Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 October	3 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Got7. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Young-jae

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

Clearly fails notability standards for getting his own separate article. Peachywink (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article shold be deleted I think this article should be deleted. Choi Young-jae is a singer in Got7 boy group. Although he debuted in 2014, there aren't much albums that he recorded. And he is not a famous person in Korea. So I couldn't find much material about him.Choi Hyun Hee (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect to band or simply delete whichever is best as there's nothing to suggest a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Got7 as a plausible search term. Subject is not notable outside of the group. I also suggest fully protecting the page to prevent the content from being restored. K-pop fans usually don't let redirects like this sit for very long. — ξ ^xplicit 06:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte Riley

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

Perhaps WP:TOOSOON for this subject, does not meet WP:NMUSIC (no charted songs/albums). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say WP:BASIC for this subject.WP:BIO for Notability in having a significant following. User:Dmaster2008 07:40, 2 October 2015 (EST)

Comment: An alleged "significant following" is not a Keep argument, cf. WP:15 minutes of fame. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources found to suggest subject currently meets WP:BASIC or WP:NMUSIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relocation Journal

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

A blog of some relocation business. No evidence of independent notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The link to the site is a dead link (unless it is now fixed) and Google shows up nothing that is related other than this Wikipedia article. Fails all related notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article also states that it "was originally a print trade publication with 20,000 subscribers", but not finding source coverage to satisfy WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's not enough to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Carrite withdrew this nomination due to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any_biography providing rationale for inclusion. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (indicate) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Devouard

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

Failure to meet the General Notability Guideline. This biography came up in a Wikipediocracy thread as an "inside baseball" type BLP of a former chair of the WMF Trustees which is not supported or supportable by substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. After a glance at the first 100 or so responses in a Google search, I tend to agree with this assessment. No strong feelings here, I leave the matter of decision to the community — I just don't want to be accused of looking the other way on a WP insider's bio. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randy Framboise/Carrite, who said it better than I ever could. Grill power! Roberta Benigni (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not understanding the "Grill" power remark, but I guess I don't have to. This bio fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tried to find something that was in depth but came up empty. I am willing to change my !vote if someone can show me different. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do see significant passing mention in Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She appears in numerous books in her role as Foundation head and was knighted by the French government for this. She therefore passes WP:PROF. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Andrew D. is vastly likely a troll account, given recent form. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's so cruel. He's lovely. And he likes to keep things. Your a hayter and you make me cry. Begoon ^talk 15:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HERE is the link for Lih's book, which counts as 1 towards GNG for my money. I see that she was interviewed for the book Connective Branding by Claudia Fisher and Christine Vallaster, but that strikes me as mere passing mention. What else is out there? Carrite (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lih's book is not enough for me, and would be a very poor test. Per nom and navel gazing. I don't see much difference in deleting this now, or in a year's time, voting to salt "Tim from Davenport" or wherever. But per Tim from Davenport in this earth shaking vote. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nomination — Speedy Keep — SNG for "All Biographies" No. 1 indicates a keep based on: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Her biography on French Wikipedia points to THIS which indicates that on May 16, 2008, Ms. Devouard was awarded the national award "Chevalier of the Ordre national du Mérite," which would seem to suffice... "Mme Devouard, née Nibart (Florence, Jacqueline, Sylvie), présidente d'une fondation mondiale ; 15 ans d'activités professionnelles." is the official wording. So while the keep argument based on GNG is very, very borderline, this is actually a fairly definite SNG Keep. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the same document is already in the English footnotes, too, as fn 9. My bad. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navel gazing. Inside baseball. No notability outside wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it up to Florence, as we did for Kevin. We extend this favour to Wikipedians with marginal notability. (Not marginally notable non-Wikipedians, though. We take care of our own.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? If she is notable, then she is notable. Giving a "Wikipedian" special favors when it comes to notability and not others speaks wonders for the "integrity" of Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take the opposite view. If the subject is marginally notable (whether or not they're a Wikipedia insider) we should take into account their feelings on the matter. But yes, we should be consistent. If we extend this courtesy to insiders, we should treat non-Wikipedians with the same level of respect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I see no reason "not" to take the opinion into consideration, but I do not feel that they get to decide their own inclusion, especially when they are a Wikipedian. This is only going to cause negativity for Wikipedia which already comes under fire for its editing issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a really horrible idea to let WP content (or lack thereof) be controlled by the subjects themselves. There should be a brick wall between the whims of subjects and the actual content of the encyclopedia. Anthony and I have disagreed on this vehemently for a long time and will continue to disagree vehemently on this. We are not here for "courtesy content for marginally notable people." Notable is notable. Non-notable is non-notable. Now somebody needs to shut this sucker down, the nomination is withdrawn. Carrite (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synclair Amarahobu

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. He might be notable in the future but certainly not now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Isolating both names in Google only shows a few hits, and nothing in depth. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altair Global Relocation

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

A nonnotable business Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incidental mentions and non-substantive coverage. Boeing contracts with Altair Global Relocation to furnish its apartments. does not go very far toward meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Some coverage exists (e.g. [1]), but not enough to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough indepth sourcing. There is some coverage, but it isn't significant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found some links at News, Books and browser but nothing at all to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tad Patzek

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

No indications of notability; a rather ordinary professor. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Held two named chairs at University of Texas Austin, the Cockrell Family Regents Chair #11 and a leadership chair.[2]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C3 (named chairs as above) and #C1 (highly cited publications as listed in Google scholar [3]). He's also a winner of the PNAS Cozzarelli Prize but I don't think that's significant enough for notability by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. And I'll add h-index = 21 from WoS, with most papers having small author lists and his name at or near the top. Subject conspicuously satisfies several criteria from WP:PROF. Please close this AfD so no more time is spent on it. Nominator shall please follow WP:BEFORE in the future – this case is not even borderline. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bong-han

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

Three months ago an AfD was closed as no consensus with a comment that there are very serious issues with this article that need to be addressed or another AfD is warranted. Here is the difference between the article at close of that AfD and how it stands today: [4].

I think the issues have not been resolved because they are not resolvable. There are basically no mainstream sources. As a North Korean, everything emanating from sources in that country is inevitably tainted.And sources outside of North Korea are - well, absent. There are a few sources which are essentially namechecks in discussing a purported new vascular system discovered by him, but this has zero mainstream acceptance and is also effectively ignored other than by North Koreans, hence the article was deleted. There is no reality-based commentary on which to base a WP:MEDRS compliant article on the "primo-vascular system" or "bonghan ducts", and there are no independent reliable biographical sources on which to base an article on Bong-Han either.

The article appears to be kept on the basis that the promo vascular system might be borderline notable, but we don't have an article on it, so the borderline content has to go somewhere, and this is somewhere. That's the politician's syllogism, of course. There's no reaosn not to write a new reality-based article on that subject if sources exist, but this article is not supposed to be an end-run around policy on that. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD's need to be based on reasons set in the deletion policy. (WP:AFD → WP:DEL-REASON) From your nomination, it isn't clear what the "unresolvable" deletion-specific problem: is it notability? That's what we usually talk about when we talk about AfD.

To say that sources outside North Korea are "absent" strikes me as odd; I get some 60 sources on Google Books in many languages. Note that sources don't have to be "mainstream"; or, as you say, reliable medical sources in a biography. No sources that are currently used have been tagged as unreliable, self-published or primary, so they are both okay for being used as references and support notability. It doesn't matter if a theory is "accepted" by no one; we have an article on Ptolemy despite virtually no one thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe. Dubious theories have their merit in historical and cultural contexts and, without repeating at length arguments in the previous discussion, there seems to be a heavy regional significance (WP:WORLDVIEW). 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnusertop (talk • contribs)

There are sources by Korean authors (who are not dependable for well documented reasons), and sources by nutters, but no reality-based sources about Bong-Ha that I can find. Feel free to cite them. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, I linked them directly to the pages within the book [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].--CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it is nice to see someone citing logic, we must also recognize that AfD is not an "end around" for WP:FIXIT either. Just because someone has not taken the time to address the article issues does not mean that it deserves to be deleted. Afd is NOT cleanup. Checking sources in Google Books, there are plenty of references and discuss him and his work [13]. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we indefinitely keep an article that fails policy, as noted in the last close, but nobody can be arsed to fix. Pepole want to keep the article but not fix it. Well, I tried to fix it - and found no credible sources to allow that. Which was also noted in the previous AfD. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So would you delete an article because it lacks inline citations or it needs more specific categories? Not likely. Deleting an article for not meeting "policy" is not a valid reason for deletion in all circumstances. Here, the article is notable, there are sources as provided above, and may you can be "arsed to fix" it as opposed to accusing other of not doing it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep; pseuodscience or not, it is a historical notability. There was quite a buzz in 1960s. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His impact is clearly notable, and I am finding plenty of reliable sources on him in a simple google search. Messy pages require cleanup, not deletion. Fuzchia (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am still in favor of keeping this article. It just needs some cleanup. Reliable sources are not absent, and this pseudoscience stuff is pretty notable in the context of acupuncture. Ceosad (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to do that? There is absolutely no substantive change to the article since the previous AfD noted that it was atrocious. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly yes, I looked at the Google books sources yesterday, and thought about doing some cleanup work. Ceosad (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was also almost going to close this as a clear keep and may still but I'm inviting past commenters Dennis Brown, DGG, David Eppstein, Rhoark, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, CFCF, Roxy the dog and QuackGuru. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though I suspect the best that will happen with this is that we get a no-consensus keep again rather than a clear keep), for the same reason I gave the last time: no mainstream and scientifically-reliable sources to give a WP:NPOV take on the subject's fringe research. As the nominator notes, nothing has improved about the article, so there's no reason for me to have changed my opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said at the previous AfD - "Doesn't seem to be anything to this other than his associated "discovery" of something that hasn't been found to be a real thing in over forty years. It ought to have been independently corroborated a gazillion times by now, but all we have is wiki eds claiming that acupuncture is vindicated by this guy's 'discovery' (nb: note justified 'scare quotes'). Nope, doesn't work that way." -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 06:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- "Fringe" does not mean "delete". Even hostile sources establish notability. There is ample and verifiable secondary coverage, especially when taken as a biography.
- I see the article on the primo-vascular has already been deleted on the false pretense that it is ignored in the scientific literature. Here are some peer reviewed journal articles about Bong-han ducts: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Some of these were cited in the deleted article, and should be re-incorporated at Kim Bong-han.
- Biographies or anatomical observations in rats and pigs do not need to meet the standards of MEDRS. Any claim that these structures are relevant to the treatment of a disease should of course be excluded.

Rhoark (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep. The current version is satisfactory, with the extensive quotes removed. But I think the article to restore is the one on The Primo vascular system. He is not the only person to have reported it. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is the wrong venue, but it looks like File:Triple9 poster.jpg was deleted by Yunshui as WP:F5: Unused non-free media Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triple9 poster.jpg

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

Imageisnotpublicyet,ownedbystudio,mustbetakendownJamieelizabeth1 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartus

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

Lacks reliable, independent sources. Since this is a business unit of a larger company, "stubbing" is not appropriate, per WP:BRANCH. No specific indication given of notability which is separate from Realogy. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does WP:BRANCH apply to a separate company? This is a subsidiary, but not an individual unit of the same company. My read on Branch is that it would apply to local units such as the "Local ???" of the UAW. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but figuring out this company's status would require at least one source. The line between subsidiary and business unit is debatable anyway. The editor who removed the WP:PROD suggested stubbing instead of deleting, but again, there are currently no sources at all. Per BRANCH: Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs. Without any sources, there isn't any reason to think this could be made into a full-sized article, while the primary sources that were formerly in the article could, possibly, be used to add a few paragraphs to the parent company article. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the source, but I still do not see how BRANCH relates to companies. As stated previously, this is about stub organizations, not separate companies and although it is a subsidiary, it is a separate company. A "sub-unit" and "subsidiary" are two different things. A sub-unit is still within the same company while a subsidiary is merely owned by the company. I think it is a stretch to cite BRANCH in this instance. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thank you. I had forgotten that BRANCH is specifically about non-commercial orgs, and the commercial parallel (WP:CHAIN) is not relevant. What ORG is getting at still applies, though: A large company with many WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant sources warrants its own article, subsidiary or not, while companies without sources don't. Without sources, the legal or internal distinction between a subsidiary and a branch is basically irrelevant. So is it notable enough for its own article? Should it just be mentioned in its parent company's article? Neither? Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that this would warrant talk in the parent company article if it is not notable for its own article. It has a ton of press, but the "depth" is something that I question, hence why I did not leave a vote as of yet. I would say if there is something in depth, it could warrant a stand alone article, but absent WP:CORPDEPTH outside of the parent company, merging is the best route. Just my humble opinion, though. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I could not find anything in depth after an additional search. Willing to change !vote if someone can show me differently, but there just isn't anything that fits CORPDEPTH to justify its own article. I am willing to do the merging into the parent article if there is a consensus for that. Just leave a message on my talk page when this is over. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as aside from some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement for this article which has quietly existed since February 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Albert

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

This is interesting because my searches found absolutely nothing (and I'm a Spanish speaker) and it has basically stayed the same since August 2007. Inviting Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This person is probably not a hoax. Links: [21] [22] TheGGoose (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST #4. Solo exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum of American Art in 1946.[23] See also: Jane, Watson C. "Spanish Sculptor's Work Striking." The Washington Post (1923-1954): 1. Jul 07 1946. ProQuest. Web. 2 Oct. 2015.[24]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the Smithsonian exhibit of 1946, he had a solo exhibit at Acquavella Galleries in New York in 1944. Exhibition, sculptures by Francisco Albert: April 8th through April 30th, 1944. Acquavella Galleries. OCLC 42742512. International exhibitions are a good guide to notability and to finding additional coverage. See also Esculturas (in Spanish). Mexico, DF: Ajusco. 1943. OCLC 651208038. which is about his work. The Detroit Institute of Arts Research Library & Archives maintains an archive file with news stories and other materials on Francisco Albert (Francisco Albert Rosas), if someone is in that area, they could stop by and be able to provided citations to the important articles. --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improved sourcing, but the subject is real and likely meets WP:N. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ETV Network. Will lock. Swarm ♠ 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Kannada

