Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heena Panchal

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. "7th best item girl of 2015" is not sufficient to establish notability (especially without a reference!), and her imdb page shows only a single credit. ubiquity (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both the listed coverage and information is simply not convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7th rank in a lesser reality contest/model show. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any further information apart from the 7th rank claim - obviously not notable! st170e^talk 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life is a Dream (HoT Analysis)

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

A new copletely unreferenced essay about Life Is a Dream. If the author wishes, they may expand the latter article properly following wikipedia rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for original essays. - Richfife (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If there were referenced material here as background, I'd say it might be merged over to the play's article, but that does not appear to be the case. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AccuDial Pharmaceuticals

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only references are directory entries and press releases. ubiquity (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More promotional piece than an encyclopedia article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their products could very well be just fine, with the firm also being a fine place to work, yet there's nothing that I see to indicate that the company is actually notable. I'm in agreement. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. Thanks to Aymatth2 for improvements. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vartakara Sangha

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

No real content Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. @Rathfelder: suggest withdrawal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Happy to withdraw.Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album). A selective merger can be performed by accessing the history of the newly redirected article. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Away (Avril Lavigne song)

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

Non-notable song. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album). - Can't find anything source-wise but seems better to redirect than outright delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a page. - The song has enough coverage and length to make it a page (official digital release and radio airplay). It doesn't fail WP:NSONG: has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. —U990467 11:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I was pointed here by U990467, but looking at the page, it was released in its own right and commented on in reviews, so it seems notable enough. Just a comment—compared to some articles for singles out there, it's quite sufficient. Ss 112 10:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. It will have received coverage due to being on an album; independent release means nothing unless it charted. Where is the evidence of notable cover versions?TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent release means nothing unless it charted" is not a valid reason, according to WP:NSONG. There are also some articles of uncharted songs have been nominated as good-articles, including No Better and Overdose (Ciara song). —U990467 23:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to album's article; some of the reviews can probably be incorporated there. I don't see evidence that it meets WP:NSONG; there's no notable covers mentioned on the page, nor do I see where the song won a Juno or other major award. So, a stand-alone article is unjustified. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Background and release" section has mentioned Lavigne's another song which is also titled "Take Me Away." There is no other page that has information about that song. I think that it's necessary to keep this page. Also, the song has been released as a digital single and can be seen on iTunes Store and HMV. "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." WP:NSONG said that.U990467 16:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album). I understand the argument for keeping but I'm not sure there's enough encyclopedic content (beyond what is already in the album article) for a standalone article. Digital 'singles' like this amount to no more really than album tracks that get pushed a little by record companies. It doesn't appear to have actually been released as a single, just as a track on other releases. Note: I was asked to comment here by User:U990467, but that hasn't influenced my opinion in any way. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I'd reverted the "Keep and Merge" close by U990467 as they've already !voted here and "Keep and Merge" isn't a valid outcome .... Either it's kept .... or it's merged, That aside you obviously can't !vote and then close. –Davey2010^Talk 14:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Reminded of this by U990467, and I still do think it should be kept. There's information that would be lost in a merge back to the album page, as others may not see it as being particularly pertinent to the album as a whole. Others are obviously seeing not enough coverage. Sure, there isn't a lot but it is covered at least a little. I'm not sure about consensus here enough to close it yet, so that's not up to me. As Michig said for themselves above, my opinion hasn't been swayed by being pointed here, because I tend towards keeping song/album articles if there's some evidence of coverage beyond one site, e.g. listing of a download on iTunes. Ss 112 15:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's all in the history still so technically nothing's lost .....–Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album). For same reasons as given by Davey2010^Talk -- Mathmo ^Talk 06:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Fails WP:NSONGS. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Fust Community Library

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

Basic lack of notability. Lack of significant coverage by third party sources. Small library on a small island, part of a bigger system. The site isn't a historic site or anything that would make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is listed as "of historic or cultural interest" in: Walton, Chelle Koster (2008). Tampa Bay & Florida's West Coast Adventure Guide (4 ed.). Hunter Publishing, Inc. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-58843-645-0. (It has existed since at least 1962.) Also covered non-trivially in a local newspaper: Erwin, Susan (October 30, 2015). "New walkway complete at Johann Fust Library". Boca Beacon. Retrieved April 25, 2016. I added a few references to the article (including the three I just mentioned).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The local coverage is definitely trivial. It's hard to consider a weekly free newspaper on a tiny island to be that significant. Regardless, it's run of the mill news coverage. As for your book mention, it's just that, a mention. In an entry about the island, the library gets mentioned in a sentence. Not even a sentence about it, but a mere mention along with 3 other items, including fishing shacks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small-town public library. Completely NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boca Grande is not an insignificant place.It is a discreet place and part of 2 counties. This library has a foundation: http://www.jfcl.org/.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 20:02, April 30, 2016 UTC

@Kmccook:Nobody said Boca Grande was insignificant. It's actually a pretty interesting place. This discussion is about the library not being notable. You're incorrect that Boca Grande is in 2 counties. It's not. The village is in Lee County. Part of Gasparilla Island, not Boca Grande, is in Charlotte County. The existence of a foundation doesn't make it notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The island is in two counties and if residents need library services and live in CC they can use the Furst library so the 2 county geography has impact. The foundation provides an insight into library funding that is different than most institutions.Sorry about signature and appreciate you adding my name.Kmccook (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of a library on 2 communities doesn't make it notable. Reliable coverage from reliable 3rd party sources does. That's what this lacks. BTW, Charlotte residents on the north end can also use the Englewood branch, which is one the way for them going on and off the island.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boca Grande, Florida as it's likely best connected there, nothing else convincing for its own article. Notifying DGG for librarian analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consensus is that community libraries, much as I love them, are not suitable subjects for articles.It should perhaps be mentioned in the article on the place, slong with all other significant community institutions- (the current article is about two topics only: the history of the location, and fishing) but I do not think there is a need for an actual merge. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Niteshift36 has removed all the sources I added. I conceded on two of the three, but one of them is appropriate. The guideline they cite for removal, Wikipedia:External links, clearly states "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." The reference, Walton, Chelle Koster (2008). Tampa Bay & Florida's West Coast Adventure Guide (4 ed.). Hunter Publishing, Inc. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-58843-645-0., should be restored to the article. The source lists the library in a section titled "of historic or cultural interest". Why remove a source that isn't clearly inappropriate or malicious multiple times from an article you've already nominated for deletion?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the edit summary, the section was labeled wrong. It wasn't being used as an inline source, nor is it a note. The sections were incorrectly labeled and those headers have been fixed. So your citing inline citations is wrong. It is an external link and, as such, isn't a good one. It's a mere mention. This part of the discussion probably belongs at the article talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change of the sections headings, I didn't even notice that. See WP:FNNR. They are not external links, they are general references (see WP:GENREF). The notes above are the inline citations (see WP:INLINECITE). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this belongs at the talk page, but since you insist on discussing it here.... Read FNNR. It clearly states that "references" is the most frequently used title. That makes sense since the template used it called the REFlist. Regardless of what you call it, you are NOT using the works as inline citations, so your claim is completely wrong. The Lee County reference is an inline citation. The 2 foundation links are inline citations. This article has 3 inline citations. Go read WP:INCITE and learn what one is before you make another incorrect claim about them. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page, where it belongs. THIS discussion is about the (lack of) notability). Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: Read WP:GENREF, A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor. ... If both cited and uncited references exist, their distinction can be highlighted with separate section named, e.g., "References" and "General references". This discussion is directly related to deletion, as whether the article is suitably referenced is something that is taken into consideration at AfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "this discussion belongs on the talk page" is failing to register with you? The mere mention in a single sentence in a book has no bearing on this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Niteshift36: Please take a look at File:Wikipedia layout sample Notes References.png from WP:FNNR, the section titles were correct before you swapped them. And I see you removed them again while I was typing this, those are not further reading, they are general references.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "this discussion belongs on the talk page" is failing to register with you? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I noticed this the other day, but just decided to mention it now: There is a misplaced Keep !vote on the talk page of this article, from what appears to be a new user, Jmbryant1.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Boca Raton. It's sort of notable, but not really, yet much of the information is useful for the overall project. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:: I'm presuming you mean Boca Grande, not Boca Raton, correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, typo. :-) Bearian (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is covered non-trivially in verifiable sources and has existed for decades. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Age means nothing and the coverage by the local, weekly, free paper isn't that non-trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment two seconds of searching turned up this: http://scholar.library.miami.edu/treasure/chapters/chaptr11.html On the face of it, I don't quite see enough here or on the wiki article to strongly vote Keep, but given how extremely easily I found something new to add to it I'd at least lean very very slightly towards Keeping it. Mathmo ^Talk 06:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found that too.....and I didn't really consider a paragraph and a half from a catalog of exhibits to be "significant coverage".Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken Bitcoin Exchange

