have it too. (Disclaimer: I'm not !voting here either way, but I find it strange that some users seem to change their opinions faster than their shirts.) Kraxler (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm 01:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Xbox One system software et al[edit]

Xbox One system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Xbox One system software" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Xbox 360 system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PlayStation 3 system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PlayStation 4 system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PlayStation Portable system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PlayStation Vita system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wii system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wii U system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nintendo 3DS system software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Czar (talk · contribs) asserts per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_99#Category:Game_console_operating_systems that articles describing video game console operating systems must be removed as a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:GAMECRUFT, and unnecessary duplication of content already contained in parent articles.

However, I assert that this requires additional discussion as it is a significant change that was backed by a single editor in a two-year-old discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect all to their respective console's sections on software (which is to say restore the redirect). Both What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCHANGELOG#4, policy) and the WPVG guidelines (WP:VGSCOPE#9, guideline) both say explicitly that we do not host changelogs as an encyclopedia. If the respective console articles began to bulge in their software sections and saw a need to spill out summary style into their own articles, then no problem, but that's not what's happening here. These are just really big tables of every single, minute change to software, which meets the policy and guidelines of what we do not host to the letter. Anything that needs to be said about the system software can be said in the parent articles unless reliable sources show that the software has something significant that makes it more than just a part of the product. – czar 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: So why are we allowed to have Android version history and iOS version history? VGSCOPE does not say game hardware, it says the version history of a game (although I just amended that guideline right now, because the whole passage applies to game and game-related topics). But that seems to be in the spirit of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. However, the WP:NOTCHANGELOG really says "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." So it's not a full-on ban on changelogs. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      Other stuff exists. The spirit of NOTCHANGELOG is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a difference between a change log (0.01 version update minutiae) and a synthetic history of version changes based in secondary sources. Android/iOS is famous as software while Xbox's software is secondary. There is more merit (and reliable sources!) about the differences between Firefox 3 and 4 than the differences between Xbox OS X and Y. That's fine. But this is not a discussion about Software version history but about specific articles—I see no case in which it is worth retaining the primary source version histories of these articles nominated, and once those are removed, there's nothing left to keep, so we're left to merge. The articles on the history of iOS/Android/individual web browsers are a different animal, an animal that still should have its primary source change logs gutted but at least has the potential of being rewritten as a synthetic history between major features and versions. The video game console software doesn't need a separate article for that and can be written summary style. I'll add that my suspicion is that these lists are the equivalent of WP:Dateline—it's easier to maintain an article where you just dump version history than it is to write the useful, synthetic history that should be in its place. – czar 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect all of them - per WP:NOT. It's not encyclopedic to list every system update that occurs, and the operating system info is better shown as a (shorter) section in its respective parent article. (I would have challenged these articles sooner, but the pure volume of these sorts of articles made me think they were acceptable. If you actually look into policy though, it is not.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on; shouldn't each of these be discussed separately? Wii system software is more than just a changelog; it also has a good bit of material about the nature of the software that is not found in the parent articles. —SamB (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's all unsourced and there's nothing to merge. If you want to merge other parts, go ahead. – czar 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, being unsourced now is not listed as a WP:DEL-REASON; there'd have to be a thorough attempt to find reliable sources first. —SamB (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Chicken and egg. If the article topic had enough sources, it would split out summary style from its parent article. If someone wants to find or debate sources and build it out, it can be done from the Wii article's section on software. – czar 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The policy is NOT to cut off limbs and see if they grow back. Also, what section on software? And, has something significant changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software? —SamB (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP's notability standards have changed significantly in the last eight years. – czar 22:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For now I am going to change related articles to Afd and remove all changelog part to see how they will fit. --Cartakes (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So I have removed the changelog part in articles such as Nintendo 3DS system software, Wii U system software and Wii system software. I do think they perfectly fit in Wikipedia even without the changelog part. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is now invalid for these articles. --Cartakes (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —SamB (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

But surely the changelog is notable enough to be in the page? I really found it helpful for many years. Can you elaborate upon your point? Does the changelog detract from the rest of the page? Never mind. I just re-read the "no changelog" guideline. Sorry - my mistake. --BenM64 (talk)