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

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

Delete both Colors Kannada and Colors (TV channel) or possibly redirect each to ETV Network. The articles appear to address the much same topic, and do so without significant coverage. The coverage is either (1) internal from the channel itself or related parties or (2) slightly rehashed press releases (PRs), primarily cited from Biz Asia, itself a questionable source because of lack of fact checking. I did not find independent coverage (PRs not being independent). I did not find substantive coverage, except PRs. I did not find significant coverage. There are mere mentions aplenty because of programming notices, but no coverage of the organization/channel. It fails the general notability guideline, as well as WP:CORP. In particular see WP:CORPDEPTH and the policy at Self-published sources, note #9; see also the policy regarding questionable sources and the essay at Wikipedia:Third-party sources. Note 1: Colors Kannada and the "Colors" franchise are part of ETV Network which is a subsidiary of Viacom 18, a joint venture between Viacom and the Network 18. Note 2: I originally created the title "Colors Kannada" as a redirect in January 2011‎. --Bejnar (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Wikipedia is not a directory applies here as well. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tremendous glut of poorly sourced articles on broadcasters and channels that fail WP:GNG/WP:CORP and should be rolled up together until they meet the appropriate threshold, including a whole bunch more Colors channels. I am not sure exactly where the proper target is. I think that redirect and lock are better options than "delete" because of the likelihood of a user searching for content about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect is certainly better from the user stand point, if we can keep people from repopulating the territory with this kind of directory data. As explained in the policy Encyclopedic content, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect permanently and lock it if there still isn't enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 06:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menon Holdings

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

No indication of notability, and the links in the article are to a person named P. N. C. Menon, and it isn't clear what the connection is to this firm. My own searches turned up almost no mentions of the firm. Also article has been tagged as possibly non-notable since September 2009. mikeman67 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twinmesh

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

Software with no demonstration of notability. Prod contested by author, who appears to connected with the company as evidenced by this press release. I didn't find any good sources in English, but given that the company is German maybe better references can be found in that language? --Finngall ^talk 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no evidence of independent notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links for this at News and browser but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no good third-party sources here, which make this an easy delete. But solely from a reader's standpoint, the orphaned article is in industry jargon and without links to help a reader understand the most basic ideas about the topic. I still have no idea what this article is about.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find anything to support notability in the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus against retaining this article remains at this time, though it does not hold that the subject is inherently not suitable for inclusion and significant support exists for allowing the recreation of the article after it undergoes some improvement and can better demonstrate notability. Article has been userfied by another admin and there is no prejudice against recreation. Swarm ♠ 07:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resources Development Administration (RDA)

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

it does not cite any third party reliable sources and so may not be in accordance to the WP:Notability & WP:Sources Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy per below: While the film in which the RDA appears is notable (Avatar (2009 film)), I find it unlikely that the organization is considered particularly notable outside the context of the film. DonIago (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonIago (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the article may be notable to some readers.I feel it explains important backstory and the protagonists motives. Blisspop (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good reason to add it to an appropriate wiki for the film, but is not a good reason for it to have an article here. Articles here should focus on subjects that satisfy basic notability concerns as linked above. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

throughout Wikipedia there are many pages in description of various protagonist groups. One such example is Team Rocket from Pokémon. I don't see what harm the rda page can cause. If references is the issue I can add valid ones. Blisspop (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're able to add reliable sources, preferably independent ones, that discuss RDA in any significant detail I would highly recommend doing so. The lack of such presently is a significant reason for this AfD. DonIago (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ill add the links. Please don't delete it now Blisspop (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst the film is obviously notable, I can find no evidence this fictional company within it is. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete Whats the harm in having some extra information on the topic???? Blisspop (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator it is right and proper you should contribute here. However, the above is unlikely to persuade any administrator to keep the article, as explained at WP:NOHARM. I strongly encourage you to look at WP:GOODARG and DonIago's comments above for advice. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean.I will add good references but i need time.My exams are going on hence i m a bit short of spare time.If i may ask can you remove the tag the review the page after a week?This would be sufficient time. Blisspop (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article be moved into your userspace for you to complete when you are ready. That cannot now just happen as there are delete !votes on this AfD - mine, @Doniago:'s and @Peppy Paneer:'s as nominator. I am happy for the move to take place as an alternative to delete and if you can persuade Doniago and Peppy Paneer likewise then the AfD can be withdrawn and the article moved. Alternatively, the closing admin may conclude that this is the best option anyway. Even if it is deleted you can always ask for a copy of the text by following WP:REFUND, but be aware that articles that are successfully nominated for deletion are speedy deletable if they return substantially unchanged. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with it being userfied as an alternative to outright deletion. DonIago (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rortosthanos: Hi, since you want to work more on this article, I am happy to withdraw the nomination. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD can't be withdrawn once anyone else has supported it (WP:WDAFD), though you're welcome to change your own vote. I continue to feel in its current state the article either needs to be userfied as mentioned above or outright deleted. I have grave doubts that there will be sources to establish that RDA is notable outside the film. DonIago (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I did WP:BEFORE before putting an Afd place. And even I do have a doubt that there will be sources which will make the article stay in article space. With the article in its current state, my vote and arguments are still in favor of Delete. As the author wants to work more on the article, so I just don't want to discourage the author. And yes if nomination withdrawal takes place, then the article should be moved to the author's user space or draft space. And the main article could be deleted as per the author request's deletion or redirects left behind criteria. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatism I offer no opinion on the article. For pragmatism let us speedy close this as Move to Draft: namespace and allow the author time in abundance.

While one may not, technically, withdraw a nomination once others support it, in real life this happens. The nominator's deletion opinion is then disregarded. Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is nothing salvageable or worth salvaging . WP:TNT / WP:WAF. Create a redirect under the proper Resources Development Administration and redirect to Fictional universe of Avatar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No opposition to recreation based upon reliably sourced materials that are being brought forward. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
removal of AFD i would like to thank Peppy Paneer for your support. I will do my best to ensure this page meets wikipedia standards.

17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortosthanos (talk • contribs)

delete Is there any discussion of this outside the one film? Has it crossed over into other films? Is it a significant meme or even a logo for T shirts beyond the film? Plenty of such organisations in sf texts have managed this, it's not impossible. But there's no indication that this one has. As such it belongs as a section within the broader film article(s). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy - since there is an interested editor, but there is currently not enough to support this subject's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic. There is commentary about this fictional organization in Google Books. Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization says, "Avatar represents the colonial self (the RDA) and the colonized other (the Na'vi) through the lens of Orientalist stereotypes (Said 1979). In Avatar, the colonial self is portrayed as active, technological, modern, forward-looking, and rational, while the colonized other is depicted as passive, naturalistic, traditional, backwards, and spiritual." Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See says, "Avatar's Resources Development Administration (RDA) corporation offers a picture of what British Petroleum (BP) or Halliburton might be like if they could operate on an interplanetary scale... If the actions of the RDA and its private military force bring to mind examples of American imperialism and environmental exploitation, perhaps it's because our own world is poisoned by similarly perverse values. The RDA's attempt to wipe out an indigenous population to clear a path to natural resources looks a lot like our genocide of Native Americans, as well as like our ongoing decimation of the rain forest. At times, the RDA's attempt to suppress the Na'vi insurgents evokes the jungle war in Vietnam." These passages were from the first page of Google Books results, and there is likely more if effort is made. The article status has no bearing on the topic's notability, per WP:BEFORE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - even with what you have linked above, there is nothing in the current article that is worth salvaging as a base or add-on to what might be derived from any reliable sources. The material can be easily covered in an existing article and if more substantial appears, then spin off having a good base to work from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - TheRedPenOfDoom, see four more passages added below. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would still say you would end up with none of content from the existing article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BEFORE says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This means that a topic's notability is independent of the shape the article is in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I dont consider "erase everything because none of it is appropriate" to be "normal editing" - that is pretty non-normal editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The link goes to a page's section that says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Surely with the sources I've listed here, editing in content based on these sources will improve the page? "Normal editing" means writing an article the way it should be typically written, to have verifiable content, and in this case, a real-world perspective. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fictional entity. Yes, it exists in a blockbuster film, and yes, it's been discussed in at least one book, but I don't see significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above passages are indeed significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV specifically says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is a footnote that says a one-sentence mention of a band in one's biography is "plainly trivial", so surely the above assessment of the fictional organization exceeds plain trivia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after an initial "delete" closure per a request on my talk page. Sandstein 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars says, "...by refusing the Manichean biopolitics and zero-sum game of RDA, the Na'vi attempt to retain their integrity and plant a seed to enlarge the zoe community on more Pandoran terms... in a certain sense, RDA symbolizes Columbus and the Na'vi are the peaceable Caribs (until Columbus started chopping their heads off in search of gold)."
Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema says, "The cumulative by-product however would lead to the unity of the five clans of Pandora against the RDA Corporation and this represents a type of proletariat revolution... Comparisons abound between the struggles of the Na'vi against the RDA Corporation to that of Native Americans against the U.S. military... The RDA Corporation are clearly the capitalists of on Pandora... as the imperialists with the ability to travel across galaxies, RDA represents a technologically evolved social class. The Na'vi represent the proletariart and the Omaticaya clan literally translates to 'the people.' As mentioned earlier, the RDA is willing to mine unobtainium at any cost. They have justified class conflict in the name of economic riches."
The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity says, "Within the structural framework, the RDA, which represents the mining and resource development needs of Earth, can be metaphorically read as a futuristic Department of the Interior, which within the United States' political structure oversees federal land management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)... On Pandora, the military and the scientific Avatar Project fall directly under the purview of the RDA... their mission also includes acting as liaisons with the Na'vi, educating them and convincing them to accept the RDA's mining operation. The military ensures the success of the operation; its placement in the story reminds us that when the BIA was first created in 1824 it was housed in the War Department."
Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center says, "The RDA corporation is a stereotypical organizational cog within an industrial-military complex, driven by nothing more than a lust for more profit... the corporate leaders... are anthropomorphic prudes, refusing to acknowledge even the human-like agency of the Na'vi, whom they refer to as 'blue monkeys.' Members of the RDA coalition are also prudish in their sociography, forcing their own norms upon others, with little patience for anything that challenges their capitalist inscriptions."

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RichardOSmith, Doniago, Andy Dingley, Onel5969: I have uncovered and shared passages about the organization. I ask that you review the passages and see if they contribute to the topic meeting the notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really I'm afraid. They're great sources for a discussion of Avatar and themes within Avatar (and please use them somewhere, they're good), but they're not goood sources on RDA. Mostly because RDA just seems to be a thin and undeveloped "character" within the film. As the last of these sources has it, "The RDA corporations is a stereotypical organizational cog within an industrial-military complex, driven by nothing more than a lust for profit." That's a trope that can probably be found in Marx and certainly any sf onwards from that. It's just unoriginal and as such, not generating the coverage specific to RDA that we're looking for here. In fact, I'd use it in a subsection within a broad Avatar article critiquing the lack of depth to this organisation.

BTW - Enthusiastic support for userfying this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the passages above are specific to RDA. Notability is not about what makes a topic different from other topics, and even if one source simply calls it a mere trope (but did not leave it there), other sources make connections to history and culture that are surely worth consolidating. There is always going to be redundancy with works of fiction and their elements, and based on these sources, it can be worthwhile to lift this distinct topic out of being buried in other Avatar-related content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source:

The Films of James Cameron: Critical Essays, says, "It is certainly worth noting the reviews that have connected the RDA's exploits on Pandora with the similar exploits of Halliburton in Iraq... Cameron shows the RDA actions on Pandora as being a replay of the current war in Iraq... The actions of the RDA represent a perspective of American policy since 9/11. The whole enterprise is framed with post-9/11 rhetoric."

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, courtesy userfy - Per WP:AGF we may give a chance the uathor to re-submit the article, but as it stands now, it fails wikipedia criteria big time. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC

@Staszek Lem: Per our notability standards, an article's format is not a cause for deletion and always far less an issue when topic notability is established and the article can be easily fixed. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: You are right, but IMO notability is not established. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to disagree with Erik and myself, but a guideline requirement for significant coverage does not mandate an additional requirement that they also be the not-a-guideline substantial coverage you might prefer. And so if meeting WP:SIGCOV, even if available sources were not originally used, the topic can be seen to meet our "wikipedia criteria" for inclusion. Thanks and cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:NPA. Second, the key word here "suitable sources". And what constitute suitable sources, when in doubt, is decided by community consensus. And I would like to remind you that community includes me, i.e., "what I prefer" does count. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder that you are a part of it, but a community here is comprised of many individuals. And when the many voices agree with one way to handle something, a dissenting voice might speak but rarely changes the minds of the many. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"dissenting"? Please count the votes, colleague. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read hyperbole, colleague. Out of some 26,408,816 named users, we few here are less than a drop in the ocean. LOL. See my comments below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ duplicate !vote struck Just to add to my argument, there is a page about Rda on the Italian Wikipedia Blisspop (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(modified - see my comments below) ~~Keep~~ per Erik's quite sensible arguments and his showing (and explaining just how) WP:SIGCOV is met. While sure it is fine to delete crap articles, but when we have weak but improvable topics, it benefits Wikipedia and its readership to encourage and make corrections. Not to sound like an inclusionist, specially as I am quite willing to opine deletes, but in this case deletion does not improve the encyclopedia. Thank you Erik. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references and will continue to do so. RDA is notable as there is a whole world of RDA toys and Merchandise.Please keep the article as it has been improved and will continue to do so. Blisspop (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andy's arguments of SIGCOV not being met. As the owner of a T-shirt for the Alien Franchise Weyland-Yutani/Weyland Corp., I can understand the wanting of an article. Weyland is in atleast five Aliens/Prometheus movies and counting. I just don't see significant coverage about the company. Perhaps when more movies are released. TV shows companies (aka Dharma Initiative) are more likely to meet significant coverage as they stay around longer. Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, well-intended non-guideline arguments unaccepting of the fact might well be ignored by a closer, for the guideline requirement for independent reliable sources which speak of the topic directly has been shown to be met. Sources addressing the topic in and in more-than-trivial manner are offered and have been used to improve the poorer article first brought to AFD. A laudable wish for WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is not a policy nor guideline requirement. Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, your vehement efforts to shut every contrary opinion and force your opinion down the closer's throat are troublesome. Please stop being a plug for every leak. I can do the same and plug your posts with mine. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: I address possible misinterpretations of existing guideline, which is not a personal attack. And since this is a discussion, you are quite welcome to explore my answers and refute them. I am sorry if you feel my wishing to prevent pertinent guideline from being overlooked as "vehement", and I apologize if that is your perception. But in fact, it seems we are not that far apart in our considerations. See my comments below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt I don't appreciate your tone Michael. I'm not going to respond to your snide remarks. Bgwhite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: I seek to address possible misinterpretations of applicable guideline, which is not a personal attack. And since this is a discussion, you are quite welcome to explore my answers and refute them, or call then "snide" and choose to not do so. I am sorry if you sense a "tone" you do not like, and I apologize if that is your perception. See my comments below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, you said you're looking for significant coverage about the company, but WP:SIGCOV says, " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Do you not find that the 7-8 different passages making specific assessments of this fictional organization count as significant coverage? They may not be the main topics, but they're certainly more than trivial mentions, meaning that the authors made a point to write about an aspect of the organization, e.g. making historical comparisons, especially the way the organization is structured, like being similar to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Why can't all this be consolidated to write about the organization? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about. Erik, please don't cherry pick quotes, WP:SIGCOV say exactly, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material The keywords are addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed.

"Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center" contains one small paragraph about the RDA.
"The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity" contains one sentence about the RDA.
"Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema" contains two sentences about the RDA
"Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars" contains one sentence about the RDA.

What do we know from the sources? RDA is a big bad corporation and nothing more. Books use the RDA as a metaphor, but they do not address the RDA directly and in detail. Bgwhite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, I did not omit the first sentence on purpose. I did not find it applicable because we can all agree that this fictional organization exists. It is named and described, so there is no original research involved, as may happen with a more abstract topic. Whether or not it is "in detail" is a fair point, though. That's why I highlighted the second sentence about not having to be the main topic. This organization will be repeatedly be discussed in the context of the film. I find the descriptions incorrect, though. For the book The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity, you state that there is only one sentence about the RDA. This is untrue; the whole paragraph (about 9 sentences, maybe 200-300 words?) makes historical comparisons with the RDA. Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema brings up the RDA multiple times across a page. It does not mean that the whole page could be paraphrased to be put into the article. It can be distilled. This is the same for Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars, where it is again more than just one sentence. (Look for instances of RDA, not just the full organization's title.) I think that across the sources available (and I have found more in Google Books), even when distilled all together, would make a reasonable article about the organization. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment on additional sources listed here. I did not go through all of them, but two I bothered to open are published in vanity press and hence are not WP:RS. Therefore claims about "significant coverage" are questionable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you consider vanity press? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization: Routledge
Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See: John Wiley & Sons
Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars: Information Age Publishing
The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity: Palgrave Macmillan
Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema: Wipf and Stock
The Films of James Cameron: Critical Essays: McFarland

I am not seeing any indication that any of these sources are under a vanity press. Even if some are, there are reputable publishers in the above list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy article for now (I have struck out my earlier position to keep). I have not contributed any improvements to this article even though I listed sources in this discussion, and I would like an opportunity to do so. I believe there is potential for a well-developed and well-sourced article, and I will work with the creator to do this. I ask for the article to be moved to Draft:Resources Development Administration (without the "(RDA)") for further development and a follow-up review based on what is consolidated and structured. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as Erik as several others suggest. I fully agree with guideline WP:NPOSSIBLE that an article's quality or length or it not using available sources is not a reason to delete. While certainly any article within these pages could be whittled down and eventually merged somewhere else, that does not BUILD an encyclopedia. While AFD not intended to force improvements, I believe in WP:SEP and in my attempts improving this project for its readers (and I've had some small successes doing so) I would far rather improve something myself or seek other's help in improving if I have weaknesses. Just as does Erik, I look beyond present state and instead look toward WP:POTENTIAL. Even if considered faulty by some, this topic, spoken of in |more-than-trivial manner in numerous sources (thank you Erik, for always looking beyond an AFD template's fallible "Find sources") is notable per guideline. We improve that which is improvable, for even in its admitting it is itself imperfect, deletion does not always improve a growing Wikipedia. As he has the knowledge and is willing to do so for the project, I agree it be done. I have struck my "keeps" above.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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. Swarm ♠ 06:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligarh Institute Gazette

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

A defunct University publications started by Syed Ahmad Khan and then stopped after his death in 1898. Has no stand-alone notability and all reliable sources mention the publication passing in relation to Syed or its another editor Theodore Beck. Case of inherited notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not defunct publication. See here- http://nvonews.com/rahat-abrar-is-new-editor-of-amu-gazette/, http://www.amu.ac.in/about3.jsp?did=9432. Also search in the internet and you will find that it was not stopped in 1898. It has also been archived in the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/16421/16/16_bibliography.pdf. The latest editions can be found here -http://www.amu.ac.in/gazette.jsp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifjwadder (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the list of positive microfilms at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi. The link is here- http://nehrumemorial.nic.in/images/pdf/library/List%20of%20%20holdings%20on%20Microfilm.pdf. This proves its importance and notability. Do not merely put deletion tag. Thanks! Arifjwadder (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep. The article is poorly written, but that is another issue. The references I checked seemed fine. Be sure the final articles is about the Institute and not just the notable members of the institute.Lucas559 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above vote be counted when closing.Arifjwadder (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you. The references are most notable. Some of the references are there in the government documents and in books which have been written by British writers century back. User talk:Lucas559 request you to vote in bold. Thanks. Arifjwadder (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The references I mentioned above are reliable and note worthy. This is a historical gazette in which freedom movement of India could be found. Arifjwadder (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The references cited above and in the article are fine and authentic. Few are from government organisation which does not give a second thought. The article has a lot of scope for enlargement. It meets notability criteria. EyThink (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syed Ahmad Khan. Can't see any reason for it to have a full article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Rsrikanth05: Please have a re-read of the article with the additions I've made. If after that you wish to uphold your !vote, I'd like to hear why. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion remains the same. It doesn't seem to satisfy N to exist as a standalone article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets WP:N. Under WP:ABOUTSELF it is acceptable as a source for facts under WP:V. The references mentioned above are fine and acceptable with some references from Nehru Memorial Library, India makes it more notable. Thus Topic notability is established. Thanks.- Rajib56789 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ See below. and merge to Syed Ahmad Khan. Editor Arifjwadder has demonstrated verifiability, not notability. Having the microform preserved does not equate to significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar: A book was recently released on the subject. The released book entirely is on Aligarh Institute GazetteAsghar Abbas; Syed Asim Ali (10 July 2015). Print Culture: Sir Syed's Aligarh Institute Gazette 1866-1897. Primus Books. ISBN 978-93-84082-29-1. This book is based on a critical study of The Aligarh Institute Gazette covering the period 1866 97, a phase when India was slowly transiting to the modern age, with the spread of new political, social, educational and religious ideas. Numerous social movements too, were gathering steam during this period to reform the Indian society. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of The Aligarh Institute Gazette, fought against obscurantist ideas and persuaded the Indian people to accept the impending changes.. What more is needed for notability??? Arifjwadder (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Bejnar: Please have a re-read of the article with the additions I've made. If after that you wish to uphold your !vote, I'd like to hear why. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW and suggest Dharmadhyaksha {{Withdraw}}. There is not just sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, there is an overwhelming abundance of sources, and subject passes WP:NPERIODICAL/WP:NMEDIA/WP:GNG with flying colors. I have done a slight rewrite with a few additions, and I have added ~10 {{cite book}}s, but you could add several dozens more. And that's cite books only. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence mentions, in sections which are primarily about Syed or Beck or 19th century muslim movements is not significant coverage. Yes the name shows up in Google Books, that is not the point. The point is notability. It does not qualify, nor would I expect it to, under Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), so if it were to qualify it needs to do so under the general notability guidelines. The shotgun approach of just adding citations to the article, such as Rafiq Zakaria (1986). Rise of Muslims in Indian politics: an analysis of developments from 1885 to 1906. which just has three very passing mentions on pages 212, 314, and 317, does not produce notability. The substantive two pages of the contribution of Cementing Ethics with Modernism: An Appraisal of Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan's Writings. if carried forward in other books would do that, but passing mentions, often just cites, don't work. --Bejnar (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book released is on Aligarh Institute GazetteAsghar Abbas; Syed Asim Ali (10 July 2015). Print Culture: Sir Syed's Aligarh Institute Gazette 1866-1897. Primus Books. ISBN 978-93-84082-29-1. This book is based on a critical study of The Aligarh Institute Gazette covering the period 1866 97, a phase when India was slowly transiting to the modern age, with the spread of new political, social, educational and religious ideas. Numerous social movements too, were gathering steam during this period to reform the Indian society. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of The Aligarh Institute Gazette, fought against obscurantist ideas and persuaded the Indian people to accept the impending changes.. @Bejnar: Will you still say passing mention??? Arifjwadder (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I withdraw my objection; however when two out of the first three citations that are added to an article are mere mentions, it is difficult to continue evaluating them. Has anyone actually seen a copy of Asghar Abbas's book (as translated from Urdu by Syed Asim Ali)? Is that why it is listed in "Further reading" and is not cited? (Note: Syed Asim Ali should probably not be treated as an author.) --Bejnar (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: I did not read the copy of the book but it can be found here http://www.amazon.in/Print-Culture-Asghar-Abbas/dp/9384082295. It will take some time when the contents of the book is reviewed by some other writer and we can have the glimpse of the contents. Thanks.- Arifjwadder (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference you might keep in mind the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it which says: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. and the suggestion at Wikipedia:Further reading#Relation to reference sections : Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited. Many editors prefer to list such sources on the article's talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publication widely cited as an authoritative or representative voice of liberal Muslims in India 100 years or so ago (particularly on ideas of education). Asghar Abbas's book only comes out in 6 weeks, so nobody can possibly have read it yet (except in-house editors, external reviewers, the author's close friends and colleagues, none of whom could appropriately be citing it on Wikipedia pre-publication), but its existence does point towards notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Arifjwadder, User:EyThink and User: Rajib56789 have been indef blocked for socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifjwadder/Archive. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Kirk

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

The article is hardly written differently than it was when it was tagged for speedy deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cam_Kirk&type=revision&diff=683757455&oldid=683713880. Also, the speedy deletion tag was removed by the creator of the article. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this is almost certainly a self-promotional autobiography, the subject himself does seem notable. The article itself could do with a healthy WP:NPOV cleanup but should probably be kept. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC: Ebony Bet Hip Hop Wired The Source Houston Press XXL magazine Noisey (1) Noisey (2) Noisey (3) Hot New Hip Hop and many others which speak toward the photographer and/or his works in a more-than-trivial fashion. Certainly the article's ref format needs to be corrected and the article's tone mellowed some, but notability is notability. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose if there's at least an acceptable amount of sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable photographer. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 06:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tephra (band)

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

Not an obviously notable band, a search for sources brings back nothing much more than this self-published entry in metal-archives.com. The only reason I challenged a WP:CSD#A7 is because the article exists on the German Wikipedia, but again the sources there seem to be self-published fanzines or otherwise not particularly significant material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the original CSD nominator I'll accept that constructive criticism while still maintaining (and agreeing) that the article should be deleted based on lack of notability. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the article creator. If the band is, in fact, not notable, then there's no reason the article can't be deleted (for the sake of full transparency, I'd never heard of the band until about 5 minutes before creating the article, though I'm certainly not up to speed on German metal bands). Without some knowledge of the German language and perhaps of German-language musical publications, it's very hard to say whether the sources in the German article should be considered reliable or not. Can we get someone who's qualified to make that assessment to comment? I'm happy to abide by whatever they decide. Arathald (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found nothing at all to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ♠ 06:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wladimir Klitschko vs. Bryant Jennings

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

Unlike the other boxing fight articles, the fight was not significant in NO way. Either the article has to be upgraded like the other ones or I think it should be deleted.

David-golota (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fight received significant and substantial coverage from multiple major media outlets. For example, here are articles from the New York Times [25], Washington Post [26], Boston Globe [27], and Chicago Tribune [28] (note an ESPN article is already in the article). Further, I fail to understand the rationale for the nomination. Unlike what other boxing fight articles? How was this fight less notable than say Amir Khan vs. Paul McCloskey, Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz, Saúl Álvarez vs. Kermit Cintron, or Nonito Donaire vs. Omar Narvaez. This was a fight for the biggest title in boxing (arguably in sports) at arguably one of the most famous venues in boxing and the United States. For comparison, many of title fights of Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, and Evander Holyfield have articles (lineal heavyweight champions of the last 20 years). Not to mention, to look at another combat art, all UFC, World Extreme Cagefighting, EliteXC, and Strikeforce events have articles and many of those events didn't include title fights, let alone of their most prestigious title. In addition, you said this article should be upgraded like other articles or deleted. When has that ever been a rule? Many stub articles exist waiting to be improved and the common course of action is to try to make articles better without threatening deletion. RonSigPi (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im not for those articles you mention. I suggest they will be deleted aswell.

If the fight really was that significant, then why is the article so short? I suggest you upgrade the article as the likes of other boxing fight articles David-golota (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every single Formula One race has its own article, as does every single UFC event, and I won't even begin to rattle off the amount of separate sub-articles for NFL seasons and other such sports. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the significant coverage in independent secondary sources, not because boxing is in any way equivalent to MMA or Formula One. It's its own thing, with its own product standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a unification bout of several major titles and therefore significant in the word of boxing for that alone. The length of the article has no bearing on the argument but really the original author could have put a bit more effort to make the notability clear with references that he quickly added to the AfD debate. It is almost impossible to directly compare boxing with UFC or Formula 1 but one would think any title fight for a major belt (clearly defined in WP:NBOX would have a place.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's twice now that my F1/UFC/boxing comparison has been dismissed. How about some reasons?—I'm curious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was saying it is difficult not dismissing but at the very least you are comparing the broad with the specific. Not all motor sport events have their page or all MMA events - and not all boxing fights are the level of the UFC (not all UFC events should have their own page either).

That doesn't answer much. Every single F1 event has an article, likewise every single UFC event. This was indeed a major heavyweight title fight, so what I was originally getting at was that it absolutely deserves an article if the aforementioned sports are to have their own. However, I was not saying that every single title fight needs one. I highly disagreed with Lucian Bute vs. Jean-Paul Mendy having its own article, and even tried to get shot of it, but that went nowhere. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing is a lot of reporting on the results of the fight, but that's routine coverage. Where is the coverage showing this was a significant event that meets WP:NEVENT? Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I see the coverage. Here are a few examples:

[29] - build-up article about the fight (specifically the challenger).
[30] - deeper analysis on the fight that goes beyond the fight result.
The remaining of the above do report the results of the fight, but I think go deeper than routine. Further, they are written by what appear to be writers of the papers in question as opposed to the same Associated Press article.

for other examples not above through a quick Google search:

[31] - a preview of the fight that give historical perspective (note from a paper not of the US or Ukraine).
[32] another preview/historical piece.
[33] - analysis on America's opinion of the champion in anticipation of the fight.
[34] - coverage on a major popular culture website. Its short, but boxing coverage on TMZ is far from routine.