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

This was recently prodded by User:Liance and deprodded by User:Kvng who thinks there are sources that merit an AfD, so here we are. I do not believe those sources meet WP:NCORP. Yes, the company is mentioned in some news stories, but those are extremely niche: primarily, cypto-currency publications (trade journals). It has been my impression that those trade journals exist to create buzz around this industry and spam bazillion articles about any personnel change, IPO, merger and acquisition in the field. Out of the three sources pointed to by Kvng, one is a press release or a slight rewrite of one ([1]), and the other two seem to mention the company only in passing in a list of similar companies, and come from trade journal-like websites of dubious notability. Unless we consider all bit coin exchanges notable, I think we need to require better sources then said spam trade journals. Did this company receive any coverage outside its own niche sources? I don't see that it did. Hence, I say again: spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [2], [3], [4]. WP:NCORP doesn't say anything about excluding trade publications. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that [5] is a press release? I am sorry but I do not consider sources presented here to be reliable, they look like not-in-depth/paid-for-spam masquerading as coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely soft coverage but it has a byline so it is not a pure press release. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than PR. It's copyvio. [6] czar 05:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for the needed notability and improvements, there's nothing else convincing and it seems too soon. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while sources at the moment on the wiki page are a little on the thin side for it, less than half a second on Google shows there no shortage of additional ones to add to it as the article grows. Clearly a case for Keep. - Mathmo ^Talk 06:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Post

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

No real content. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: practically no content. No claim of notability. Links are broken. OtterAM (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nowhere near significant WP:RS coverage sufficent to pass WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are awful. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per the absence of deletion calls beyond the nominator and a unanimous consensus to retain the article's contents. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge (Transformers)

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

This character article does not establish notability. All of the references in the article only reinforce plot and toy details other than the weird New Yorker reference which I think has nothing to do with the singular character and more of the series. TTN (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there may be sources on Dinobot which could be used for this character; otherwise merge to that article. No solid reason to delete outright. BOZ (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's more in need of editing to trim excess fancruft and add third-party reception. If not possible, then merge per reason suggested above. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unusually for these Transformers character articles, it does look like there may be some third party sources, but it's hard to judge the extent of coverage in these sources and whether they are sufficient to justify a standalone article. If this is kept, I'd want to see a rewrite. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The character appears to be mildly notable. However, his notability is not the same as Optimus Prime, Megatron, or Bumblebee. This is coming from a person who has barely watched the Transformers series. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same basic reasoning as Yoshiman6464, and ditto I'm also somebody who has never watched it either. Mathmo ^Talk 06:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am early closing this as Keep under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You can argue that this could be speedy kept per WP:SK#1, "no arguments for deletion have been advanced and nobody else recommends deletion", since nom's argument Fails Sources is in and by itself not a WP:N-based argument, cf. WP:PGL. Nom is asked to please read and follow WP:BEFORE. Thanks to (The1337gamer—Wiae—Crh23—Soetermans) for participation. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix

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

Fails Sources Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Did you even try to look for sources? I took me five seconds to find 22 reviews at Metacritic ([7]) including reviews from IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, GamePro, Game Informer, PCGamer, G4TV, CGW, all of which are considered reliable video game sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Video game has been reviewed in numerous sources, including but not limited to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and 9. As a result, the game meets the criteria set out in the WP:NVG essay and certainly meets WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 19:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links provided by Wiae clearly indicate notability: could do with some inline citations but AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Subject is clearly notable, just because it needs sources does not mean there aren't any to find. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Folger Shakespeare Library. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching Shakespeare Institute

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

Non-notable, reads like an advertisement JMHamo (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Folger Shakespeare Library as a subsection of "Education" now that the text has been edited to remove promotional tone. COI notice: I am a librarian at the Folger Shakespeare Library, but am not associated with the Education department. I believe the edits I made are in the spirit of Wikipedia, and I hope that merging rather than deleting will make this a positive learning experience for the new editors who participated in the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Early Modern Edit-a-Thon at which the article was created. --Eblakedc (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with Folger Shakespeare Library. The citations that are currently in this page look as if they work in terms of having a helpful, properly done two sentence summary (or something like that) of the group and its activities over at the main article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Folger Shakespeare Library; per source searches, does not appear to have received enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palkain

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

Was prodded, and the prod was removed without comment. The rationale for the prod was: "No notability asserted. Searches did not turn up anything to show it would pass WP:GNG." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject lacks significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ireyomi

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

Unreferenced and non-notable per WP:GNG Drm310 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment, I see no evidence of notability. Couldn't find any scholarly works about the name either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Could've been speedied. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete makes no sense. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G1. Just a bunch of gibberish, as far as I can tell. WPancake (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may well not be a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article, but anyone who says that this "makes no sense" or is "a bunch of gibberish" needs to improve their English comprehension skills. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it's just a poorly-written, poorly-punctuated, one-line article which you had to go and fix in order to make more comprehensible. It could be that, too. In any case, it could be speedied entirely out of WP:COMMONSENSE, being extremely short, unreferenced, and with no indication of passing WP:GNG. WPancake (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only comprehensibility improvement that I made was to add two pairs of quotation marks - no change of wording was needed. Missing quotation marks don't turn grammatical sentences into gibberish, so please don't be so rude about other people's contributions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pot and kettle. You walked into this discussion saying that we "need to improve our English comprehension skills", and later, in this edit reason, that we "seem unable to read English". I don't know what kind of responses you were expecting. WPancake (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was based on clear evidence. Yours was not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was based on the "clear evidence" of the fact that I didn't know just what the article was trying to tell me. You could have politely informed me, but you decided to be snippy instead. WPancake (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the nom didn't say "speedy delete". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Utterly needless. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subjective criterion that is not one of our criteria for speedy deletion. Please let's concentrate on whether this qualifies for plain old non-speedy deletion, rather than get into a feeding frenzy of editors calling for speedy deletion as some sort of punishment for an editor, probably not a native speaker of English, who had the temerity to create an article that doesn't meet our notability standards. Several editors in this discussion need to read, and act on, WP:BITE. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was created by a new user does not save the article from being worthless. There's virtually no chance the article will be kept and it's thus better off speedily deleted as a time-saving measure. WPancake (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, being rude about another editor's efforts to create an article. And we don't speedily delete articles as a time-saving measure, but on the basis of specific, limited, criteria, which don't apply here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might have to look into being a bit more flexible with the rules, or, again, using common sense. If you give me one reason why this article might be worth keeping, I may give it a chance. WPancake (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the common sense that you are talking about is the common sense that we can have loads of article about European names but that it is inconceivable that we should have an article about an African name. It's pretty obvious what type of thought process that common sense is based on, but I don't think that spelling it out would be helpful. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. You are not being very constructive. I'm not interested in getting into a flame war over a one-line article, but my vote for speedy deletion stands. WPancake (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been shown and my efforts to find such notability have been unsuccessful, but certainly not "speedy delete" on the basis of the racist "common sense" that says that African names "make no sense" or are "gibberish" or are "worthless" or are otherwise incapable of being notable. There are several participants in this discussion who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were most obviously talking about the article, not the name... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those comments were obviously untrue for the article, which was written in perfectly grammatical English but just with some quotation marks missing, so they were obviously based on the impossibility of any article about an African name being worthy of consideration for inclusion. I'm sure that if the exact same article had been written with "Dutch" or "Greek" instead of "Yoruba" (both languages with fewer native speakers than Yoruba) it wouldn't have attracted such vitriolic criticism and calls for speedy deletion. Once again, these calls were clearly based on a racist view of "common sense", and you, as a self-professed liberal, need to consider carefully why you called for speedy deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete Will someone please get the hook? And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Henry (sports announcer)

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this page is a well-known person worldwide, and is not limited to just within the League of Legends community. A considerable population would consider this person a very notable individual. Wikipedia masterr (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it with reliable sources. As of now, the article only has 2 sources, one of which is Facebook, which is not reliable. I did a Google News search for "Trevor Henry"+Quickshot and only got 4 results, none of them being recent. JDDJS (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable with no viable third-party sources. Google search turns up multiple individuals who share this name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My search didn't come up with anything to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Clubjustin (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author, Wikipedia masterr, has been blocked as sock. Not saying we should end this discussion, but just feel that it should be noted. JDDJS (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seeing as the article was created by the sock of a blocked user, this would fall under CSD G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in Red Bull, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Engadget and Mail and Guardian. The fact that the article was created by a sockpuppet is a problem but it shouldn't be deleted solely based on that fact.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Aboulafia