Keep after deleting the changelog: Obviously, the nominator's argument for the deletion of these article is WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:GAMECRUFT. It is better to remove the changelog part than simply deleting all these articles. Both of these reasons are now invalid for these articles since changelog no longer exists. --Cartakes (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand now. I suppose the changelog took up more of the page than the main summary, WP:NOTCHANGELOG or not. --BenM64 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What's left after removing the changelog info though? And is that info covered by 3rd party sources? And if there's anything left, would it be better as a section in the parent subjects article? Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at Wii U system software for example. There are A LOT of contents and 3rd party sources provided. And obviously it does not fit in a section in the parent subjects article as well. --Cartakes (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Almost all of the content (Miiverse, Wii Mode,etc) is, and/or should be, covered at the main Wii U article or their own articles... Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Almost all of these contents in fact don't have their own articles (remember? the nominator was even trying to delete articles such as LiveArea). The Wii U article only has some very brief mentioning of features such as Wii mode for example, compared with the article Wii U system software, which contains much more detailed information regarding these features, which don't really fit in Wii U article either. The parent articles are not supposed to be detailed collections of every information about them.--Cartakes (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Which makes the "system software" page a coatrack for non-notable software features and change logs. Serge has it exactly right—there's nothing left to substantiate a fork for "system software" after removing the change logs. – czar 22:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
May I see the "system software" page as a "Main article" for the software features etc of the parent articles? These information are too detailed to be fit in the parent articles. Compared with for example Konqueror vs KHTML, the latter containing more technical info regarding Konqueror. --Cartakes (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Just about all of these are discussed somewhere else though. Miiverse, Nintendo eShop, Nintendo TVii etc. The article is unnecessary and redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Just want to mention that the "system software" page is for discussing the software features etc of the parent articles themselves, not an article about individual features. You may in fact consider the "system software" page as a "Main article" for the software features etc of the parent articles, which are too detailed to be fit in the parent articles. --Cartakes (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"Main articles" (usually called "parent/child articles", and usually based on summary style) require proof of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) A list of vetted video game sources is available here. From a cursory search, no one is discussing "Wii system software" as independent from the Wii itself. – czar 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Have you looked at Wii U system software yet? It contains lots of independent sources already. For demonstration purpose you can see what I mean as a "Main article" here. No, it is not mean to be independent from the Wii U itself, but as a child article for the Wii U#Software section. The Wii U#Software section contains summary style info, while the child article contains more detailed info. --Cartakes (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm just saying, the articles were deleted, nothing of encyclopedic value would be lost; the "changelog stuff" doesn't belong, and the rest of it is covered at other articles. (The parent article, the spinoff articles for their online services, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I already removed all the "changelog stuff" in all these articles yesterday, so the "changelog" issue basically no longer exists. As for the rest, a question for you: should the article Features new to Windows 8 be deleted too when the section Windows 8#New and changed features already exists? Obviously the article Features new to Windows 8 covers more detailed info than the section Windows 8#New and changed features, similar to the fact that the article Wii U system software covers more detailed info than the section Wii U#Software. --Cartakes (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I think your example is also excessive and should just have the main points in the parent article. There's too much excessive detail - if you want that much detail, you may as well go read the software manual. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So where's all the changelog stuff now? I thought it was interesting to have all that stuff in one place...is it being archived somewhere? Do the official websites have changelogs that are that complete and detailed? 91.5.30.174 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all as is I don't think it's cruft to list these previous versions, there's plenty of precedent on Wikipedia to list previous versions and what changes from one version to the next. Seems a little overambitious to me to wipe these from the wiki. Essentially, WP:BROKE. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I should add that I'm also not too fond of having an AfD over a three comment thread from two years ago where no consensus was established. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      The discussion from 2013 never had any bearing in this discussion and no one ever claimed that it did. Plenty of articles exist that haven't been fixed—it doesn't mean we stop following sitewide policy when attempting to fix them. – czar 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I've found all of these articles to be helpful over the past years. And if they got removed, then that would be simply inconsistent as we do keep changelogs for platforms like Android and iOS. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Well then, the reason I've found these articles to be useful is that there are no other places that keep track of it, not even the companies that design these softwares. I can't point to any source that has a nice, solid, objective and trust worthy overview of what has been done and has yet to come for any of the for deletion proposed artikel's operating systems. I only know that Sony is keeping track of this but since their Generation 8 website, the information is hard to find and even prior to that, it was never that objective or just flat uninformative, where Wikipedia always did provide some information on what actualy changed (for example, Sony's "The software should now work even more reliable" (or something like that), is on Wikipedia replaced with the issues that got fixed). There is, right now, no place to track these updates better then on Wikipedia. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Why not put the system software history table on a new category for the corresponding console? It can even things out... 202.160.36.113 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm 01:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WITH changelogs as I have found these articles more accurate and in-depth than the official listings, and in some of the cases where there only are delta changelogs available on the system software websites while on Wikipedia there are full changelogs of every version. These articles are better than official sources and, most often, there is no other source that compares to Wikipedia in these cases. Haseo9999 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • And how do you reconcile this stance with WP:NOTCHANGELOG? That flies directly against what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • First, Your 10 crushing tons of WP:BRICKS has been felt heavily. Second, I encourage you to look at Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors as that may help you understand how better to word your replies. Third, WP:IAR. Fourth, If it ain't WP:BROKE, don't fix it. Fifth, the discussion is over 2 years old. Sixth, IP 84.195.214.118 is right. If broke doesn't work. Maybe there could be a better way of doing the change logs. Maybe we could get together some users who have an interest in these articles to go over the change logs update by update and remove cruft or condense them down to the essential features. We're not doing an article regarding the History of Linux to the extent where every revision in the kernel's git repository is recorded. That's far overkill. History of iOS is similar, but Apple does not provide a change log to the extent that A History of Linux would be like if we used the kernel's git log. History of iOS, however, strikes a balance between too much and too little info. I feel that these "Articles for Deletion" are as notable as History for iOS is and, as such, require the same degree of support. Haseo9999 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It’s unfortunate that no better resource was available; perhaps these changelogs should be copied to a wiki devoted to video game consoles. (Incidentally, I can’t help wondering what they were based on [OR?] if they were better than all available sources.) But merely being WP:USEFUL to a specialized audience is not a criterion for being included in a general encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • These changelogs where based on multiple sources (like any Wikipedia article should be) and rewritten to be objective. that's why they are better then any available and official source. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • We might not be tracking the history of Linux, but there are plenty of other subjects we do track. Like the one about iOS you've mentioned, but also Google Chrome release history and the Firefox release history and the History of Android. In essence, this discussion is also about these articles. If these changelogs have to go, so have the Chrome/Firefox/Android/etc. changelogs. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into the consoles’ articles (unless summary style is warranted), and do away with the excessively detailed changelogs. Do we need to let readers know that the PS3 added Vita support in November 2011? Absolutely. Do we need to let them know that it added a menu option to delete Vita backups? Absolutely not. As for merging, the system software is not notable in its own right. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I've added the PSVita and PSP articles to the top list as this discussion is also about these articles and they where missing. However, I've also noticed that on the PlayStation 3/4/Portable/Vita articles the changelogs have already been removed before a consensus is made here. They should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Note to closer: A friendly reminder that AfD "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." What Wikipedia is not is a core WP policy and the only defense above is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (not policy-backed). I get that editors find the changelogs useful, but I don't think those editors understand the scope of the encyclopedia forged through many years of consensus. – czar 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethan Rayne[edit]