I found all this with minimal effort. If you still don't think this shows coverage that goes beyond routine, then please elaborate because we may have different ideas of what is routine. RonSigPi (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the move, the two main arguments for deletion, a lack of notability and WP:NEO, seem to be applicable at either location, so I'm not going to factor that in. There is some support for the inclusion of the subject but it simply doesn't answer the arguments for deletion. Notability is not self-evident and it's not established in the article or in this discussion, and a case for why WP:NEO would not apply is not made either. Swarm ♠ 06:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lolly salad

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

fails WP:NOT and WP:NEO Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to delete something that is part of our Australian culture? Why do you only allow American culture to proliferate? Please stop trying to obliterate our culture. J Bar (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your single creation edit, the only other edits to this stinker in a year were technical. If it were really "part of our Australian culture" it would have had hundreds of edits, some vandalism, some discussion... you'll have to troll better than that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good redirect target for this? I know that sometimes it's easier to find a redirect target and merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting more hits under just "candy salad" so if this is somehow kept I'd recommend moving it to that title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are varieties of this out there - some of them tend to fall within the notion of a Snickers salad, although the lolly salad in specific seems to only use candy. We might be able to turn this into a general article about candy salads and then mention the Snickers salad in specific, possibly even merge the articles into one beast. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding hits for candy salad with types like this one, so I'm leaning more towards making an all purpose article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now actually unfortunately as my searches found no better sourcing other than some links at browser. Feel free to draft and userfy and restart when better, SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable salad, Unless the Aussies have never heard of a website called Wikipedia then I think we can safely say this isn't really notable ... or even known!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I arrived at the article while doing disambiguation, and I moved it to "Candy salad" based on the content of the article (perhaps not the same as when this AFD started). And I added a bit more. I see above that editor Tokyogirl79 found another reference which I will add. Seems like a perfectly fine stub article on an obviously valid topic. --do ncr am 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia rules state that you should not move a page during a deletion discussion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at Candy Salad. It's a thing notale enough. Makes me wonder if we already have an article under a different name. Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD is an essay, so not a hard rule. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The very likely canvassed IP opinions are discounted. Among the other contributors, consensus is that the notability requirements are met. Sandstein 11:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Jones

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

DELETE The article is a stub after a large amount of primary source material was removed. The article does not meet notability guidelines. The previous AfD discussion had many fans simply stating their desire to see the article kept, rather than making any particular argument based on WP policy. After considerable time and extended discussions there seems to be little prospect of the article improving, and thus it should be deleted. ゼーロ (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Primary source material is perfectly legal in the article about the author of this primary source, and it is to be restored pronto after this AfD closes. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant to this AfD. Primary source material offers no notability nor indication of being WP:DUE. Restoring the information sourced only with primary sources, would be a BLP violation as well as NPOV and NOT. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (declaration of interest - I created the article). The subject is notable and is probably the most prominent video blogger within the electronic engineering community. Much of the removed material amounts to significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources confirming his position - thus WP:GNG is met. He's produced around 800 episodes of his video blog and his youtube channel has more than 283000 subscribers. The discussion forum on his website currently has 747934 posts in 50200 topics by 22702 members. This level of interest and involvement again suggests notability. There's much that could be done to improve the article, including reverting some content removals :-) SmilingFace (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that no one has offered such reliable, secondary, independent sources. So far we've identified only three secondary sources, none of which demonstrate notability. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, none of what you say establishes notability and ample opportunity to provide some sources that do has been given. If you can find any such sources you should add them now. There are many other people on YouTube with large numbers of posts and subscribers, but that alone does not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald refers to him as an expert and says his blog is popular: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/batteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html. He is a judge for the Hackaday prize: https://hackaday.io/prize/judges. When he criticized a product by Microchip they responded with a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YUvlrVlNao and he received a call from their CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91iX5sUXrOo Extech Instruments took note when one of their products won his comparative review: http://www.extech.com/instruments/press.asp?pressid=06072010. Is this not significant independent coverage? SmilingFace (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Those are all primary sources except the Sydney Morning Herald, which is being misrepresented. The Sydney Morning Herald isn't sure what to make of him, calling him an expert, then pointing out his lack of expertise, then relying upon real experts to shore up the he said/she said article. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable amount of coverage in independent sources. (Disclaimer: I am not a "fan" of Jones; I posted some AFDs today, and as a routine I voted in this day as well.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need independent secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources? Please add them to the article. Ample opportunity to find and provide them has been given, and a large number were found to be unsuitable and removed. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was severely decimated by the heated opponents of the blogger, claiming that it was full of primary sources. I disagree with their judgement, but I am not going to restore it. Please see into the article history for themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about you WP:FOC instead, avoid taking on a battleground mentality, and follow WP:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please refrain from assuming bad faith. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the secondary sources listed in the article look good enough to push this past the WP:GNG, in particular a chapter in a dead tree book by Steven Osborn and an in depth interview in "Circuit Cellar", which looks to tick all of the WP:RS boxes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Those are interviews, which are primary sources, not secondary. They do give any notability whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source has been discussed at length on the talk page and ruled out as a good secondary source. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The interviews may not be fine for sourcing any controversial claims made in the interviews, but they are fine for notability. If you get interviewed, the publication has clearly taken notice of you; you're notable. In addition, I'm unhappy with the nominators' actions in deleting perfectly fine additional sources from the article, for example this Sydney Morning Herald article which devotes a non-trivial amount of space to Jones, and the German edition of Make magazine, which covers one of his gadgets; while these wouldn't have been sufficient for notability in themselves, they are certainly helpful. A trouting seems called for. --GRuban (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"but they are fine for notability" Howso? It's certainly not what WP:N says about secondary sources with significant coverage. It's a primary source. Are you thinking about just the introduction? Such introductions are usually provided by the interviewee. The two other sources mentioned are discussed on the talk page, where I pointed out they should be incorporated into the article, even though they add nothing to the notability and one is embarrassingly poor. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. A source decides to devote space to an interview. Clearly that's sufficiently significant attention. They don't interview everyone and their brother. --GRuban (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been interviewed by magazines and even a TV channel for what amounts to hobby stuff. The particular interviews posted as sources have been discussed and rejected as evidence of notability and as reliable sources of information for the article. There has been ample time allowed for better sources to be provided, but none have been. This has all been examined extensively by editors who didn't just pop out of the woodwork at the last moment to object to deletion. ゼーロ (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Our notability criteria is not that of a newspaper interview, hence the need for WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. Interviews are primary sources. Do we agree on that? WP:N requires significant coverage in a secondary source. The only thing that anyone could assert as being secondary is the introduction, but we know such introductions are often provided by the interviewee. --Ronz (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Does not meet Wikipedia requirement for BLP. I admire Dave, but this simply does not meet the quality requirment. It has been debated for quite a while now. Need to remove based on the policy. An interview is NOT sigificant attention and does not meet WP:BLP requirement. Dave's fan boys, please check the policy first before voting. 32.213.188.105 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 32.213.188.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Most all of the "keep" votes so far have failed to address the issues discussed at length, or establish notability. Might I suggest that unless they can produce NEW sources that have not already been rejected that they be disregarded. The whole reason for having another AfD is that the previous AfD did not reach a consensus, a bunch of fans merely piled in with support but no actual contributions or useful improvement of the article. Wikipedia is no a democracy or a popularity contest, for the article to stay it must be of reasonable quality and meet notability guidelines. ゼーロ (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Vote for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia WP:BLP guidelines. None of the sources cited meet notability guidelines. 4.26.51.74 (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.26.51.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jeh (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This has been done to death, it fails on multiple fronts and there appears to be zero prospect of it ever meeting the minimum standard for notability or sources. I'd add that it used to read more like an advert for Mr. Jones' than anything else, like one of those paid editorials in a magazine. 86.2.115.144 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.2.115.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Agreed. There are emotions and there are facts. In this case the facts are simply not there. If you take a look at the history of the discussion you will see that the "KEEP" camp had tried hard to find support information over the last year and each time either the sources they cited were ekither weak or not reliable and would be stretch to count as secondary sources. We must put our personal emotions aside and let the rules speak for themselves. This entry needs to be deleted I order to maintain Wikipedia's standard.2600:1000:B106:6CF1:0:17:9713:4A01 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 2600:1000:B106:6CF1:0:17:9713:4A01 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First: The article version that should be considered is this one, before the most recent stubbing.

Detractors have used "BLP" (just that, without much further elaboration) to defend stubbing the article, but the primary purpose of WP:BLP is simply to ensure rock-solid sourcing for any material that could be construed as negative or controversial. There is no such material here. Yes, BLP does allow immediate removal in some cases: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", but no claim was ever made that the material removed was in any way contentious.

Primary sources: Many of the sources were removed for being primary, but nothing anywhere says that WP:PRIMARY sources cannot be used at all; only that they should not be misused, i.e. no OR: WP editors should not draw conclusions from them. But quoting a claimed fact as a simple statement of claimed fact shouldn't require a third party to have opined about it. For example, one deleted source is an independent-of-YouTube web site that provided view counts, subscriber counts, etc. for Jones' YouTube videos. This was deleted as being "primary". Why do we need a secondary source for such a matter-of-fact statistic? Information about Jones' participation in a couple of different events, obtained from the events' sites, was also deemed "primary" and therefore removed, because they were "primary sources about the event". Again, the only attempted use was as simple statements of fact. If the primary source was not being misused then it should not have been removed.

Several other points in the article were removed on the claim of their not being "notable", or as not contributing to "notability", despite at least two cites by me of WP:N, which clearly states that the notability rules do not apply to article content, only to article topics. Not everything in an article has to be independently notable.

Attempts to discuss any of these points were met with "argument by vigorous assertion" and even a "do not edit" edict to me.

Re WP:N. Considering the article in its pre-stubbing state, the General notability guideline has been cited often. Let's take it point by point:

"Significant coverage" is met by the two interviews. A book chapter is significant. So is a very lengthy interview in a highly regarded magazine in the field. (The claim has been made that interviews are primary sources; I'll get to that. But that's an independent requirement. They're still "significant coverage".)
"Reliable" asks for "editorial integrity". This too is covered by the editorial staff of the publishers (Circuit Cellar magazine and the book publisher).
"Sources should be secondary sources" - here is the biggest problem. I hold that while an interview is most definitely a primary source for statements made by the interviewee—they're direct quotes, after all—the fact that an extensive interview exists at all is evidence that the interview publisher considered the subject notable. Besides, this "requirement" is rather soft. It says "should be", not "must be". I'll revisit that point in a moment.
"Independent of the subject" - this requirement is met as neither interview was produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This item also provides a list of examples of things that are not considered independent; "interviews" are not in that list.
"Presumed" - Nobody has cited any problem with the points here.

Conclusion re WP:N: Even if we agree that the interviews are primary sources, "should be" is not how one introduces an absolute requirement. In fact, the entire WP:N page (along with WP:PEOPLE) is not an absolute requirement. Like they say at the top: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emph. added)

I maintain that someone who has created hundreds of hours of video content (those 800+ videos? Most of them are around an hour long), is able to make a living from YouTube vblogging and related activities, has been the subject of two different extensive interviews in publications that meet WP's all of the WP:N criteria except the encouragement of "secondary", has attracted notice and generated public responses from several different electronics equipment manufacturers (including from the "Tektronix experts" at Tektronix, something I only found recently but didn't bother adding because I'm sure it would just be immediately reverted; if you're not in the field you have simply no clue as to how significant Tektronix is)... combined with all the other so-claimed "insignificant", "poor", "primary", etc., items recently deleted... is notable. Even if there have not been two largish non-interviews published about him.

(I suppose replies are going to show up here claiming we can't use the YouTube statistics, etc., because they're not "notable". Or they're "secondary". These miss the point.)

I suggest that not only should the article be kept, but that it be restored to its pre-stubbing state, and notice given thereby that the article in that state is acceptable. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC.

"Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is what we need to demonstrate notability. Interviews fail that criteria. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find much of the material listed before the stubbing contentious. It's biased, and doesn't mention any of the negative aspects of his work, effectively white-washing. It fails to meet the standards of a WP article on many levels, already extensively discussed. Now is a bit late to start making this argument, given that there has been ample time to improve the article. ゼーロ (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "negative aspects of his work"? I'm not denying that some might exist, but your claim assumes facts not in evidence. At no time I'm aware of were any negative comments about Jones added to the article and then removed. Examples, please? (And of course you'll have sources?) Jeh (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide examples from his videos, but I don't have any good sources. At least, none better than the mere fact that they exist in his videos and some people have publicly complained about them, which I'm arguing is not sufficient. Nice try though, trying to get me to contradict my own argument. ゼーロ (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether or not the article should be deleted. Let's not get distracted. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm only pointing out the weakness in using anything on YouTube as a source. It requires interpretation, which is unacceptable. ゼーロ (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything requires interpretation. A statement that person x on youtube video n said "blah" doesn't require interpretation if it's an exact quote. Similarly for the YouTube statistics. To hear you and Ronz tell it you'd need a secondary source for the statement that there are 12 inches in a foot. Jeh (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"there are 12 inches in a foot" I guess FOC is too much to ask. It's also irrelevant to the AfD discussion and disruptive. I do appreciate the irony of accusing me of not understanding the policy that covers identification and use of primary sources WP:PSTS, which also includes WP:CALC. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything I've said rises to the level of "attack" (as claimed in Ronz's edit comment), particularly since it's clearly hyperbole (you don't really think that I think you'd insist on a primary source for "12 inches in a foot", right?). But when an editor insists on removing content on flimsy bases like "it's primary" (there is no absolute rule against primary sources, only against misusing them) then that editors' rationale and subsequent actions are quite relevant to FOC.