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

Not a notable person, and creator might have a conflict of interest JDDJS (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any notability, I would've pursued as PROD. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would delete. I only found 5 references to him. Not notable. RockyMtChai (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a CFO of a bank based in the Cayman Islands. Nothing about that says he is notable and that is all there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bank he works for is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cainvest Bank & Trust. Note: I am not canvassing for votes one way or the other. I just want more discussion to go on so that there is consensus one way or the other. JDDJS (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cainvest Bank & Trust

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

Not a notable company, and creator might have a conflict of interest. JDDJS (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. 3 gnews hits, 1 being a press release. LibStar (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability thus not acceptable yet. I would've also explored PROD. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deletion (G11) (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Stata

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

Promotional article on non-notable individual. No independent sources are cited, and much of the text is a straight cut-and-paste (copyvio) from company reports. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Endarkenment

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

There is no such specific thing as "the Age of Endarkenment" - it's just an easy play on the name of the Age of Enlightenment. It's been used by Christian authors such as Edward Feser in the course of expressing a disagreement with the rise of rationality over religion (or some such; that's the impression I've got in looking for sources). As originally created, this article was largely unreferenced (the one referenced work, this book, does not mention "endarkenment" so who knows what that was for) and about that. However, it was subsequently expanded and a load of other random, even contradictory, uses of the neologism "endarkenment" were thrown in, making it an absurd mess. I've just stripped out the unreferenced and irrelevant stuff, and copyedited it down to just two paragraphs. In doing so I did a pile of searching, and there are undoubtedly plenty of people using "endarkenment" or "the Endarkenment" (random examples in addition to the article sources: [8], [9], [10]), they're all idiosyncratic. Some of them are similar in intent, but they don't all refer to a specific thing that should have an encyclopedia article. — Scott • talk 16:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scott. An article about a phrase that has been used occasionally to describe several entirely different things doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. 31.49.219.125 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing has the feel of a Neologism and an ill-defined one at that. It is certainly true that post-modernism is at times a flight from the rationality that was the basis of the enlightenment and scientific advance. I also resent the assertion that creationism is an aspect of that. Science is not qualified even to ask the question as to whether or not there is (or was) a creator. I accept that some creationists are probably anti-scientific. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azteca Records (New Jersey)

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, as tagged by Tbhotch. Wbm1058 restored this article because the deletion by JodyB was wrong. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a claimed length of history, but I can find no reliable sources on this label whatsoever. Search is made a bit more difficult because of the culturally significant label with the same name from California/Mexico. There are no notable artists signed to this label in the past or present. It would not appear that this label has made any sort of noticeable cultural impact. Article in current state only gives the company motto, with no other information useful to a musicologist or discographer. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with 78.26. I guess 10 years ago, I didn't really care about sources or WP:GNG for that matter! How times change. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lugnuts. What were the qualities of this particular label that caused you to write this in the first place? (If you can remember in all your prolificosity.) There are several labels which might not meet GNG that I would consider notable, so if you've got anything that might save the article I'm all for it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 78.26. One of the first major projects I remember getting stuck into was the List of record labels article. It had hundreds of redlinks and linkspam, and was in a pretty poor shape. I started to clean up the mess. For this entry, and looking at the article's edit history, it was originally at Azteca Records which combined the info of two different companies. I split out this one to its own article, the original renamed to Azteca Records (California) and the base name becoming a dab page. Seems like yesterday! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fahmi Faiz

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

I really think this should be deleted because the malaysian wikipedia deleted it on what is our equivalent of A7 (which is in here (the A7 equivalent is located in R7))

p.s.: Fahmi bin Faiz = Fahmi Faiz Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions made by the Malay Wikipedia are not binding here (and vice versa) because different Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines. I presume that you understand Malay, so could you please explain why this article should be deleted in terms of our guidelines? As far as I can make out from a Google translation this has several indications of importance/significance, so would get through speedy deletion, but I have no idea whether it meets the higher standard of notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not written in English, so it doesn't belong on English Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for dealing with articles not written in English is not to delete them on sight, but to give them a chance to be translated first. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A2. WPancake (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A2 only applies if the same article exists in another Wikimedia project. The nominator tells us that it has been deleted from the Malay Wikipedia, so it doesn't exist there. Does it exist on any other project? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. From what I get, the article is about a Malaysian author/traveller who travelled around Mindanao (in some of the conflict zones as well) and then wrote a book about his travels. However, there is hardly any independent coverage and the best I found was this article in Sinar Harian. This wouldn't enable it to pass GNG. The subject wouldn't pass WP:AUTHOR either. Hence, delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A2. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been explained above why this doesn't fall under WP:A2. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hanson (ESPN Radio)

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

Fails notability guidelines. I removed once source that simply did not mention him, the other source mentions him but really isn't significant coverage, and searching find social media hits. At this time, he simply doesn't pass the threshold for a biographical article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terrible out-of-date article; the subject is now program director at KCSP (AM) in Kansas City, but agreed with Dennis Brown that WP:N isn't met and probably won't be further with a usually-anonymous PD job. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; fails WP:GNG. Any sources that exist on the subject are well out of date. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1-Enterprise

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

Sources are to PR/Startup sites. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Jbh ^Talk 14:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself would've reviewed this, I myself would've considered PROD also. Nothing at all convincing for any notability here. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelbert L. Nevens

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is having been a non-winning minor party candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia per WP:NPOL -- if he didn't win the seat and thereby become an actual officeholder, then you have to be able to demonstrate and source some other reason why he would credibly be eligible to have an article independently of his status as a non-winning candidate. But with no sourcing shown here, he can't even claim to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- very clearly not notable by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me a speedy case. Obviously being a minor party candidate for the office of a state auditor is not notable in any way. AusLondonder (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In company with 41% of Americans according to the poll on the front page of this morning's Times, I am charmed by old-timey Socialist candidates. So I looked Nevens up; he's certainly easy to find and validate as an active Socialist doing things old-time Socialist guys do, like running for office and losing, attending a socialist "parley" that "raps Congress" on the issues of the day, co-founding a workers cooperative in his hometown of Lynn, MA. No indication that he is is notable. Article created in March by SPA. Lord knows why. DeleteE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete with a reason of (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/about-us/Pat_Collins.html) per Diannaa. (non-admin closure) --Non-Dropframe _talk 03:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Collins (reporter)

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

BLP with no independent references to establish notability; PROD removed by creator with no effort to address the problem. —swpb^T 13:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and the article content may be a copyvio, as it's copied word-for-word from from http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/about-us/Pat_Collins.html Neiltonks (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as most of the content as Neiltonks points out is copied. Despite the claim of 10 Emmy awards, I haven't found much independent coverage of this individual. Since there's nothing to keep, and plenty that needs immediate removal, speedy delete and if someone wants to write an article with sources I can't find, they're welcome to it. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 endorsed; even without it, the subject only has regional Emmys (here the Capital/Cheaspeake chapter) and there's the usual caveat of "newsperson in big media market" where their importance and personal life is usually overstated at a treble. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, almost a speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. The revised version seems to attract consensus to keep; if one assumes Reyk's comment to mean the current article could be kept now that there is no point in WP:TNT, that consensus is unanimous. Moving the page to the English title can be done by the standard editorial process. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

URu2Si2

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

The one thing that the article says about its topic, that it's a form of uranium, is false. It isn't a form of uranium, it's a compound of three elements of which uranium is one. There isn't even an indication of significance for this possibly arbitrarily chosen compound. Delete for now unless someone makes at least a viable, and accurate, stub out of it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of literature on this compound (see here). I've corrected the error and added two references. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as it stands, this article is unverifiable, unsourced, and the minimal content is false. This compound is no more a form of uranium than methanol is a form of oxygen. From poking around a bit, I found a few sources talking about this compound having some interesting electron properties, but I am unconvinced that this would be sufficient for an article in a non-specialist's encyclopedia. Even if it is, there is no conceivable way any of this "content" could be used in a real article, so WP:TNT would apply. Reyk _YO! 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, actually, and there are further articles on the compound in other reputable journals, so that WP:NCHEM is satisfied. Furthermore, the current state of this Wikipedia article is not false (I presume you looked at it before I started editing). And I'm not sure why Wikipedia cannot have specialist articles. I thought it was supposed to. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Errors have been corrected in the article. Cited sources indicate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article that I nominated for deletion has been replaced with factual, sourced material. Largoplazo (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of high quality academic papers show this is a thing. The fact that it is a specialist subject has nothing to do with notability. JMWt (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the previous quality of the article, it's a notable topic. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and move to Uranium ruthenium silicide. I think we generally prefer English names for chemical compounds. Pburka (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The errors have been corrected, and citations added. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of Epic Heroes