Ethan Rayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ethan Rayne" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No independent non-universe evidence of this character's notability. The character seems to have appeared in four episodes of the show and two issues of the comic book. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Transbay[edit]

Transbay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Transbay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP is not a dictionary: This page fails as:

  1. Dab with one or zero valid entries (most/all fail WP:PTM)
  2. Article: fails WP:NEO & WP:GNG (has 1 unreliable source)
    1. WP:SIA currently they're not the same type
    2. List: undefined inclusion criteria / local scope unsourced

This is a disruptive page, that's been moved to WP namespace with a cross-wiki redirect, and history shows resiting dab cleanup/fixing. Widefox; talk 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambig page. After cleanup, entries satisfy the partial title matches guideline per its discussion on generic versus specific components of article titles. --torri2(talk/contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Torritorri which entries do not fail WP:PTM? e.g. "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title"? All ...So which "could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context..." ? I've moved the obvious ones that fail that to the see also, but to me they all seems to fail it. I can't imagine any are referred to as just "Transbay" e.g. Transbay Tube does anybody refer to it as just "Transbay"? I really don't think so. Transbay Tower: I doubt it, and it's not like it's the Eiffel Tower which is arguably worth including in the dab Eiffel (even though nobody refers to it solely as "Eiffel"). I can imagine the transport services possibly being referred to solely as "Transbay" locally so I've left those in, even though that would be just be a local use. (ping editors User:Boleyn User:Mistakefinder User:Transponerd User:Magioladitis User:‎Bazonka User:Mercurywoodrose) Widefox; talk 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Celestial Patrol[edit]

Celestial Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Celestial Patrol" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Looks like a promotional article, so I considered speedying, but the foreign language sources gave me pause for thought. However, they seem only to be evidencing elements that don't build notability claims for this website. Dweller (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Campo della Salute[edit]

Campo della Salute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Campo della Salute" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article is unreferenced and doesn't make any claim of any significance. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - "a city square in Dorsoduro, Venice, Italy" is a claim of significance. The Italian Wikipedia article has several references. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Obviously, the stub article needs expansion, but lacking references or not (yet) indicating significance in itself are not valid criteria for deletion. Notability is, and I see our notability criteria fulfilled because the site is known to anyone who ever visited Venice, it is discussed in many tourist guides, Google turns up with uncountable hits, at least some other WPs have articles about it as well, and if we'd dig a little deeper, I'm sure, more substantial (even scientific) literature (of the genres of history, architecture, or arts) can be turned up as well, in particular in the Italian language. So, as much as the article lacks at present, it has potential to become a full-blown article over time. A start needs to be made somewhen, and there is no valid reason to delete it (and thereby destroy another editor's constructive contribution). I consider this nomination as counter-productive to the goals of the project.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice. Most of the material I can find seems to be about the Santa Maria della Salute which is on the square and that the architect may have designed some of the pavement. It might be more appropriate in a larger article about all the campos in Venice. It seems someone has recently added a bunch of these as stubs with no particular information regardless of their notability. --Savonneux (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ponte dei Bareteri[edit]

Ponte dei Bareteri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ponte dei Bareteri" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article is unreferenced and doesn't make any claim of any significance. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is obvious that this stub needs expansion, but I see our basic notability criteria per WP:NGEO fulfilled. There are articles in several other Wikipedias, Google turns up with lots of hits, and it is covered in several books. One of them lists is as "bridge 26" of 100 Venecian bridges ([12]). Venipedia has a detailed description of it as well ([13]). With enough time at hands, I'm sure more in-deep sources can be turned up as well, so I think the article has potential to grow. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Tortoise Tales[edit]

Tortoise Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tortoise Tales" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article has been completely unreferenced for almost 9 years. I can't find any reviews or any sources which indicate the book meets either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not familiar with the book, but Google turns up with quite a large number of hits. The book is listed in several online book stores, this is also where the (missing) ISBNs can be found (ISBN 0840763891 and ISBN 9780840763891) and from the specs and plot summaries listed there it is easy to verify the information given in our article to be accurate, so we can be sure that we didn't spread any false information. The information we give is verifiable. A quick one minute search revealed one independent review already: [14]. So, formally WP:NBOOK is almost fulfilled already. With a bit more effort, I'm confident, more reviews and refs can be turned up. This appears more a question of work than of notability to me.
In general, while articles must met some notability, I think, what is as much (if not even more) important in a deletion decision is if the provided contents is accurate and neutral, does not harm anyone (BLP) and isn't some kind of ad or junk. With these criteria being met, I'm willing to give some slack in regard to formalities, for as long as I see a net gain for the project as a whole. Inclusion criteria were more relaxed when the article was created many years ago, this should be taken into account as well. And finally, any deletion of constructive work is a destruction of another editor's work - in a situation with a significantly decreasing number of active Wikipedia editors, we must keep editors motivated as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- unless this is a hoax, it is not wholly unreferenced, as the orignal contributor presumably had the book in front of him (or her) as they wrote about it. No view on its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)