Meanwhile, still waiting for justification of ゼーロ's "contentious" claim. Since that would require negative comments about Jones, and those are judgments, good secondary sources would indeed be required. Seeing none... Jeh (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"still waiting..." ゼーロ shouldn't be responding here, as it is irrelevant to this deletion discussion and just disrupts it further.--Ronz (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ゼーロ brought up the claims of "contentious", "biased", "white-washing" as a reply to my !vote. May I suggest that you don't WP:OWN this discussion any more than you do the subject article? So please stop trying to moderate it?. Even if such a role existed, the fact that you are a strong proponent for deletion would disqualify you from it. Re your point: if desired, ゼーロ could add material supporting those claims to the article, if it can be secondary-sourced. And that's what I'm "still waiting" for. Of course, then the article would be less biased in ゼーロ's view, so presumably it would be more acceptable to ゼーロ. Hmm. Jeh (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show this person meets the notability criteria. Interviews, being primary sources, and do not count towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search for "David Jones EEVblog" indicates that Jones is well-known and a high-profile voice in the maker and electronic engineering community. Recognition by respected equipment maker Tektronix indicates industry credibility. Stats for EEVBlog indicate a sizable audience (285,000 subscribers; 2 million views over last 30 days, over 900 videos uploaded over five years) - billed as the world's biggest EE blog. Jones' Linkedin profile] lists employers for a 25-year career as an electronic design engineer. There is a lot of information online from sources of varying reference quality; coverage in larger media indicate Jones involvement in a range of issues, and credibility in his field:

Prototype to Product: A Practical Guide for Getting to Market (O'Reilly Media) - "...great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones EEVBlog..."[35]
Electronics News - Jones quoted on relocation of (his former employer) Altium to China [36]
International Business Times - coverage regarding YouTube spamming of EEVBlog [37]
Circuit Cellar - Jones interview; from the intro: "Dave Jones ... The Sydney, Australia-based engineer’s video blog (EEVblog) and podcast (The Amp Hour, which he co-hosts with Chris Gammell) are quickly becoming must-subscribe feeds for plugged-in inquisitive electronics enthusiasts around the world." [38]
Sydney Morning Herald - controversy around Jones/EEVBlog critique of a new electronics product[39]
ZDNet - EEVBlog mentioned and episode used in how-to article[40]

Certainly, it's clear that Jones is a notable individual, and, while not in abundance, enough reliable secondary source material exists to support this. In addition, given Jones' ongoing activities, there is every reason to expect that new sources will continue to appear in future. Can't see how this could be seen as failing to meet WP:GNG. --Tsavage (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AFD notes that !votes should "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." This guideline is not met by the vast majority of "delete" comments here. "BLP" is cited often but no cites have ever been given (not here, not on the article talk page) of contentious or even non-neutral material in the article that was not referenced to a source (before the article was stubbed, that is). Primary sources were claimed as violating BLP but not even BLP has a blanket restriction on use of primary sources, only against their misuse; nor have there been any cites of specific misuses of primary sources (only "that's primary, you can't use it"). (The prime example being when Ronz simply deleted all such points in the article, with a lone "BLP" in the edit summary.) One SPA IP mentions "the quality requirement" but does not cite any specific WP P or G that defines such. Another refers vaguely to "Wikipedia's standard". In at least one case it was claimed that sources were e.g. "found to be unsuitable" but this "finding" was simply "argument by vigorous assertion" of the delete camp on the article talk page. In sum, I suggest that the "delete" comments here are not presenting anything like a strong case per WP:AFD; most of them amount to arm-waving and rock-throwing (rocks with "BLP" painted on them). Jeh (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LocalVox Media

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

Seo marketing company, fails WP:CORP Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable; only sources that can be found are about venture capital and press releases, which every run-of-the-mill company receives. Esquivalience ^t 18:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/speedy delete as a hoax. If anyone can provide a reliable source that shows that this tribe exists, I'll restore it and send it back to AfD, but a search brings up zero sources. I am aware that there may be a language barrier, but if the tribe existed there would be some sort of English language record of the tribe. That the only "source" goes to a Facebook page with an image of laughing teenagers isn't particularly convincing either and gives off the strong impression that this is something that a couple of kids came up with one day as a lark. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badoreon heritage

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

A lot of issues, nominate for discussing. 333 -blue 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single source even establishing the existence of this tribe. In fact Googling "Badoreon Tribe" returns a whopping one result -- Wikipedia. There are bits of the article that honestly seem a bit hoax-ey but what's for certain is that absolutely none of the article is verifiable. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete No legitimate hits; sounds like a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3. This definitively and definitely is a hoax. None of the records of colonialization mention them. Islam didn't reach the interior that far south until much later; a host of other issues scream hoax. --Bejnar (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Care College

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

Not notable. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. This was dePRODDED about three years ago on the assumption that the institution was accredited. But I found no mention of accreditation on their web site and the name of the institution does not appear on a list of accredited Australian universities (that list is here). Furthermore, the article does not evince the depth of coverage and independence of sources that are called for under WP:ORG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the claim of accreditation is (I think) based on this college being a registered training organisation, according to this page on their website. That said, I'm not sure that simply being one of thousands of RTOs is sufficient grounds for notability, and I'm not finding other coverage that would push them past the WP:GNG. As an aside, I'd caution User:NewYorkActuary not to rely too much on the list that they're using, as based on the list of Queensland colleges it looks to be quite out of date (ie: Cooloola Sunshine has been Sunshine Coast TAFE for years now). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@User:Lankiveil Thanks for the alert. I'll look into finding an up-to-date list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Center for Massage Therapy

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

Promotional. Not notable. Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability is stated. There is no substantive independent coverage, much less significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Benjar. Nothing in searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 06:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bordeaux

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

Article about artist which does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. References provided are not enough to establish notability as they are either links to interviews with a blogger which are not reliable nor an indication of notability. My searches have found mentions of a Jane Bordeaux but nothing to make me think it may even be the same person and nothing to support notability - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Jane Bordeaux also acted under the name of Cecilia Conn. She played in many episodes of Star Trek and over 40 episodes of Gideon's Crossing. She has crossed over into music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madegray (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proof is required for a statement like that, however searches only show non reliable sources like Memory Alpha which mention this piece of trivia and even then it's only as an extra. She has never been credited with her appearances in the show. So once again nothing to indicate notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on IMDB Jane Bordeaux proving that Jane Bordeaux clearly has over 3 actress credits. As there is much text and many photos of Jane Bordeaux in the film Phone Booth, acting on the television show Felicity and more verifiable information. Click the "See more" section on her acting profile to see more verifiable credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusiclover1 (talk 4:43 PST, 7 October 2015 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.133.164 (talk)

IMDB is not a reliable source since anyone can add information there. The information there still says that all appearances are uncredited, which means finding a verifiable reliable source acceptable to Wikipedia will be very difficult if not impossible. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on IMDB Jane Bordeaux proving that Jane Bordeaux clearly has over (3) ACTRESS credits uncredited or not, they are indeed verified and verifiable "actress credits". The actress credit information is "verified" before being added to IMDB. As there is also much text and many photos of Jane Bordeaux in the film Phone Booth, acting on the television show Felicity and additional verifiable "actress" information. Click the "See more" section on her acting profile to see more verified credits. Not just "anyone" can add information to an actresses IMDB page, that comment is factually incorrect. Furthermore, Jane Bordeaux did not film herself and many photos of Jane Bordeaux acting in films such as "Phone Booth" and on television shows such as "Felicity" are verifiable and referenced. Also, many of Jane Bordeaux's acting credits are uncreadited and also no longer viewable only because she acted under the name a.k.a. "Cecilia Jane Conn" but now acts under the name "Jane Bordeaux" and many of her previous acting credits were mistakenly and accidentally deleted when she changed her name. It is extremely notable that Jane Bordeaux was the first female musician featured on magazine publication, Mafia Magazine's Nov Issue October November 2014. Reference, Be 100 Radio, 4 November 2014, retrieved 2 September 2015. The actress/ singer, Jane Bordeaux has over 90,000+ online "fans" following her online according to Reverbnation.com. I might also add, since you stated you were confused if the Jane Bordeaux referenced is the real authentic Jane Bordeaux refer to the photo of Jane Bordeaux with Robin Thicke on her Reverbnation artist page for your reference. Additionally, it is extremely notable that Jane Bordeaux was "VERIFIED" as a celebrity "PUBLIC FIGURE" by Facebook notice the blue and white "VERIFIED" check mark next to her name. This page should not be deleted for all of these valid verifiable reasons.

1.) SOURCE ^[1]

2.) SOURCE ^[2]

3.) SOURCE ^[3]

4.) SOURCE ^[4]

5.) ^[5]

6.) SOURCE ^[6] STAR TREK IMDB "Jane Bordeaux" is listed as a full "cast" member.

7.) SOURCE ^[7] FILM "The First Twenty Million" "Jane Bordeaux" is listed as a full "cast" member

8.) SOURCE ^[8] Jane Bordeaux was interviewed by Garth Sandiford who is "verified" as interviewing well known notable celebrities including "public figures" Interview date (December 6, 2012) "Inside The Life of Jane Bordeaux" - Chattin In Manhattan Radio Talk Show, 'Discovering your Inner Rock Star!'.

9.) SOURCE ^[9]

10.) SOURCE ^[10] Jane Bordeaux's celebrity interview is featured on page "5" of the Chattin In Manhattan Radio Talk Show official site directly next to an interview Garth Sandiford did with celebrity "Todd Hoffman" of "Discovery Channel’s Gold Rush".

11.) SOURCE ^[11]

12.) SOURCE ^[12]

Please read through the following items to help you understand, WP:RS, WP:RS/IMDB, WP:CITINGIMDB. None of the links you provided are acceptable to establish notability for Wikipedia WP:N. She does not meet WP:MUSBIO, WP:NACTOR (Please note the criteria is significant role which means at the very least credited) or WP:GNG. Maybe one day she will be notable, but at this point she does not.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - here's a summary of the sources provided in the article: a homemade wiki, a single magazine cover, and a blog. In addition, someone has added three uncredited roles to imdb - also not a reliable source, as has been mentioned. The editor defending this article as a keep created their account 7 days ago and has primarily been occupied with editing this one article. Without any reliable sources mentioning the subject, it's not even close to meeting notability guidelines. Rockypedia (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, the latter which says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (which is the only one of the three which has a snowball's chance of being used to justify an article). Last time I checked, "stand-in" and uncredited roles are not significant, which leaves her with a total of zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, and as per rationale by @Rockypedia. Quis separabit? 02:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sacgin G Lokapure

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

Non-notable person. An inventor of a single device that received some local press, and a scholar of little impact. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

person is notable having 27 design patent on his name and founded SAGLO Research Equipments please see the patent citation and webs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.54.118 (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he is notable person plz see the reference and plz do not remove any matter and plz accept article SACHIN G lokapure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.54.118 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, person is notable plsease see indian patent or search on google page as Sachin g lokapures patent, Keep per the significant coverage of patent please see indian patent http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/journal_archieve/journal_2015/pat_arch_022015/official_journal_06022015_part_ii(Design).pdf and many more please search on google site keep it i found notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.13.130 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable person. An inventor with many device see press reports, .Raju Vernekar. The Afternoon Despatch & Courier News paper, Mumbai. 1 July 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.13.130 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is apparently a repost of Sachin G Lokapure that was salted after multiple attempts to recreate. (See prior AFD). Tagged for speedy deletion ({{db-repost}}). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Sachin G Lokapure is notable plz read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.13.130 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ikiDan61|WikiDan61 do u have any brain plz see notable sign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.13.130 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — 117.222.13.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Note that the db-repost template was removed from the article by the same IP editor making such an impassioned (but non-policy-based) argument here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 you dont have any brain your brain less person u cant see notability and unknowningly delet page same done on SACHIn G lokapure page do u have any brain hope less person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.13.130 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @117.222.13.130: Please do not engage in personal attacks. If you can cite reliable sources that indicate that Lokapure has received significant coverage (and not just received some patents), then please do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Founded a small company, has a few patents, but no encyclopedic notatibility yet. Unless we can use WP:ENT for having a "cult following" - just kidding, because it is not a significant one. Scr★pIron^IV 19:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable person. An inventor with many device see press reports, .Raju Vernekar. The Afternoon Despatch & Courier News paper, Mumbai. 1 July 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiv122412121 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the repost-speedy tag. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offbeat South

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

per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources 1 ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 14:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually reviewed this in May 2012 and tagged it and it has not changed since then with my searches only finding primary sources and even the current information is simply not enough (very much a A7). SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not show enough to meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IceFileSystem

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

No third-party sources in the article, and none that I found. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also unable to find sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An academic file system introduced in a paper in 2014 and cited in two papers in 2015. It is two soon to tell if it will have an impact on operating system research. StarryGrandma (talk)
Delete as there's no better sourcing to suggest better aside from some browser links I found. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This just isn't really notable. An interested user could shift the contents into 'draft' form, I suppose. Otherwise, it ought to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NPAPI#XPConnect. (Nom withdrawn - Not sure if closing this would bugger the redirect up so had undone the redirect and then closing this should restore the redirect .... I know it's an arse sorry!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XPConnect

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

Merged into NPAPI, as proposed. Replace with redirect? /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 09:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Replacing with redirect. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 10:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NPAPI#LiveConnect. (Nom withdrawn - Not sure if closing this would bugger the redirect up so had undone the redirect and then closing this should restore the redirect .... I know it's an arse sorry!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LiveConnect

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

Article content merged into NPAPI as proposed. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 09:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Replacing with redirect, as above. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 10:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fotis Bazakos

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

Fails WP:GNG as the subject of the article hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league or at international level. Hack (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article has refereed in Major League Soccer, a professional league and hence the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which point of WP:NFOOTY does it meet? Hack (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople who have played, managed, or officiated at a professional match. Look around and you will see that most referees who officiate in professional leagues have articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:NFOOTY actually says. Also refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hack (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that way until Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_98#Referee_notability anyways. Still seems notable to me, probably need some one from that WikiProject to clear things up. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look here as well, he has a profile on Professional Referee Organization, which by its namesake I would assume to be professional. A good but not certain indication of notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no agreed notability standards for referees, though international ones probably are notable. This guy fails WP:GNG and that's what matters most. Giant Snowman 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFOOTY DOES NOT APPLY. It covers players, but not referees, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of GNG. WP:NFOOTY does not apply as he is a referee not a player. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 19:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sandlot Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Granny (series)

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

Non-notable computer game. Originally, substantially an alleged and probable copyright violation. With the copying removed, there is nothing left. No serious reputable sources. Probably appropriate for some wiki site, but not a subject that others have written about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sandlot Games, which houses the series. Not much in a video game reliable sources custom Google search apart from the Gamezebo reviews. With those reviews, the topic can be adequately covered in the developer's article. czar 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I couldn't really find much for this. There were the reviews on the article and a brief mention in an academic book, but the book mention was more about the company than the game itself. If anyone can find more reviews then that'd be great, otherwise this will end up as a redirect on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thomas Fletcher III

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

Not notable person. No independent RS coverage. Sealle (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as not only is the current version unsourced and unacceptable, my searches simply found passing mentions for his business at Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely not-notable. Searches show he exists. That's all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cristiano Ronaldo hat-tricks