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

WP:NOTESSAY - appears to be done as part of a course - see Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Missouri/CL HUM 3250 Epic (Spring 2016) Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of being done for a school assignment, the question to ask is: is it a notable subject? Yes, it is a subject referred to in a number of scholarly works. Is the subject encyclopedic? Yes. Perhaps the article, as written, does not fit current Wikipedia standards for prose, reference style, and so forth... it does read a little like an essay, but these are problems that can be fixed without deleting the entire article. I do note that it seems to be well sourced, so that shouldn't even be a problem. Reword the thing to be in a more encyclopedic style, and we're golden. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of the current content, the subject is notable and has been the subject of scholarly works including [11]. JMWt (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - However, the article needs to be integrated with pages of the similar topic. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm concerned because most of the information is sourced from a single book with a title similar to this article/essay, and thus would could have a copyright problem. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Also, it is oddly capitalized and that raises a second red flag. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Albert

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO 6 requires that the musician is a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles, only the last half of that applies. None of the articles give prominence to Albert and failing GNG, the article cannot stand. The creator of this article has created articles for multiple musicians that fall into this exact situation and it must stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find anything to support or substantiate his notability outside the bands he has been a member of, while he does have some merits with regards to biographies of musicians notability criteria, where general notability guidelines are concerned he does not have any independent coverage to merit a standalone article at this juncture.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 05:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Everything noteworthy is best noted at the band articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although connected to those groups, he is still questionable for the needed solid independent notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Doherty (footballer)

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

Deleted by PROD previously. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First, the prior PROD has little bearing, as Doherty has become manager of Shelbourne F.C. since that PROD, which obviously changes his status even if the PROD was valid. Second, there's considerable mention of Doherty in the press, as evidenced [12], in multiple reliable secondary sources. Third, while I fully recognize that the top Irish football league is not considered "fully professional", there is no 'higher' league in Ireland. In effect, the guideline permanently relegates all Irish players who haven't played internationally to a status of never being on Wikipedia. This is senseless. Fourth, six of the other seven teams in the first division have articles on their respective managers. It would seem a severe oversight to not include the remaining two. This isn't a case of othercrapexists, but rather a standard that should be met. Fifth he played for Liverpool F.C., which is a full professional club, for a time. Sixth he played for Shelbourne F.C. when it was fully professional during a time when Shelbourne, and indeed much of the League of Ireland, was fully professional (see this, where they were in the UEFA championship league). With all this in hand, it's obvious he passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This is a blatant keep, with no disrespect intended to the nominator. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Keep - work on the article indicates that GNG is met. However, keep comments above are almost entirely wrong:

Becoming the manager of the team does not impact notability. Consensus is that the spirit of WP:NFOOTY is applicable to managers in the same way it is players.
Per WP:GHITS returning a significant number of search results does not indicate notability. Furthermore, 144 results is not significant, particularly when most of these are focussed on the club not the individual.
Comment on the League of Ireland not being fully professional is an agreed consensus. It does not preclude the creation of articles on players within that league, it merely insists that those players who do not have senior international caps demonstrate wider GNG. Far from being senseless long-held consensus is that this is in fact a sensible way of dealing with leagues that globally have a low profile.
This is very much an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.
He never played for Liverpool's first team. The source in the article clearly shows he was a reserve team member only (something supported by the UEFA link provided above as well), this is insufficient for NFOOTY.
Whether Shelbourne is / was a fully professional team is irrelevant, NFOOTY is clear that it is the league that must be confirmed fully professional, the source provided mentions nothing of the professionalism of the club or the league and there is no inherent link between champions league participation and fully professional status.

Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up yourself please. Shelbourne was fully professional while he was playing on it. You can lockstep with the guideline, but it's quite wrong in this case and it listing fully professional leagues as of now, not as of in the past. Would you eliminate all football players from the past who played for teams that were fully professional but are not so now? Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to read what other editors have written more carefully. As I quite clearly stated, the nature of the club is irrelevant, it is the league that has to be deemed fully professional by consensus for a player to be judged notable based on NFOOTY. Furthermore, I would recommend you look at WP:FPL a bit more closely. I am not sure where you are getting this "as of now" thing from. Israel and the USA have clear time constraints beyond which players are not notable per NFOOTY and a number of others have clear indications of a point in time after which players are deemed notable per NFOOTY. Although there has not been a discussion for some time, this pretty clearly demonstrated the generally semi-professional nature of the league a few years ago and I have not seen anything to indicate that has changed. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to read what I've written more carefully. Does that feel comfortable to you? Or, do you already feel antagonistic? I guess playing in UEFA Championship League isn't good enough? It is a Tier 1 competition. That alone, not to mention the large number of other qualifiers, passes this person over NFOOTY. As for the discussion you noted, there does not appear to be any particular consensus. Certainly the BBC felt they were fully professional. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite comfortable asking people to re-read what has been written when they make fundamental misunderstandings about what has been said as it doesn't aid discussion when people get the wrong end of the stick. Re the CL, unfortunately it is not enough, long standing consensus is that playing in the Champions league is insufficient when the player firstly has not played in the competition proper, merely the qualifying rounds, and secondly when that player has not competed in a match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. Again, you might wish to reread the linked discussion to full professionalism in Ireland as later sources such as this also from the BBC written ten days after the original one cited describes Shamrock Rovers as part-time, so not a fully professional league. From this, and other sources linked in the discussion, no consensus could be gained that the single comment in one BBC article was sufficient for FPL status, therefore the league is always considered to have had at least a partly semi-professional element. If you feel you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please take it to WT:FOOTY, it's always good to be able to expand the list. On this player though, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not managed or played for a club in fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info/comment I've significantly expanded the article, including references to support a variety of things including his Tier 1 appearance, proving notability under WP:NFOOTY clause 1. Any claim that he fails WP:NFOOTY is therefore moot. Simply saying he doesn't pass isn't proof; the citations I've provided prove it. Further, the additions of citations across a variety of media sustain passage of WP:GNG; he is covered in multiple, independent secondary sources stretching from 1999 through to this year, as now proven by the multitude of citations on the article. I would also like to point out the presence of Category:Republic of Ireland football managers (101 pages), Category:Shelbourne F.C. managers (27 pages), Category:League of Ireland managers (188 pages)...all three of which cover positions that the opposition here seem to think do not qualify those pages for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Tier 1" in NFOOTY refers specifically to national team matches. This player has not featured for the national team. Fenix down (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the FIFA rules stipulate. I've actually got an e-mail out to FIFA regarding this very fact, just for confirmation. But, everything I've read to date indicates UEFA Champions League games, qualifying or regular, are Tier 1 matches. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regardless of any failure of WP:NFOOTY claims, it's blatantly obvious this person passes WP:GNG standards, which NFOOTY itself acknowledges as an allowance if passed. There's news coverage about Doherty spanning 17 years from many independent secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:NFOOTY failure (the guidelines are quite clear that it needs to be an international match – i.e. national team, not European competition). As for GNG, the article is clearly well referenced, but such is the level of coverage that football gets, it's easy to write a well referenced article on a player playing at level eight in England (as I did to illustrate this in a recent AfD), so unfortunately I'm not convinced by that argument. Number 5 7 19:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should request a special exception to WP:GNG standards for footy players then. Since no such standard has achieved consensus, your argument that it fails WP:GNG is false. Thank you, at least, for acknowledging that it is clearly well referenced. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear WP:NFOOTY pass. Played in League of Ireland, a top level national league, played in UEFA competitions, played for top four club in Ireland. I pick up wiff of anti-LOI prejudice here. Djln Djln (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have another read of NFOOTY, LOI is not there nor has it ever been. Nice agf too. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Djln: Playing in a top division does not equal passing WP:NFOOTY. It specifically requires playing or managing either international football (for a national team) or in a fully-professional league. The subject has done neither. There is possibly a valid argument to be made around the GNG, but it's very clear that he fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I disagree, are you really saying LOI is not notable. If so that just proves prejudice. Djln Djln (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to disagree too; it isn't very clear he fails WP:NFOOTY. As I noted before, and has not been refuted by any sources, UEFA Champions League matches are by FIFA designation Tier 1 matches. Since he's played in such competitions, it's an NFOOTY pass. Quoting the FIFA regulations governing international matches; an international match is

a match between two teams belonging to different Members or a match involving a Scratch Team. For the purpose of authorisation, any match or competition played between two teams belonging to the same Member but in a Third Country shall be recognised as an International Match or competition

You will note it says nothing about it being a national team. It goes on to say:

A tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the 'A' Representative Teams of the Members concerned

Quoting from our own UEFA Champions League article, the UEFA Champions league;

is one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world and the most prestigious club competition in European football, played by the national league champion (and, for some nations, one or more runners-up) of each UEFA national association

Note the fact of national league champions, and juxtapose that with the immediately preceding FIFA regs quote. Lastly:

A competition that contains at least one tier 1 International Match shall be classified as a tier 1 competition.

I.e. if even one match in the competition is Tier 1, all matches in the competition are Tier 1. Reading this it becomes painfully obvious that UEFA Champions League is a FIFA Tier 1 competition. It does not require it be only national teams. They most emphatically can be club teams from member organizations...which Shelbourne F.C. was at the time that Doherty was playing for them. Hell, he even started for them in UEFA CL. I think I've proven UEFA CL is Tier 1. Unless someone can prove it's something other than Tier 1, this is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear. FIFA define a Tier 1 match is "any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the “A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned"; a Tier 2 match is "a tier 2 International Match shall mean any International Match involving one “A” Representative Team, any other Representative Team, a Domestic Team or the first team of a Club Team that participates in the highest division of a Member." Therefore the highest level that a game involving a club team (such as Shelbourne) can be is a Tier 2 match. “A” Representative Team means the national team.

More importantly, the guideline is designed specifically to refer to matches between national teams only. If you did manage to find a technicality to get around the intended meaning, it would only result in the guideline being amended to stop anyone else wikilawyering (i.e. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express) in the same way. Number 5 7 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would drop the accusations of wikilawyering. If you can't refute me without insulting me, then just stop.
You are ignoring the quote I provided where it notes that any competition that involves at least one Tier 1 match defines all matches in that competition as Tier 1. It doesn't matter if Shelbourne is a Tier -100000000 team. They competed in a Tier 1 competition. That makes whatever match they played a Tier 1 match. Since WP:NFOOTY clearly says "Players who have played in ... any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA", Doherty passes WP:NFOOTY. Now, if you can provide an actual citation that shows that the UEFA Champions League is in fact NOT a Tier 1 competition, I will gladly stand down on that point. But so far, I've proven UEFA Champions League competition is Tier 1, and all you've been able to assert is that Shelbourne isn't Tier 1. Whether it is or is not is irrelevant; they competed in a Tier 1 competition as defined by FIFA. That makes it a blatant passage of WP:NFOOTY. I await your proof that UEFA Champions League is Tier 2 or Tier 3 as defined by FIFA. Regardless of what you come up with, stop the wikilawyering accusations. They do nothing but add heat, and as an admin you should know better. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Tier 1 match can only be a match between the "“A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned" – i.e. the national teams. National teams do not compete in the UEFA Champions League, therefore no match in the Champions League can be a Tier 1 match.

I'm sorry you don't like the claims of wikilayering, but it's blatantly what you're doing. We have had this guideline for years, and everyone knows it's designed to refer to international matches, not continental competitions. Number 5 7 21:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Shall I begin assaulting your character then in a lame attempt to buttress my argument? You make your argument incredibly weak by attacking me. If you can't refute me without insulting me, you have no argument. As to the point you're trying to make; the FIFA rules make it very clear that a team does not have to be a national team. In fact, the rules do not even contain the phrase "national team". I don't know where people are getting this idea that it has to be the Ireland National Team. It's false, and FIFA agrees with that. I quoted the rules. I'm sorry you disagree with them, but they are the rules. I'm still waiting for you to prove the UEFA Champions League is not a Tier 1 competition. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't insulted your character, I've just pointed out that you are using an inappropriate form of argument. Nor do I feel that my argument is weak – I think it's fairly irrefutable, but we seem to be into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory now, so I'll state it once again and then get on with something productive. The closing admin will make their own judgement.

So, for the last time, the UEFA Champions League is not a Tier 1 competition because it does not include A representative teams; this is FIFA's terminology for full national team, as opposed to U21 teams or club teams. And if you really need proof that an A representative team is not the same thing as a club team, the FIFA regulations specifically defines club team as a separate thing (see, for instance, page 6 – "Members, to which a Representative Team, Club Team or Domestic Team...". The guidance is also very clear that the highest level a "Club Team" can participate is a Tier 2 match (see pages 8–9). Number 5 7 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously you are in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory too. Since we're looking at the same regulations and I presume you have them in front of you, you will note that it says a "Member" is an association, not a team. League of Ireland (LOI) is an association. Shelbourne won LOI, becoming the representative team. Are we clear now? Read page 4 for yourself. I'm not making this up. Nowhere...NOWHERE...in this document does it assert that a team must be the NATIONAL TEAM. This document governs international competitions. It defines international matches as being those between two teams from FIFA member associations which are from different countries. Nowhere does it assert that these need to be national teams. Now, unless you want to assert that none of the teams that compete at UEFA Champions League are their nation's associations top teams (which is provably false, since winning your association automatically qualifies you for UEFA CL), and that even if only some of them were (again provably false), that none of these teams ever faced each other, then it is clear from FIFA regulations (first paragraph, top of page 9) that UEFA Champions League is tier 1 competition. If you don't like how WP:NFOOTY is worded, then stop accusing people of wikilawyering and go get it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a member is "an association that has been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress." Associations are national FAs, and Republic of Ireland's association is the FAI. The League of Ireland is clearly not an association for the purposes of this argument. And the point about "Club Teams" not being able to participate in a Tier 1 matches still stands. Number 5 7 22:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument, however invalid. I grant you almost had me :) Shelbourne was the association's 'A' representative at UEFA Champions League for the games where Doherty appeared. League of Ireland and Football Association of Ireland are not disconnected organizations. Shelbourne was FAI's representative for the 2002-03 UEFA CL. If you dispute that, then perhaps you can show what other team FAI sent from Ireland (there was none). Where I think you might be able to convince me here is making a claim that UEFA CL is not in any way connected to or administered by FIFA. Since UEFA itself is part of FIFA [13], I doubt that is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any fact-based argument that will convince you, so I'll give up. The closing admin is welcome to ask for clarification at WP:FOOTY if they have any doubts about the proper interpretation of the guideline. In the meantime, I have asked other football project members to give their views on your interpretation. Number 5 7 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to head off any argument that the matches Shelbourne F.C. participated in which saw Doherty play were not Tier 1 matches, only the competition was (which FIFA disagrees with anyway, but I digress):

Shelbourne F.C. was the top representative ("A") team from the League of Ireland (LOI) for the season that qualified them for UEFA Champions League (UEFA CL), having won the 2001–02 League of Ireland premier division, that association's top level.
Hibernians F.C. was the top representative ("A") team from the Maltese Premier League, having won the 2001–02 Maltese Premier League qualifying them for the UEFA CL, that association's top level as well.
[14] - page 4, definition 6: (so we can establish that Member is not Team) "Member: an association that has been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress". Both associations were members of FIFA for the respective years.
[15] - page 4, definition 4: "International Match: a match between two teams belonging to different Members". Since both teams were from different associations, it was an international match.
[16] - page 4, definition 5: "International 'A' Match: a match for which both Members field their first Representative Team ('A' Representative Team).
[17] - page 8, first paragraph under 7: "For the purpose of these regulations, a tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the 'A' Representative Teams of the Members concerned"