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

Listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS... JMHamo (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following related discussions:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author of this article, I feel its my responsibility to talk about the need of this one .Cristiano Ronaldo is one of the best football players of this Era,and this is one of his notable records, Many a football sites have listed it as specific section but not any have taken the extra step to classify and organise all his hat-tricks till now into a single page .There are tons of football enthusiasts who will be interested in following such trivias and stats, even after many years, this would be important for football fans. I hope you keep this article for their sake. Issu4ever 10:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Issu4ever: It's interesting that he has scored 35 hat tricks in his career, I agree. I strongly disagree with the need for an entire article providing details of each of these hat tricks. This should be nothing more than a sentence on the main Cristiano Ronaldo page. Spiderone 09:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: I have seen many other similar lists active in wikipedia regarding football stats, so I cant see why this one can also be considered. Ronaldo is definitely one among two most popular football player of this generation. More over, the page is getting reasonably good views and once the google listing gets higher, it will become one of the most interesting stats data for the football fans around the world (just like me -I was inspired to do this because of the non-availability of such a complete list anywhere in the internet world). Issu4ever 08:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable topic. Giant Snowman 17:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure listcruft Spiderone 17:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable achievement by a notable person. This has a clear inclusion criteria and has potentional to become a Featured List (compare with List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks, for example). People are mis-understanding what cruft is. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define exactly how it is notable please? Would an article on Messi and Suarez hat-tricks be notable too? Where do you draw the line? Spiderone 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already have in my opening lines. I don't know who those other people are that you speak of, so I can't comment. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what is wrong with just stating how many hat tricks he has scored in the main article? Why is there a need for specific details of each hat trick scored? Spiderone 09:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In a few years time nobody will care. Zezen (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent and well thought out rationale. Well done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hat-tricks in football are not significantly notable an achievement for a list. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recent AfD outcomes here and here indicate that even at international level such lists are not necessarily notable on their own. Difficult to see how one that includes domestic goals could be notable. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a list of all Ronaldo's goals, though, it's a list of all his hat-tricks....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point though, if international goals are not inherently notable for an individual, what reasons have been put forward that domestic hat tricks are? Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference in scope between an article which is just a laundry list of every single goal scored by a player and an article which is a list of hat-tricks, which is a specific achievement -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records for a prolific player like Ronaldo has encyclopedic value. I wouldn't be necessarily for having a hat-trick article for every single notable player, but for arguably one of the most notable players of our generation, a dedicated article on his hat-tricks seems appropriate. -- R45 ^talk! 16:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's "Notstats", but Ronaldo's scoring of hat-tricks is well-documented because it is an exception to the rule how frequently he scores them. Example of documentation: [41]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting info but it's just a list and not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very noteworthy soccer player. This is a pretty close one for me, but I think this is a keeper. (No Pun Intended) ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he is a notable player. How does this make his individual hat tricks notable? Spiderone 10:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's list-cruft. The hat-tricks aren't notable by themselves. Merge any relevant info into parent articles. --Jimbo^[online] 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is a very nice essay. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Lugnuts and R45.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not going to get into the debate of whether or not hat-tricks are notable, or whether a domestic hat-trick is more or less notable than an international goal, because soccer is not my area of expertise. I can only really form a judgement based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which I'm well aware is an essay and not a policy). The most significant thing in my view is that a "list of hat-tricks" table does not appear to be a common feature of a player's personal page; most major players seem to have a "List of International Goals" table within their career statistics section, and the existing "List of international goals scored by..." articles are all valid SPINOUTs for whenever that table gets too long; but "list of hat-tricks" is not a common feature of a player's page, so that makes this article is an entirely new statistical list, not a SPINOUT of common content. Additionally, from what I can tell by looking through the article's categories, there seems to be no other player who currently has a personal "list of hat-tricks" article. If I put those observations together, then I would say that in the context of current content norms for soccer players, this article should be deleted. (If you want to change the norms and add "list of hat-tricks" tables to all player articles and spin out the larger ones, I'd support that alternative as well. But as things stand today I vote for deletion). Aspirex (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. I think man of the match is similar. Yes, it is a great achievement to be man of the match but I'm sure that absolutely everyone here would agree that to have an article called List of Cristiano Ronaldo man of the match awards would be ridiculous. The same thing can be said for hat-tricks; yes it's a great achievement but there's absolutely no need to dedicate an article to it and it is just stats for the sake of stats. I see no reason why this list can't be deleted and then just replaced in the article with something like "Ronaldo has scored 35 hat tricks in his career". Spiderone 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a prety poor arguement to say "well there's nothing else like this, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, lets delete it!" On the same rationale as just mentioning it in the main article, we could say on the Scotland national team article that "29 players have scored hat-tricks" and delete the Featured Article that is List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between hat-tricks being scored by a team and hat-tricks being scored by an individual. Spiderone 11:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to point it out to you, but the Scottish hat-tricks are all by individuals and not a team... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there? Many of the delete votes have said that hatricks aren't notable, so on that rationale we should be nominating List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks. The delete votes above aren't distinguishing team hatricks from individual hatricks (also, that doesn't entirely make sense as a hatrick is scored by an individual - it is more of an individual accomplishment than a team accomplishment). Frankly I think this issue should be discussed on WP:FOOTBALL to set a specific manual style criteria for hatricks, because there are rational arguments on both sides of the coin. -- R45 ^talk! 13:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fancruft. Can't think of any reason why this is notable enough for an article of its own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Spiderone and Aspirex. Featured content can lose its status and there's no policy stating that it can't be deleted. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not demonstrated independent notability. Also for the reasons expressed by editors Spiderone and Aspirex above. --Bejnar (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Westin Langkawi Resort & Spa

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

While this seems like a rather nice place to visit, with their link to charity being laudable, this resort just doesn't appear notable. They've not really picked up the kind of reliable source coverage that we need, and the article's current sourcing is rather poor. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this simply sounds excellent but there's nothing to suggest better improvement despite searches full of links at Books, News and highbeam. This would be best mentioned elsewhere for now and I would've even suggested Langkawi's article but only if this had had local and historic significance. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Okay, I wanna go. But not notable. I'd say transwiki to wikivoyage, but don't know which location would fit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. IP comments discounted. Sandstein 10:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Landi

– (View AfD · Stats)

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

MMA fighter with only two top tier fights, both losses. Fails WP:NMMA. Article was deleted last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Landi-Jons. Since then he's had one fight--a loss in a very minor organization.Jakejr (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep considered to be a top 10 black mma fighter. Fought twice in Pride. Defeated 3 champions.173.52.89.236 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as an MMA fighter. Only two top tier fights with no wins fails WP:NMMA. Coverage does not meet GNG and I don't see anything that makes him more notable than when the article was previously deleted. Notability is not gained from who he fought (WP:NOTINHERITED). Astudent0 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known black mma fighter. Top 10 fighter in history2607:FB90:E9A:510D:0:48:EBBF:E701 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how he's among the top 10 in history when he's never won a fight in a top tier organization. Where is the reliable independent evidence of this ranking? New IPs present no sources to support notability claim. Astudent0 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was a top 10 black fighter in history. [42]. He was also ranked number one for lightweight fighters. [43] 173.52.89.236 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He fought twice in Pride. He also defeated Pat Miletich when Pat was the current UFC Welterweight titleholder. [44] . Chuck Liddell describes him as a legend [45], another book describes him as well regarded [46]. Matt Hughes wrote about his loss to him in the book. [47] In 1999, he was ranked as the number 1 light weight fighter in NHB/MMA. [48] . He certainly passes GNG. 173.52.89.236 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating their own MMA notability criteria can't change the fact that Landi never won a fight in a top tier organization (although he lost two) and fails the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. Routine sports coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG and coverage of a running feud with his coach doesn't show notability.Jakejr (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakejr, top 10 ranked fighter isn't notable? [49] CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I don't have an opinion on this yet, but why is it so important that he didn't win any of those fights? I would think that merely participating in these high end fights would be notable enough. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NMMA is does not matter if he wins or looses but the number (3) does. Still if he won 2 one could say close enough and be a bit more forgiving. As it stands he was given two chances and didn't come close. The number 3 for top tier fights was chosen by long term consensus since what was looked for was staying power at the highest level. Those with a loosing record for the first two fights rarely get another chance.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He can't inherit notability from his opponents and the top 10 ranking wasn't an overall ranking. If he was among the best ever it seems like he could have won a top tier fight or gotten more than two of them.Mdtemp (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many independent articles about individual . 2607:FB90:246A:83B:0:24:F72F:A901 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. Unlike all the new IPs, I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The sources are either routine sports reporting or deal with the feud he had with his coach--which would seem to fall more under WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing added to change my opinion with the previous AfD. Does not meet WPNMMA.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 09:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Tichy

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

a non notable article. Arifjwadder (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a revenge nomination for which the nominator should be trouted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arifjwadder: even if you thought previously that the article failed GNG (and you failed to do WP:BEFORE to do a simple google search), the article now contains multiple book reviews from the NYT and other national publications and easily demonstrates WP:AUTHOR. Please withdraw your nomination. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this easily seems acceptable. Pinging past user Andy Dingley for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (with a POV opinion of delete). If a management guru wants a self-promotional article, then they should have a better one written that makes a better case. As it stands, I find it unconvincing. I'm not already convinced that this is a delete either, but I sure wouldn't miss it if it went. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This position is based on what I see in the article, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. If this person's notability derives from being a "management guru", can someone point me to other articles for which the subject's chief 'claim to fame' is management guru-ism? And if notability derives from being an author, can anybody tell me how an author can be notable without having written any books that are notable? Just to be clear -- I'm not being sarcastic here. I am genuinely willing to consider any answers to these questions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @NewYorkActuary: the claim is for notability under WP:AUTHOR with several NYT reviews and other national publication reviews.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. When you cite to WP:AUTHOR, I presume you are citing either to criterion (3) (has created "significant or well-known work") or criterion 4(c) (has created work that "has won significant critical attention"). Either way, I don't see either of those criteria being met here. It is certainly true that his work has been reviewed in major newspapers, etc. But the business sections of newspapers routinely review recently-issued business books, just like their "weekend" sections routinely review recently-released films. Just like music-related magazines routinely review recently-released albums. Just like science-fiction magazines routinely review recently-issued science-fiction books. Just like ... I suppose I could go on and on with examples. My point here is that such routine coverage does not bestow any measure of significance on either the book or the author. And I don't see any significance being bestowed by anything else in the article. Thanks again for your response, but my position remains "delete". NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must be surely be disappointed in a lot of AFDs, then, where even local paper reviews are considered sufficient coverage for NOTABLE! closures.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR. Was any due diligence performed here? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - searches turned up enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete cannot see any merit for a standalone article. There are thousands of writers in the world and Wikipedia cannot have article on each of them. Thanks.EyThink (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC) sock puppet of the sock master who made this revenge nomination -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a revenge nomination by Arifjwadder, whose many forks on non-notable subtopics related to Aligarh Muslim University have been merged-redirectd by TRPoD. EyThink's "strong delete" vote should be counted similarly as these both editors have been dedicatedly only forking content and creating non-notable articles since few weeks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems You and TRPoD both are working handy against Aligarh Muslim University. It has to be inquired why you both work in the same article. Both of you dedicate a lot of time in Aligarh Muslim University. Any COI.. ??? Arifjwadder (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pro Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your and TRPoD behavior are almost same!!!! Arifjwadder (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing NAUTHOR for multiple reviewed publications. Also, co-pioneer of Multidisciplinary Action Projects which is described as "pioneering experiential programs in business education"ref. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR needs rather more than "multiple reviewed publications". Even "multiple peer-reviewed publications" isn't enough to cut it for academics. Certainly for trade press books it is very easy to generate a published review, this only conveys notability if the review, reviewer or location it's published in also carry some weight. A single review in the TLS would swing it, any number of paid-fors in the back columns of Paperclips Monthly won't. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Arifjwadder, User:EyThink have been indef blocked for socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifjwadder/Archive. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; nom is obviously being disruptive. This author has been cited almost 12500 times. He deserves major trouting! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, article sources also reflects this. ps. I am open to being trouted (or minnowed)Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) 09:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharada english high school, kalyan.

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

Unremarkable school. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sharada English High School. This isn't much of an article, but high schools are generally considered notable enough to warrant articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the words "high school" in the title, the school does not appear to be a high school in the sense understood in countries such as the USA and the UK. It caters for children "from playschool to std VIII": standard VIII covers children aged 12. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect or delete in light of new information indicating that the subject is not a secondary school. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article has been moved to Sharada English High School, to correct title grammar. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the words "high school" in the title, the school does not appear to be a secondary school: see my comment above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it seems to be Standard VIII, but that increases by one every year and is intended to go right up to Standard XII. I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points in favour of this. --Rubbish computer 14:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technically they won't be a high school until next year. But do we honestly believe that if we delete or redirect this now, the article they will create seven months hence will be any better? Keep, in the spirit of the last bullet in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as a high school reasonably expected "to be opened within 12 months." Worldbruce (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft space, Draft:Practopoiesis. Consensus, to the extent we have any, is that this isn't ready for article space in this form or with that title, but that editorial solutions might exist, such as repurposing this as a biography of the proponent, or merging content into related articles. This needs additional expert discussion. Sandstein 10:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practopoiesis

AfDs for this article:

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

The only source cited is one of the main authors of the article itself. No evidence of significance of this term. Previously deleted for precisely the same problems. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy - There are some references out there, such as this, this, this (although you have to buy he abstract), this (although this organization seems to be somehow affiliated with the creator of this concept), and this. News returned 3 other sources, but they were all by the creator of this concept, Danko Nikolic. Not quite notable enough yet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969, the 2010 IEET link you gave[50] was 'incorrect'... but not your fault... after fighting with their terrible IEET website (which has also totally confused scholar.google.com methinks is worth noting), it turns out that the first actual coverage of practopoiesis by IEET was in September 2014 (not 2010 nor 2015 as the search engines sometimes imply),[51] an hour-long interview of Danko Nikolić by the IEET staffer[52] named Nikola Danaylov, who seems to be a reasonably-legit blogger-journalist-person, and unrelated to aka independent of Danko Nikolić. Later circa July 2015,[53] the same Danko Nikolić began writing guest-posts on the IEET website (3 articles plus 2 videos so far), but Danko Nikolić is not listed as a staffer.[54] I don't know whether the Institute_for_Ethics_and_Emerging_Technologies counts as a WP:RS-publisher in this case -- the Danaylov piece was posted in the IEET.org website and not in their edgy-but-peer-reviewed Journal of Evolution and Technology -- or for that matter whether Danaylov is famous enough as a blogger to be an exception to WP:BLOGS (he was called the 'Larry King of the singularity' by some prof once). But IEET is independent, definitely. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might be worth moving contents to a subsection of a newly-created BLP-article called Draft:Danko Nikolić. Author has some not too shabby cite-counts,[55] and has published in several of the List_of_biology_journals#Neuroscience bluelinks.

dozen papers 2006-2011 with 42+ cites, was co-author#2 of 2007 paper with 669 cites.

_61 cites, 2006. #6/6, neuronal synchronization (Biederlack Castelo-Branco Neuenschwander Wheeler Singer Nikolic) Neuron_(journal)

_55 cites, 2007. #1/3, synaesthetic experience (Nikolic Lichti Singer) Psychological Science

115 cites, 2007. #3/6, neural substrates (Mayer Bittner Nikolic Bledowski Goebel Linden) Neuroimage

669 cites, 2007. #2/3, The gamma cycle (Fries Nikolic Singer). Trends in Neurosciences

_60 cites, 2008. #4/4, joint-spike events (Pipa Wheeler Singer Nikolić) Journal of Computational Neuroscience

211 cites, 2008. #4/4, neuronal synchrony (Yu Huang Singer Nikolić) Cerebral_Cortex_(journal)

307 cites, 2008. #3/4, synchrony in cortical networks (Uhlhaas Haenschel Nikolić Singer) Schizophrenia Bulletin

_62 cites, 2009. #1/4, primary visual cortex (Nikolić Häusler Singer Maass) PLoS Biology

328 cites, 2009. #6/7, Neural synchrony (Uhlhaas Pipa Lima Melloni Neuenschwander Nikolić ...) Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience

_68 cites, 2010. #7/7, Neuronal avalanches in vivo (Hahn Petermann Havenith Yu Singer Plenz Nikolić) Journal of Neurophysiology

_43 cites, 2011. #6/6, Synchrony, neurons (Havenith Yu Biederlack Chen Singer Nikolić) Journal of Neuroscience

_64 cites, 2011. #5/6, cortical activity (Yu Yang Nakahara Santos Nikolić Plenz). Journal of Neuroscience

Alternatively, could merge into the downward causation parent-topic (that one has more refs -- but overall has similar WP:OWN issues to this Practopoiesis article under discussion -- prolly AfD'ing sequentially one at a time is best for the peace of mind of all concerned since merges can be accomplished in the interim). Double-merging both the Practopoiesis and the DownwardCausation articles into some grandparent-article, which I assume(?) might be neural synchronization from the cite-list above, might be WP:UNDUE or might be WP:NOTEWORTHY, not sure about that idea -- perhaps they fit better at computational neuroscience?