Since both associations fielded their first representative team, the match was by FIFA definitions a Tier 1 match. The claim that this has something to do with national teams is provably false. The FIFA definitions do not contain any requirement that the teams be the "national team" of their respective countries, only that they be the 'A' representative team from the association in question. In fact, the rules even note that two teams can be in the same association but be from different countries. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In FIFA parlance, the term "representative team" refers to national teams. There cannot be a "top representative team" from a domestic league, nor can a club team be a "representative team". The "A" terminology is from the era before youth national teams (like U-23 etc.) becoming commonplace, when national reserve/feeder/development teams were known as "B" teams. I believe some countries continued having "B" teams into the 2000s, but most have been shut down in favor of full youth national team scheduling. --Sesameball^Talk 00:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe Hammersoft has misinterpreted the FIFA regulations. International “A” Match: a match for which both [associations that have been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress.] field their first Representative Team (“A” Representative Team). It implies first choice selection of the national football association. As above, Tier 2 explicitly mentions club teams and applies to FA representative teams (national teams) vs. club teams. This week, New Zealand's national team are playing against Western Pride FC, Redlands United and Brisbane City. Those would be considered Tier 2 according to the regulations. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the FIFA regulations state nothing about national teams. The phrase is not even mentioned. Anything concluding they are referring only to national teams is pure speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because FIFA uses the term "representative team" for what we commonly refer to as a national team. --Sesameball^Talk 03:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confident that if FIFA meant to say national team, they had the capability to do so. Yet, they didn't. The absence of "national team" from the FIFA rules is conspicuous. Attempt to modify the rules to conclude "national team" is wrong. If you want to start a discussion to modify NFOOTY to track with you believe it should say, please by all means feel free. But, as is, the FIFA rules are unequivocally absent of any mention of "national team". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course FIFA does not mention the term "national team" because that's what is meant when they say "representative team". --Sesameball^Talk 21:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is what they meant, they would have said so. They don't. As I've said, concluding they mean "national team" when they make no mention of national team is simply wild speculation. There's no evidence to support the conclusion. Sorry. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can point me to where they say "national team"? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because "national team" is the colloquial, common name for what FIFA calls a "representative team". The fact that FIFA doesn't define "national team" supports my point. There is no reason for FIFA to mention the colloquialism "national team", because that's what they mean by "representative team". That is also why they mention "representative teams" as well as "club teams or domestic teams", because those are different things. --Sesameball^Talk 02:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I hadn't read through the massive text wall above until now, and above all I'm befuddled by your insistence that a FIFA member association's "representative team" can be a club team from that member association's domestic league (I made a comment on this earlier). Even a quick perusal of FIFA bylaws reveals that many of the FIFA regulations on representative teams cannot be explained if they refer to club teams (especially those on eligibility). I really think it'd be helpful if you just take a good look at the FIFA regs because it seems quite clear what FIFA means by a "member association" and a "representative team", and it's not what you're trying so desperately to assert above. --Sesameball^Talk 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument above misses the point that guidelines are descriptions of established consensus, rather than prescriptive rules. The intended meaning of point 1 of WP:NFOOTY has always been describe the consensus that senior internationals are notable. Here, for example, a fair amount of text was removed from point 1 specifically to avoid making it sound like it applied to club matches. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonably "longform" coverage in national newspapers like [18], [19], [20] would seem to be in GNG territory. 90.210.157.103 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 90.210.157.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It's not a vote, it's a discussion. He's done some very good work on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd now I mean really, we're up to 33 35 references now across a very broad range of news outlets. How absurd does this have to get before it's speedy kept? Regardless of the NFOOTY argument, this is __blatantly a WP:GNG pass__, and there's nothing that failing NFOOTY can do to change that (even if it did fail NFOOTY). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now. Initially there wasn't evidence of enough coverage to make it clear the subject met WP:BIO; now there is. And I'm not counting references, I'm looking at their quality. The three picked out by the IP editor above in particular (well, the two I can see: I haven't got HighBeam any more) are lengthy pieces in national newspapers about Mr Doherty, not his club(s). Which added to the ongoing general coverage over approaching 20 years makes it pretty clear that the subject does meet the general notability requirements. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References, for scale I readily grant and heartily agree that quality of references matter, and quantity does not. Still, I think it worth noting that this article we're considering deleting now has more references than 1982 FIFA World Cup, 1986 FIFA World Cup, 1990 FIFA World Cup, and 1994 FIFA World Cup. When those articles on world tournaments have less references than this article about a single person, at some point you have to recognize the absurdity of deleting this article. If that many independent news sources are speaking about him, there can be no policy based justification for deleting this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This clearly needs better attention thus relisting. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? After a week, with 12 registered users commenting, 5500+ words of discussion, the inclusion of the AfD at WP:FOOTYDEL, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland, the addition of literally dozens of citations across a broad range of news sources spanning 18 years...and you think there's doubt here? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the crystal-clear consensus above that the subject passes the general notability guideline, so the anglocentric and male-centric WP:NFOOTY guideline happily doesn't come into it. I initially shared Hammersoft's surprise that this was relisted, but then when I saw who relisted it I was rather less surprised. Why do we put up with editors whose contributions to deletion discussions are no better than random? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG, thus NFOOTY is moot. However, I have to say that seeing this discussion relisted is not a surprise to me. Oftentimes long discussions lead to relisting because of the myriad policies and guidelines which are put forth, and the admins' job is to determine which argument(s) is/are stronger and more clearly rooted; if there is no clear consensus, then relisting can be appropriate. I must also express some disbelief at Hammersoft for pushing the insistence that a club team could represent a national association when the FIFA regulations clearly differentiate between a representative team and a club/scratch team. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before, it's unclear. You feel it's clear, others do too. I don't really care. Reality; the FIFA guidelines do not state "national" anywhere. Perhaps among those who follow FIFA every day there's a presumption that is treated as a given, maybe even rightfully. Again, I don't really care. What I do care is that it is not specifically stipulated, and that lack of stipulation is echoed in NFOOTY here, which creates a myriad of problems. The presumption is problematic itself, regardless of whether it is correct or not. I do agree that the GNG requirements trump NFOOTY in this case. Failure to pass GNG can not kill a NFOOTY pass, and neither can a NFOOTY failure kill a GNG pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fails WP:NFOOTY but I guess it passes WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Badut

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

There's a slight problem here: no independent sources. We have entries from the publishing houses that have put out this individual's work ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), a sale page from a computer repair firm ([27]), a couple of Google Books entries for his books ([28], [29]) and a couple of search results, which are never sources ([30], [31]). "Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only plausible case for notability is through his books, but being a prolific author isn't enough by itself. We don't have any independent and reliably published reviews of the books, and worldcat shows them (at least the ones I checked) to be held only by low single-digit numbers of libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to pass either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. His engineering/informatics work seems to have almost no citability, and, as DE notes, there do not seem to be any published reviews of his fiction books, and the library holdings for those books are sparse. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am early closing this under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. "Uncited for nearly a decade" is not a policy based argument for deletion or redirection, and subject's notability ought to be evident by doing a minimum of WP:BEFORE. Thanks for participation to Mrschimpf, MichaelQSchmidt, Coolcaesar, and CoffeeWithMarkets. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InfoTrac

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

Uncited for nearly a decade. Holypod (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existed mainly in the pre-Internet age (I remember the old InfoTrac computer at my local library), so caveat that most of the sourcing for the service is probably existing in earlier articles and sources; EBSCO Information Services pretty much has its place in the library market today with EBSCOHost. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very obviously not uncited, so the nomination statement is untrue. Without a better rationale for deletion to respond to it's difficult to have a proper discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per an errant deletion rational that does not argue non-notability, but simply complains that a sourced article is unsourced. Addition sources are spoken of in detail on the article's talk page and a little WP:BEFORE is encouraged before judgments. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that User:Holypod would even nominate an article on a notable subject supported by citations is highly suspicious. Nearly all properly educated English-speaking North Americans have used InfoTrac at one point in their lives or another, as it has been a staple of well-funded public libraries in North America since the late 1980s (and most of them continue to subscribe to InfoTrac today along with ProQuest and EBSCO). Recommend temporary or indefinite blocks as appropriate if User:Holypod continues to make such spurious nominations based on obvious factual misrepresentations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps the current article needs a lot of work as well as more citations being placed. That doesn't change the fact that the subject is notable. I'd also like to point out that the service has somewhat recently gone through expansion-related enhancements, so it's not like it's an obscure, defunct product of some kind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Payton

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep should show actual coverage covering this individual in depth LibStar (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While ambassadors are not default notable, administrators of places like Tokelau are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Committee for Human Rights

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

Clearly promotional, largely unsourced copy Holypod (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was an influential and notable group. Martin Luther King Jr. personally addressed their convention in 1966. The group has been mentioned by reputable journals such as this one, and I've done a bit of editing of the article myself to add details. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for precisely the reasons User:CoffeeWithMarkets articulates, with thanks to User:CoffeeWithMarkets for improving sourcing on this small but significant (it's not like medical care was available to civil rights protestors in Southern cities, this outfit stepped in) organization that was a significant part of the Civil Rights Movement back in the day. User:Holypod came upon a brief and under-sourced article, and assumed that it was "promotional", but might now withdraw - or any editor coming to the page can simply close it. There is no valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the improvements and sourcing additions made by CoffeeWithMarkets, now a WP:GNG pass.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CoffeeWIthMarkets and their improvements, and the fact WP:PROMO never applies to defunct organizations because what is there to promote? If you're going to nominate here, know basic guidelines and have common sense, please. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This sounds like a significant participant in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Since it is now defunct (and has been for about 30 years), it is hardly promotional, since there is nothing existing to promote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon)

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

Promotional resume, clear COI contributions Holypod (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as a copyright violation from this. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I do think there is a case for notability due to his citation counts if the article were ever recreated without the non-neutral assertions and without the copyright violations. Clinical medicine citations are high and it looks like he's been credited for some big studies with a ton of authors, but even if you only look at the citations in GS where he's the first author, there are still several of those that have hundreds of citations each. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this vote as the issue was fixed. The problematic material was reinserted this morning by an editor who said he was working on behalf of McCarthy and Northwestern, but it should be easy to monitor for any further copyvio problems. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and revdeleted the copyvios (the one mentioned above was added in Cbarker1's first edit; the two prior edits by Marieraja were to add and then remove a different one directly from a press release). This got rid of most of the promotionalism as a happy side effect. I don't have an opinion on the article otherwise. —Cryptic 03:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the named professorship at Northwestern, which is by itself sufficient to meet WP:PROF. And very clearly an expert in his field: his two most cited works are multi-center consensus documents, with over 1000 citations each, but that shouldn't really count. Of the ordinary papers, there are 71 papers with over 10 citation, with 28 of them having citations over 200, Even in the high citation field of biomedicine, this is a remarkable record. Though promotional articles on borderline notable people should often just be deleted, promotional articles on really notable people should be fixed, even if it takes rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DGG's comments are convincing, this is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Knight (film)

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

Three years and still no references Holypod (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources available: [32] from the Toledo Blade, [33] from the Montreal Gazette, [34] from the The Register-Guard, [35] from the Pittsburgh Press, and [36] from Time Out London. Also, this article from Variety says Holden won an Emmy for his performance. There are production details covered in this biography of Holden published by McFarland & Company. So, I'd say that it's a pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the article and added these sources. I think it makes a much better claim for notability now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An easy keep, even before NinjaRobotPirate's fine improvements, given that the article already listed the easily-verified Emmys. WP:BEFORE is instructive here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being unref'd is not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:BEFORE). Expansion and sourcing has now been done to boot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep of a very poor (sorry) nomination of a multiple award-winning quite notable film of a whole slew of notable actors. Not being improved is not a proper deletion rational, specially when even the smallest amount of due diligence would have showed the nom his error in judgement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I frown on "delete this because it existed before the Internet and I'm too lazy to pursue WP:SOFIXIT" noms, and this is one of them. Plenty of sources now. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Technical Keep considering this has enough for an article and this would also need familiar attention this altogether there are currently no concerns for deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Foundation

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

Unsourced article. Holypod (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that "unsourced article" is not a particularly valid rationale for deletion; see WP:NEXIST and WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't find many extensive articles in English, but there seems to be at least one history of the foundation published in German. JMWt (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very large, influential non-profit organization. The German version of the article makes a clear case for the historical and current notability of the organization and cites some book sources; many more are evident in the usual Google searches for the German name of the organization (see above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per errant deletion rationale. An arguable notable topic being unsourced is a reason to add some if one is so worried about it, not delete because it has not been done by someone else. Diligence is expected before making judgments, and as others easily found them, it is safe to believe that the nominator did not look. WP:NRVE & WP:NEXIST show noability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

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

Barely referenced, clear COI page Holypod (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sufficiently referenced:excellent source for its importance, a specific statement to that effect by the standard journal in its field. More information should of course be added, but we do not delete stubs. And just what coi do I have? I do not even read it, but added it on the basis of the reference. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps also as I'm happening to notice this and there's nothing outstandingly of concern. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. The article has a clear statement of importance in a top-notch source, sufficient to support the article and to show that this is a journal that we should expect to find explained in Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Couture

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

Autobiography, no evidence that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chair of a political party's local chapter in a single county is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. Nothing else claimed here is any stronger, and no reliable source coverage is present to get him over WP:GNG. We are not a free public relations platform or a LinkedIn clone, on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist — we're an encyclopedia, on which RS coverage supporting a legitimate and encyclopedic claim of notability has to be present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedily deleted under two criteria. An autobiography on a completely non-notable person. AusLondonder (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to support an article. (Although it is odd that he shares 2 somewhat unusual names with Travis Couture-Lovelady, an active politician in a different state.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing a bit early, as a WP:SNOW consensus for deletion exists at this time herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension

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

Non-notable event. It's already talked about at Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, though someone has tagged that for intricate detail and that's probably better suited being summarized at Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet memes. Wickypedoia (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – [Amended Edit: for these reasons]

What I'm saying, is that it wasn't just a "dank meme stash" situation, like WPancake claims, below. You don't generally have the whole world turning around to see what's going on, with plain old memes. But what the Hillary campaigners did to shut down the Bernie groups, grabbed peoples' attention, and made a scene. To the authors of the page, feel free to check those out, and see which of those you can use as references.

~ ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 07:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those aren't reliable sources. "The whole world" has definitely not "turned around" because of this, and your accusations against Hillary and Sanders userboxes on your userpage leads me to believe yours is not a neutral comment. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Knowledgebattle: This isn't a vote. Editors are expected to advance at least some argument. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~~ ~ Addressed. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons similar to the ones given in the Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer deletion discussion. It is my understanding that an event is only considered notable if it is historical or has large-scale impact, and to say that a bunch of Facebook groups about Bernie Sanders being temporarily suspended is in any way significant is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The article it is apparently an offshoot of, Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, has similar issues and its notability is also very questionable. WPancake (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only in the crazy world of American politics could anybody argue for keeping an article about the temporary suspension of Facebook groups. This just isn't notable. No lasting significance. A totally trivial "story" picked up by the 24 hour news cycle. See WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, WPancake, and AusLondonder. Non-notable event per WP:NOTNEWS.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This social media incident appears, in historical context, to have been a very small event--certainly not suitably notable for an encyclopedia article. OtterAM (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I'm a news junkie and if this is the first I hear about it it's clearly non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty WP:ROUTINE coverage with no-evidence of long term notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A brief acknowledgement of this in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 would be perfectly appropriate — but it doesn't have the lasting WP:10YT significance necessary to warrant a separate article as a standalone topic in its own right. Plus a large percentage of KnowledgeBattle's listed sources above are unreliable or user-generated ones, which cannot be used to cover off notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish that we could suspend any editing from the United States until November, so that the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopedia rather than deal with such nonsense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha some good British humour there. A bit of truth in it, as well. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:EVENT. If it turns out to have some kind of lasting effect, we can revisit it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kdowns1453 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single source used in the article is WP:ROUTINE (all published from April 25-27); doesn't meet the notability criteria for events. As it stands, the suspensions have not garnered significant attention from reliable sources; at most, it warrants a brief mention in the Sanders presidential campaign article.—^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and ^0xF₈E₈. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 14:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No changes to article have been made since previous no-consensus close. Please refer to WP:DELAFD before relisting. Nakon 03:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Eyes Crew

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

Article about a non notable dance group. All news hits only confirm they have won some non notable awards which does not achieve the required threshold for WP:ENTERTAINER. Of the sources I found they only mention the group, there no in depth coverage, without significant in depth coverage they fail WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a dance group that won some competitions in one country in 2013. Let us check to see if they meet WP:CREATIVE:

"Is the person/group is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors?" Let's save this for last; read below.
"Is the person/group is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique?" No. The group is talented, but they created nothing new.
"Is the person/group has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No. They did not create a collective body of work that is significant or well-known outside of Azerbaijan, and within Azerbaijan, they are not significant or well-known outside of they year 2013. That year, they were significant/well-known when they won competitions and got written up in one reliable source. Only one source? Apparently so. Have they been written about since? Apparently not.
Has the person's/group's work (or works) either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?" No for a, b, and d certainly. How about c? Yes, they achieved critical attention that one year. Was it significant attention? One news article, apparently. Is a single news article considered significant? No.

So is this group considered "important" or "widely cited"? We have seen that they are certainly not widely cited. Are they important? They looked like they were going to be once, but they never went on to transcend that one push in that one year. This is a talented group that won a string of competitions one year. The group is apparently satisfied with their accomplishments that year. They have apparently retired. That is just not enough for Wikipedia's notability criteria. My bottom line: Can a group that was famous one year, a "flash in the pan", be notable? With an adequate number of reliable sources showing notability, yes. With only one source? No. —Prhart com♥ 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?. I just found this deletion discussion. The previous discussion was closed as "no consensus", and this one was started within four hours of that closure. Ok, maybe the rules say that a repeat discussion may happen after a such a closure, but within four hours? And, more importantly, without informing the participants in the previous discussion? This is a clear abuse of process. And then we have an editor who said in the previous discussion that this group was notable in its own country but then changed his mind and refused to disclose why he had changed his mind, saying this it was his last word on the matter, but that same editor now gives us a few hundred more words, but still without explanation of that change of mind.