Alternatively-alternatively, perhaps side-merge the Practopoiesis and the DownwardCausation articles, intto a new subsection of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research home-facility of the research-group? This school-article needs significant help at the moment (tagged for adding refs and details and COI), so as a bonus, that would get somebody knowledgeable about the facility involved on that article's talkpage, where perhaps User:Dankonikolic will shift from WP:SPIP to school-pride? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose to a draft article on the author, as proposed above. A merge into the institute where the work was done is undue weight, unless we expand that article to include every ever done there. A merge into the computation neuroscience article is also excessive weight at this point, unless we include every hypothesis there that has ever been published. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
Redirect to Downward causation, which was what I did when I created this iteration of the article, to address the problem of various redlinks to the topic. It has since had a bunch of content added from IP editors and from the originator of the idea. A sentence or two explaining the term maybe could be added to the Downward causation article, but I don't see that it is a sufficiently well-established concept to merit an article of its own. DaveApter (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know I don't have much say in the destiny of the article, so I will not make any suggestions. It will be how you collectively decide. I would just like to provide a few technical facts in order to help the decision. i) Although much of my work is on neural synchronization, practopoiesis does not have a direct link to that topic. It would be a mistake to merge those. ii) Similarly, Downward Causation has nothing directly related to neural synchronization either. iii) Also, it would not make sense to add practopoiesis to Max Planck page exactly for the reasons that DGG stated. iv) I am not affiliated with ieet.org. It just happened so that their editor(s) like practopoiesis. v) Finally, I would like to state that, if I can, I'd be glad to help any solution that you come up with (and doesn't involve complete deletion of the contents of practopoiesis from Wikipedia) if such help is asked for and somehow magically does not put me in COI. Thank you all for your time and effort. (Danko (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, if you need to be asked, I'm asking. :-) Please make concrete suggestions, and please help us organize these concepts 'properly'. Suggestions on talkpages and AfD discussions and other non-mainspace pages are always okay, generally speaking, as long as the potential-COI is stated up-front -- you won't get magically into COI-territory, unless you start inserting stuff yourself into mainspace, which gives the appearance of SEO for your name and/or your institution and/or your inventions. Suggestions are fine, the more concrete the better. There are two problems to be solved here at AfD: first of all, these are hard concepts to understand ('practopoiesis' is a neologism compared to 'color' or even to 'qualia'), and thus it isn't easy for non-experts to figure out WHERE the topic best fits into the encyclopedia. Second of all, WP:SOURCES always help...

some questions for User:Dankonikolic, which I'll collapse, since although the *answers* are relevant to this AfD, the question-texts are not that AfD-crucial

User:Dankonikolic, as you noted in your comment at the first AfD of practopoiesis, the way that wikipedia justifies a dedicated-standalone-article about the topic of practopoiesis (or any other topic) is usually based on WP:42 aka "lots of other people independent from the topic publishing stuff about the topic in some reasonable amount of depth". Practopoiesis has some sources, but there are concerns that WP:PSCOI ... which I will note is *extremely* distinct from everyday-english-usage of the phrase 'conflict of interest' but that the wiki-jargon-definitions cannot much be helped ... makes several of the sources in the practopoiesis article right now, less-than-fully-independent. That doesn't mean such less-than-fully-independent sources cannot be USED in the article, it just means they don't count as fully towards demonstrating wiki-notability aka WP:N (again: little relation to real-world-notability) and passing WP:42. So to get to brass tacks, here is specifically what I ask, here at this AfD, which is a decision about whether to:

(1) 'delete'-and-userfy practopoiesis as WP:NotJustYet, which in fact would be a *move* of ALL the material currently at practopoiesis to a new non-search-engine-visible location at Draft:Practopoiesis (*later* after some improvements in sourcing and/or body-prose, to be moved back to practopoiesis the original location, or perhaps merged into Downward_causation#practopoiesis, or whatever makes most sense at that future time)

(2) 'delete'-and-bangmerge practopoiesis as WP:FAILN, which in fact would again be a *move* of SOME material currently at practopoiesis to a new subsection of an existing article

(3) bangkeep practopoiesis as actually passing WP:42, which is possible iff enough 100%-independent multi-paragraph-in-depth WP:SOURCES specifically about practopoiesis exist.

The *best* way that you can help... which will help improve wikipedia regardless of whether outcome userfy#1/bangmerge#2/bangkeep#3 ends up happening... is to dig up some WP:SOURCES which are written by authors besides yourself (ideally ones not from Max Planck but this is just optimality), in some kind of wiki-reliable publication (see typical list at WP:SOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) which specifically devote multiple paragraphs to discussing the concept of practopoiesis-by-that-name (ideally in the piece-title but this is again not really required).

If there are enough such sources, then bangkeep#3 is the likely result; if there are not, then bangmerge is the likely result. Therefore, the *next* best thing you can help us with, is by giving us the correct ontological position, of the practopoiesis concept. For instance, the correct ontological position of the technical topic Appaloosa (the horse breed) is something like this: physical thing > animal > mammal > horse > breed > domesticated > Appaloosa. This is just a very-rough example to give you an idea what I'm asking for, don't feel constrained to follow my not-very-optimal example pattern, just give us the *right* ontological parent for practopoiesis-the-encyclopedic-concept.

Also, in addition to a nice aristotelian chain starting at animal/mineral/vegetable/intangible, and ending up with the parent-of-practopoiesis followed by the-concept-of-practopoiesis, please also explain the "siblings" of practopoiesis. In the horse example, it would be wrong to up-merge Appaloosa into the Tennessee_Walking_Horse article, because they are both different domesticated horse-breeds (aka sibling-relationship not parent-child). In particular, is downward causation the parent, or sibling, or cousin, of practopoiesis?

Finally, besides the parents (most likely bangmerge-target) and siblings (most likely incorrect targets), what are the uncles and aunts (again these are close-but-no-banana incorrrect bangmerge-targets), and grandparents (ditto), of practopoiesis, in terms of what the likely readership of the article would expect to be the case? That is how the bangmerge (if we end up doing that), ought to be decided, methinks -- on the conceptual organization of topics, that the interested readership will find most logical.

In a nutshell, please tell us what the correct conceptual-parent of the practopoiesis-concept, actually is. Because quite frankly, I don't understand the concept, I've only just heard of it, and briefly skimmed the article. My quick-skim suggestion of bangmerging into downward causation was based purely on edit-history, maybe ideasthesia is a better ontological parent? Or maybe synesthesia but that is probably a great-grandparent. But I'd really prefer that *you* tell us, rather than me guesstimating. ;-)

My other concrete suggestions, for side-merging to a BLP-article about the initiator of the practopoiesis-neologism, or even to the University-article (aka the "corporation" that sponsored the "manufacturing" of the "product" called practopoiesis^TM) should be considered half-assed fallback measures, which are only necessary iff we cannot figure out the proper conceptual-parent-article. Those non-ontological bangmerge options could still occur, of course, and in cases where WP:UNDUE or other such issues play a role, are not uncommon compromise-measures. But as DGG points out, there is definitely a question of WP:UNDUE for the institute, and there is a pragmatic difficulty that we do not currently have an article Danko Nikolić where we could create the new subsection Danko Nikolić#practopoiesis.

Anyways, please User:dankonikolic, although it is very wiki-honourable of you to be willing to stand back, and let your fellow wikipedians pull the wiki-trigger on this AfD decision, I do ask that you please lend us a helping hand, in the form of concrete suggestions of what the Best Thing To Do would actually be... especially if you see, that we are about to pull the wiki-trigger, and blast a hole in our collective wiki-foot. :-) Please feel free to leave a note on my user_talk, if what I'm asking is unclear, or if you have questions generally speaking about all this stuff. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2, there is some usertalk conversation going on, about what ought to happen here. Would ask that this remain un-closed, as there is activity going on elsewheres, which may bring us closer to achieving clear consensus here at AfD once some traction is achieved (the contributors that know the most about this topic-area are not yet WP:ADDICTED and constantly checking their usertalk pages is the basic bottleneck right now :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very helpful comment by User:Dankonikolic, discussing a proper merge-target ; collapsed only to help keep this AfD tidy.

Dear 75.108.94.227, DGG and others, thank you very much for taking your time and effort to figure out the best way for practopoiesis becoming a part of Wikipedia. I will try to answer your questions in order to help. Practopoiesis is an interdisciplinary theory and is an overarching theory in the same time. This means that it is related to a number of topics with often otherwise may not seem closely related. I will specify more in a moment. But first let me explain that practpoiesis is a new theory and thus, does not have many citations yet. Existing publications have been mentioned here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:practopoiesis. I suspect that this may not be deemed as sufficient. There are works by other people going on (which I know from private communication) but it will take a while until this is published. Therefore, I realize that practopoiesis likely does not have yet the notability level required for having its own page. Nevertheless, according to notability criteria of Wikipedia it has sufficient importance to be mentioned in other pages (such as, for example Downward Causation). I have read and understood those policies only recently.

Now, I understand that 75.108.94.227 asks a correct question. Where can we put it, then? Being interdisciplinary and overarching, one could put it at several places, but in the same time none of these places would be exactly perfect. So, lets start with the ontological position of practopoiesis. I think that it is something like this:

explanations of the world > theories about mind > biological theories about mind > biological theories about mind that have new implications also for understanding life > [the same as above] + implications for philosophy of mind > practopoiesis

Examples of the existing pages in Wikipeda to which practopoiesis would logically fit are (i.e., the parents of practopoiesis could be):

Theory of evolution. Theory of evolution is a special case of practopoeisis. A number of principles of practopoiesis are generalizations of the principles of evolution. Also, practopoieis adds to it by explaining for example, why Lamarkian evolution cannot work even in principle.

Mind. Practopoiesis has been developed primarily as a theory of how mind comes out of the brain. Hence, I hope that one day it will form a prominent part of the Wikipedia entry on mind.

Brain. Being a theory of mind, practopoiesis is also a theory of the brain. Its main empirical predictions concern the brain.

Cybernetics. Practopoiesis is theoretically founded in two theorems of cybernetics. So, it is basically, an expansion of cybernetic theory.

adaptive system. The main explanatory tool of practpoiesis is a generalization of the process of adaptation. When the principles of adaptation are generalized enough, the same principles can be used for evolution, learning, thinking, behaving etc. Moreover, practopoiesis explains the interactions among those different levels.

Philosophy of mind Practopoiesis offers a completely novel approach to begin addressing various problems with which philosophy of mind is concerned.

As you can see, it is quite an overarching theory. For any of the above it would make sense to introduce practopoiesis.

In addition to those "big" topics, which could in principle claim Practopoiesis in the future as being an important theory for them (I am completely aware that if this ever happens, it will take years), there is a number of other entries in Wikipedia for which practopoiesis has implications but it would not make sense that they primarily introduce practopoiesis. Rather, practopoiesis is broader than this particular topic. In those practopoiesis could be mentioned, as it adds something relevant, but they should not be the primary Wikipedia source of information on pracopoiesis. They should be siblings and cousins. One of those is:

Downward causation The only reason practopoiesis made it to this entry, was the enthusiasm of one Wikipedia editors who happened to be interested in both topics and asked me to write about it.

And the others are:

Artificial intelligence, Consciousness, Homeostasis, Complex system, Abductive reasoning, Intelligence, Situated cognition, Esthesic and poietic, Adaptive behavior, Biological neural network, Allopoiesis, Poiesis, Sensitization, Allostasis, Embodied cognitive science, Variety (cybernetics), Good regulator, Externalism, Neurocybernetics, Embodied cognition, Wisconsin car sorting test, Semantics,

... and there is more.

Some of the above already have links to practopoiesis, or had them but were meanwhile deleted by editors.

Uncles and aunts of practopoiesis would be (i.e., those that are partly in both of the two categories discussed above):

Autopoiesis (a part of cybernetics and in the same time a part of theory of biology and life)
Reinforcement learning (a part of AI theory and in the same time a part of brain theory)
Neural adaptation (a set of empirically established brain phenomena)
Embodied embedded cognition (a part of philosophy of mind)

Finally, there are of course several other theories about brain, mind, life, AI that are in a way cousins to practopoiesis but are cousins that compete. This is because different theories make often different explanations and hence, different predictions. An examples of those is Connectionism and there are others.

Finally, let me state that ideasthesia is not a close cousin of practopoiesis. The two are only relatively distant cousins. Closer cousins that the two share are semantics and consciousness. So, it would not make sense that the page on ideasthesia introduces practopoiesis.

Comment , I hope that I have answered all of the questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankonikolic (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Dankonikolic, thanks much. We are getting closer to figuring this out. I have replied over on usertalk, to your message above, and will summarize back here on this AfD, when we achieve some conclusions there. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment3. Okay, after discussion with User:Dankonikolic, it looks like an appropriate merge-target for this borderline-wiki-notable practopoiesis material is in one of the biology-related articles. The other main options were in the philosophy-of-mind articles, and in the cybernetics (systems theory) articles, both of which are tightly-related conceptually. So here are my three amateur-attempts at placing practopoiesis into a leaf-article parent:

Biology: Embodied cognitive science > Sensitization > Allostasis > practopoiesis
Systems-theory: Cybernetics > if-not-Neurocybernetics-then-what-subfield-of-cybernetics-goes-here? > Variety (cybernetics) > Good regulator > Heterostasis_(cybernetics) > practopoiesis
Philosophy-of-mind: Situated cognition > Reinforcement learning > Embodied cognition > Embodied embedded cognition > Autopoiesis > practopoiesis

User:Dankonikolic may wish to comment here again, on whether Allostasis#Theoretical_biology_variants is the most appropriate new subsection for the material at practopoiesis to be bangmerged into, or if another leaf-article is a better fit. Also, ping User:Northamerica1000, is there a way to alert the WP:WikiProject_Neuroscience folks in a neutral fashion, please? That's closer to practopoiesis than "behavioral science" per se. I would do it myself, but they are not listed at the WP:DS page, and I wasn't sure if that meant that notifying that wikiproject about AfD stuff was taboo, or just that they have never bothered to list themselves, or what exactly. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Giordano

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

While there are some sources about this person, in my view the coverage is not significant in its scope and therefore the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I'm usually in favor of keeping articles whenever possible. If Lou Giordano becomes notable by the Wikipedia definition in the future, the deleted version of the article could be retrieved by an administrator to help in recreating the article at that time.