I am not prepared to repeat everything that I said in the previous discussion, and if this is to become a war of attrition rather than an attempt to reach consensus I concede defeat. I will however point out that the nominator's statement that the awards in question are non-notable is refuted by the fact that they were reported in several national media outlets, and that Phartcom's statements that there is only one source in one year are refuted by the fact that a dozen or so sources were identified in the first discussion from three different years. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you come in and have nothing to back-up your statements about this group. Which notable awards have they won? National awards are not automatically notable. Nor are the winners of said awards. You have yet to provide any source which actually discusses the group in any sort of detail. The only thing you have done is to tell everyone to look at the number of Google hits and claim they must be notable, you need to prove it with the actual references you think help them meet a criteria or even multiple in-depth ones to at least meet WP:GNG. I have all read the Google hits and have given my interpretations of said hits and how it doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I am willing to change my opinion but need to be convinced with policy based points and proof. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the number of Google hits, but the actual sources found by the Google News search linked in the nomination. There's no point in me listing them separately here because they are just one click away. You will find there national media reporting on this group in three separate years and on the awards that they won - it's not the fact that they are national awards that makes them notable but that they are reported in the national media. Our notability guidelines are based on what such sources decide to cover, not on some vague idea that a dance group in a country that many editors of English Wikipedia would find difficult to find on a map and where the people speak a strange language can't possibly be notable, and that the national media of such a country should be discounted as potential sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage you speak about is for some non notable national competitions which fall into WP:ROUTINE there is zero in-depth sources for this dance group. Each source that you wish for everyone to find on their own is nothing more then mentions. Mentions in routine coverage are not enough to prove notability per WP:GNG, even the number of times they are mentioned does not matter unless you can prove they meet another criteria for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:ROUTINE that remotely applies to the coverage found here. And what do you mean by "each source that you wish for everyone to find on their own"? As I have said repeatedly in the previous discussion and here you don't have to find anything on your own, but can simply click on the word "news" in the links provided automatically by the nomination process. Those sources show that this group has, as well as winning national competitions in Azerbaijan, won fourth place in the hip-hop category of the world dance championships in Copenhagen and been a semi-finalist in a national competition in Turkey. And, before you repeat your refuted claim that those competitions are not notable, or that this group is not notable for this success, they have received coverage in national media in both Azerbaijan and Turkey for doing so, which is precisely the type of coverage that makes any topic notable.

I also note that you have not explained your clear abuse of process in renominating this for deletion within hours of the closure of the previous discussion, and without informing the participants in that discussion. That behaviour clearly shows that you are more interested in winning an argument than in conducting a discussion leading to consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was closed as no consensus, allowing for normal editing to resume including renomination. There is no requirement to alert any previous participants. If you feel that something is wrong with the process then take it to the WP:AFD talk page there or take it to an admin board. This is should be about the article which you still have not effectively demonstrated or explained or proven which criteria you believe they meet for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rammya Singh

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

Contested prod, with no reason given. The prod rationale was "No indication of notability. Searches turned up an FB hit. That's it. Not a single other reference." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in independent reliable sources. I could only find one source that is relevant, which is already included on the page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile. Agree that this is the only reliable source available. There may be coverage after she competes at the event, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber). There does seem to be consensus for removing the content, and what arguments address the idea of a redirect seem in favor. There is not a specific consensus on the target of the redirect, I've picked one more or less on instinct, but this close does not preclude further discussion and retargeting of the redirect.

Delete and redirect would be an option, but policy prefers redirect to delete-under-redirect save for badly problematic content or (perhaps) to deal with problematic behavior. Neither is argued here, so plain redirect is appropriate here. joe decker ^talk 00:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Institute

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

Institute appears to no longer exist. Its brief life seems not to rise to the level of notability we would require for a Wikipedia article on an organization. jps (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no evidence of notability (one third-party RS in the whole article), little prospect of further. And that's without getting into the article reading like a press release - David Gerard (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This institute produced no prominent individuals, no influential studies or papers, funded no notable research, etc, etc. There's nothing at all to indicate any notability in the article, let alone outside sources (which are pretty sparse, and not very high quality). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not seems to contain any high quality reliable independent secondary sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. There are only a handful of mentions the google news search, none are mainstream, all are passing mentions (and none seem independent of the subject). There don't seem to be any independent sources covering it academic journals, only those directly related to Ken Wilber, the "founder", even then mostly passing mentions and no meaningful coverage. I haven't seen any good evidence that it actually existed IRL. —PermStrump(talk) 03:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber), which mentions it. Not enough reliable source coverage to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- and that article looks pretty dubious too and could do with a thorough reference check and evaluation - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. —PermStrump(talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - in fact, this is a walled garden across several self-referential categories - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I amend my !vote to delete and Redirect to Ken Wilber? The institute is mentioned in both his BLP and in Integral theory (Ken Wilber). All of the other extraneous pages that had been created about his various integral theories were redirected back to his BLP, so it would be more consistent. —PermStrump(talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Oyetayo

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

I ~~sincerely~~ totally doubt the notability of this BLP. A Google search does not show independent notable coverage. Darreg (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really hate it when people come to Wikipedia, promote their interests and organization then abandon the project for volunteers, another reason why I want this article deleted is to make COI editors know that their strategy is not welcome here. Darreg (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent sources to establish notability were found. Blog posts all over. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in independent reliable sources. The page's current references, the ones that actually direct us to an actual are, are blogs. Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does have quite a few sources, however they're simply blogs which are clearly unreliable and don't help to show the subject is notable Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Abbas Haider

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

Not notable enough for a article with link from youtube etc. GreenCricket (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the nominator's rationale isn't complete, the subject doesn't meet our notability criteria or our SNG for politicians as a small-division head of the regional wing of a political party, no elected office. —SpacemanSpiff 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a few brief mentions in media are not enough to establish notability. OtterAM (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't make any claims that would get him an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and isn't sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Also this reads very much like the kind of "about me" puff bio that one would expect to see on the subject's own self-published website about himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic Baz Ashhab (Book)

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

This page is a downright copypaste from a Google-translated ar:جغرافية الباز الأشهب (كتاب), even including the templates. I'd say WP:TNT this incomprehensible monstrosity and let it be recreated by someone actually fluent in Arabic, if someone's interested - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT. The page is unreadable. OtterAM (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is useless since it is indeed unreadable. It is incomprehensible. I don't see how it could be rehabilitated from its current form. It has quite a few red links which means that no help could be had from related articles. Its length would add to the difficulty of rewriting it. I agree with the nominator and other commenters. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux municipal library

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

fails WP:ORG . Libraries are not inherently notable. the sources provided are all primary, same with the French version of this article LibStar (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An institution with a history of more than 250 years. It was the subject of a history (Raymond Celeste, 1892) and has an entry in the Oxford Companion to the Book (index summary), so its inclusion here I think meets WP:5P1. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historic library with links to Montesquieu, owns manuscripts of his and other big-name literary figures from Bordeaux, esp. Montaigne. The library's special collections described here - [37]. A book about its treasures - [38]. Its specialist music collection - [39]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lelijg (talk • contribs) 13:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I finally managed to figure out what the lede means by "listed municipal library" (bibliothèque municipale classée) so I've added a bit on its significance, and will try to improve the article if it's kept. Lelijg (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that a delete !vote in the discussion appears to possibly be based only upon the state of sourcing in the article, which does not confer to the notability of the topic itself as per WP:NEXIST, an important part of the Wikipedia:Notability page. Also, topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Investiture of the Gods (1990 TV series)

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

Just a cast list. No indication of notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I know the article is barebones (which is a common symptom for non-Western topics), but this is a Chinese television classic. It was shown on Chinese national TV and watched by hundreds of millions of people, see [40] [41]. Its Youku page says it's been viewed 134 million times (probably all episodes combined), and 20,000 people have left comments on the site. -Zanhe (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - There're plenty of secondary sources from the search term "Investiture of the Gods". STSC (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – many search results for the Chinese name in fact refer to Gods of Honour. SSTflyer 05:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable, the sourcing is still questionable at best and I'm not seeing anyone offering to improve it now. Delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG pass per sources in the article. SSTflyer 08:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. The article definitely needs to be expanded, but I feel it passes the required notability tests. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Nucleonics

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

No indication of notability. The best source I found was this passing mention that doesn't come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the current references are reliable third-party sources that discuss the company in any detail. Huon (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself would've deleted, nothing actually convincing here at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete a mere 2 gnews hits says it all for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this company is legit, it seems big enough to me to be notable. However, I couldn't quite tell whether the information on the WP page is real or exaggerated, so I'm not going to vote. OtterAM (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmaphone

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

I have been able to find no evidence that any instances of this musical instrument exist beyond the ones created by Steve Mann and/or his colleagues for a pair of performances in 2007. Just like the term "quintephone" (also coined by Mann and currently up for deletion), the term is a longstanding neologism. Zetawoof (ζ) 01:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources confirming its existence outside use by one individual. Meatsgains (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best references I found were these 2 papers by Steve Mann. [42] (citation count 4 at Google Scholar) and [43] (citation count 13 at Google Scholar, but 2 at acm.org). For me this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed that the article seems to have been created by an account which seems closely linked to Steve Mann. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article, User:Glogger, is Steve Mann. Zetawoof (ζ) 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence for notability. Also no evidence that the concept was accepted by anyone except its creator. OtterAM (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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