A bit more detail as to why the current references do not establish notability:

Bloody Elbow source is an interview; these do not count towards notability, as they are what the subject says about themselves rather than what independent third parties say about the subject. (I did not check whether Bloody Elbow would count as a reliable source for its niche subject.)
MMA Corner is a blank page aside from two images; this may be a technical issue on my end. (I did not check whether MMA Corner would count as a reliable source for its niche subject.)
Newsday is a reliable source, but material about Giordano amounts to a mention, not substantial coverage.
MMAJunkie also only mentioned Giordano rather than devoting substantial coverage to him. (I did not check whether MMAJunkie would count as a reliable source for its niche subject.)
Loaded Joes MMA podcast I was not able to evaluate, as I am hard of hearing, but it probably counts as an interview and thus wouldn't count towards establishing notability. (I did not check whether either Loaded Joes MMA podcast or host site Podcast Garden would count as a reliable source.)
MMA Odds Breaker I couldn't tell whether the linked page was a full transcript or just excerpts, but it seems to also be ineligible for establishing notability as an interview. (I did not check whether MMA Odds Breaker would count as a reliable source for its niche subject.) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments regarding this deletion discussion were placed on the article page by an IP editor. I've advised them that if they want to engage with the deletion discussion, they should post here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, I'm willing for this to be drafted and userfied. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a version at User:Lutrition/sandbox (I presume the IP was Lutrition), although it seems an older draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After the IP comments are discounted, we have only one editor who wants to "weakly" keep this; that's not enough. Sandstein 10:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaki Nakabayashi

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

No significant independent coverage. High rank is not enough to show notability. No indication he's notable as an author and the claims of being a great teacher are solely from his students (not independent). Running and judging some tournaments does not show notability.Jakejr (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but maybe weak keep as the martial arts coverage may be minimally acceptable and if he was well known, that would also be notable. It's also possible if there's any more coverage, it's not online; my searches found nothing better than Black Belt at Books. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find some significant independent coverage of him? I didn't and don't see proof that he meets the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep pre-internet era. Passes WP:GNG. Notable Author of Judo . Recognized as a prominant martial artist [56] Passes WP:MANOTE. 173.52.89.236 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No vote yet but there is no indication that the judo books have had any impact so the term notable judo author is a bit fast and loose. Pre-internet has no relevance.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage of him. Passing mentions are not enough nor is being part of a panel discussing weight training in the martial arts. Astudent0 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes gng. Well respected and we'll known judo instructor and author2607:FB90:E9A:510D:0:48:EBBF:E701 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same unsupported claims as other new IP. Astudent0 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG since there is a lack of significant independent coverage. There are no supporting sources for the claim he's a notable author.Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is a notable author and in judo. Passes gng 2607:FB90:246A:83B:0:24:F72F:A901 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, still another new IP weighing in with the same unsupported claims. Papaursa (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet the general notability criteria or the specific criteria for martial artists or authors. The only sources that talk about him being a good teacher were written by students of his. There is no significant coverage from independent reliable sources to support any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping to be swayed but I see nothing to show notability as an author (as my previous comment) and high rank does not sustain notability or being the teacher of twins whose own notability is borderline.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Considered to be one of Japan's late great Judo Masters. This solidifies his GNG. ^[1] 173.52.89.236 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Toth

AfDs for this article:

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

I happened to encounter this article again and my searches simply found nothing better than this and this to suggest better. Pinging past users Justlettersandnumbers, Tokyogirl79, Joe Decker, Hijiri88, Xaosflux and Texas Android (who seemed to have deleted this as A7 in 2008 before it was started again in January 2009). SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional sources can be found. I did some searching (news and books, mostly) and I don't see sources meeting WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll try to see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything of note. I found a mention of him here, but this would be a WP:SPS. There are plenty of notifications about him teaching classes and whatnot, but not really anything that would count as a RS. If someone can find that his sculptures are held in a notable art museum or had been part of a major exhibit at a notable institution, then that can possibly show notability. There are assertions that they have been, but I was unable to find these places at the last AfD or at this one, so I'm forced to assume that they are not in any place major. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my only activity was a batch of history purges for a WP:RD1 copyright issue, no other comment on this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote last time: "Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia, does not begin to meet WP:ARTIST. He's a moderately competent commercial artist who will make you a bronze replica of your motorcycle if that's what you want, or a portrait of your doggie. He has no place here. NB: the article is now very short because all copyright-infringing content has been removed." To help with searching: this is not the Robert Toth who was photographed by Ringo in 1964, who is a retired air-conditioner salesman; nor is it the Robert C. Toth who was Moscow correspondent of the LA Times (and who is, it would seem, almost certainly notable by our standards). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulieman al-Owda

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

My searches simply found nothing good and I'm not seeing much to suggest much change to this article and there's also no obvious target to move elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources in the article.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Sandstein 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breanne Benson

AfDs for this article:

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

Overwritten for what the sources say and fails gng and pornbio. Nominations don't count and being quoted in the sydney morning herald in an article about your boyfriend doesn't make you notable either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obviously Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, it appears that the best course of action at this time would be to redirect the article under discussion here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate assessment. Standard outcome would also then create a redirect to the Pet list. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spill beans) 09:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam el Azzazi

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

I'm not entirely sure if he's notable or this can be improved and it seems he's not very active suggesting he may not have sufficient coverage; the best my searches found were here and here and searches at Egyptian Independent, Al-Ahram Weekly and Egyptian Gazette found nothing and there's no Arabic name to help search for non-English sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft. The majority of respondents did not believe that this article did not quite meet notability requirements, and the one keep admitted this was borderline. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanging Stars

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

PROD removed without improving the article. Concern = Fails to meet notability criteria at WP:BAND Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I found sufficient notability to mark this as reviewed and contest the PROD (since when did removing a PROD require that the article be improved, btw? At least I gave a reason - not even that is required!) I am erring on the side of keep, though admittedly it is borderline: multiple plays on BBC radio ([57]) is not insignificant, and an indication that WP:BAND #11 or #12 has been met. I also found reviews and mentions in notable publications: Clash (magazine)([58]), Les Inrockuptibles ([59]) and Q (magazine) ([60]), for example, which seemed sufficient for inclusion. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improving a PROD is not obligatory, but it is suggested at WP:DEPROD (a policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy for now as I found nothing better and even the links listed above aren't swaying and convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I found much the same sources that are identified above. Not really sufficient coverage to merit an article at this stage but there seems to be sufficient interest that further coverage is likely, so keeping as a draft for now seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) 09:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Thee

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG upcoming band a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than this to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a source, found using the Google News link atop this discussion: The Herald. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)4[reply]
Comment – Hers's a source, found using the Highbeam search link atop this discussion: Daily Record (subscription required). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khan Madhosh

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

The article lacks notability and the article was published on 7 January 2015, since then there were no references or improvements made to this orphan article. You may decide whether this article should be kept or deleted. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 07:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject not notable. samtar ^(msg) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the fact that the subject's obit was published by national newspapers is convincing evidence of notability. Even though he is neither a Korean boy band member nor a footballer, whatever that is.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I'm completely mixed BTW because these Middle Eastern subjects aren't always easy to view and evaluate but the newspapers sources including some more I found here may be able to compensate for the fact I found no better links....and also hope for someone with better access to any sources adds them and improves this. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lisa Moscatiello#Discography. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kept Secrets

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

Not notable. I only found 2 Google books that mentions that album at [61] and [62]. Aside from that, I can only find sources for it that seem unreliable. I don't know if the one reference in the article is reliable, leaving only 2 sources I know are reliable and if the other sources that exist aren't reliable, 2 reliable sources might not be enough for notability. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Lisa Mosciatello as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone please try and figure out whether all the articles in Template:Lisa Moscatiello are non-notable enough to be worthy of deletion, and nominate which ever ones they think might not belong in Wikipedia for deletion. If the result of every single one of them is delete, then it's probably also worth nominating Template:Lisa Moscatiello for deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Pupils and Students Union of Côte d'Ivoire

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

Sure this is from Africa and before the Internet so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement with the best results here. This was started by an IP from Gambia, Africa in July 2005 and has been sparsely edited since then; tagger Stewy5714 is no longer active but DGG still is. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. They're aa natioanl organization so I'd given the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reach this position reluctantly, because the encyclopedia could use many more articles on Africa. But this isn't one of them. I note that it is sourced solely to a book by Laurent Gbagbo, who is mentioned in the article as a candidate for president of the organization. Gbagbo later went on to become the head of state for the Ivory Coast and has a reasonably good article here. But that article mentions nothing about his membership in this organization (nor about writing the book). There have been student groups in the Ivory Coast that have had some impact on the country. One of them was involved in strikes that eventually played a part in the severing of relations between the Ivory Coast and the Soviet Union (a brief description is here). Another played a role in one of the Ivorian civil wars (see FESCI). But by the instant article's own testimony, this organization didn't really do anything other than hold "congresses". Notability just isn't there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Agreed with NewYorkActuary. The book by Gbagbo referenced in the article, Côte d'Ivoire, Pour une alternative démocratique, seems to be a book where Gbagbo expounds his ideas about the politics and development of Côte d'Ivoire, and it seems unlikely that such a book would contain much material about a student organization to which he once belonged. Also, as mentioned above, it is not clear from the article that the organization did anything other than exist and hold meetings and such, so it doesn't strike me as likely that more sources would be easy to find locally. Can be restored if that turns out to be the case, of course. Sandstein 09:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show the notability of this organization. Agree with nom, NewYorkActuary and Sandstein assessments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the reasoning by editor NewYorkActuary. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG for lack of coverage, much less substantive coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn

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

Can see no reason why this faculty is notable: on appearance I changed it to a redirect to the University of Warmia article. It's a fairly substantial article: a merge seems the sokution to me. TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly NN school within an obscure university. Even if the university is notable, its faculty divisions are not automatically so. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ottawahitech (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this relatively new faculty is notable in its field. The guideline at Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges seems appropriate. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C Martino

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

Despite the numerous references and claims he is an author, film producer and a philanthropist, I can't find anything other than the briefest mentions of him in RS. 100 % self-promotion and nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Matthew Martino Benevolent Fund for the same reasons and I should also note that some of the references are written by an SEO company linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smileverse/Archive. e.g. this one which used to say somewhere that it was operated from the same offices, but I think they must have removed it. SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for now as the best I found was this and this. I have to also say the sourcing is completely unacceptable (by far not close to usual standards of sourcing especially significant third-party) and I'm not even familiar with some of the websites. There's simply nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. article shows that he has done lots of things, but that doesn't make him notable, as for being 101st world's richest author [63], [64] - net worth of $200k and earned $50k last year?... if that's notable I better create articles for all my neighbors. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean White (American football)

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH because he has not won any major awards even as a high school athlete and has only started one game for Auburn. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Yankees10 06:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Yankees, and starting QB for top-tier program. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. White is the starting quarterback for one of the elite football teams in the country. As such, he has received abundant significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources, such that he passes WP:GNG. Some of the coverage is in national publications (e.g., this and this from ESPN.com and this from NBC Sports and this from USA Today) such that he also arguably passes the third prong of WP:NCOLLATH ("Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."). Further examples of the coverage can be viewed here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found by CLB62's research appear to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As nominator, I agree with the comments beforehand. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Xexakis

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

I'm questioning whether he meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find the required sources needed to cure the "additional citations needed" tag that's been there for six years. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A theological advisor to the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church[65], who wrote a three volume dogmatic theology[66][67], I think he's probably notable, but there's a paucity of sources in English for verifiability and even in Greek from a Google search on his name in Greek.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. User:Samuel J. Howard added some useful information, but that information isn't enough to get the subject past WP:PROF. For what it's worth, I don't think the subject has an article on the Greek Wikipedia either (I looked here). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. It is not surprising that so little is turning up as the eminent professor about whom I initiated the entry is called Xexakis, not Xenakis as wrongly put in the title and in the above discussion____Clive Sweeting3October2015

I get ~500 Google hits searching both ways, so I don't think the title is the problem here. If you could provide sources, that'd be the most helpful thing to do to advance your cause. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. Νικόλαος Ξεξάκης must have led a quiet life in writing the three volumes of Orthodox dogma. I didn't even find a review of the books. According to documents on Google scholar he has sat on numerous thesis examination committees, so his professorial status is verifiable. Note:The article was moved from Nikolaos Xexakis to Nikolaos Xenakis on 4 August 2013‎ by editor Ntetos. --Bejnar (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the correct name restored so that a proper discussion may ensue---7October2015Clive Sweeting

Does the subject have an article on the Greek Wikipedia using the other spelling? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Never mind, I went and checked myself. Using the spelling offered by User:Bejnar, there is no article on the Greek Wikipedia. But the name does seems to appear in some references in other articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced BLP. We shouldn't be even having this discussion - this article should have been deleted as an unreferenced BLP long ago. I don't know why there is an "additional citations needed" tag - there aren't any citations. St Anselm (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RecordFarm

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

Article about a startup music service/social network created by a SPA and a COI editor. As far as I can tell, the available references are trivial coverage, funding announcements, routine business listings, and sources that seem to be press release generated. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 03:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My head hurt when I saw they used a livejournal as a source. Anyways the page doesn't show notability, at least not from any of those sources on it right now. And I'm writing this after that unsigned post someone left here about adding sources...Is someone going to move that comment down to where it should be? Peachywink (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found a few links at Books and browser, there's nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Added secondary sources

2. The current sources are from reputable Korean news organizations. Can you understand Korean? If not, please don't pass judgment on those articles or assume they are press releases, because they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordfarm (talk • contribs) — Recordfarm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I would have speedied this. FWIW, I've blocked the creator's account as a breach of our user name policy, obvious paid COI editing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Faulkner

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

I do not believe this person meets WP:PROF. limited peer recognition. wrote a non notable book. being chair of the dubioius Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy which is currently under consideration for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as this seems well sourced and I found other links at News, Books, browser and Scholar. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her works have been reviewed by other scholars as is shown in References. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, only 2-3 sources refer to review by other scholars, but even that doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it satisfy WP:PROF? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this person doesn't meet any criteria of WP:NACADEMICS. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her work has been peer-reviewed or mentioned by "independent reliable sources", then she is notable. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - notable enough. Gender studies does not get the kind of attention the hard sciences get. She's been working at a prominent university in Australia. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just because she works at a prominent university doesn't add to her notability unless she was a Dean of a faculty. She is a lowest level full time academic at lecturer status. LibStar (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the new-found sourcing, which nobody objects to. Sandstein 09:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twobones

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

My searches found nothing good at all and I'm not seeing any improvement (unless it's not English of course). Pinging past editors Shoy and author Wintifax. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know why a speedy A7 on this was declined in 2008, the page still has no sources and no extra assertion of notability other than that they exist. shoy (reactions) 19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with SwisterTwister and everything that was stated. Including lack of any sources. I couldn't find anything either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalmario (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Globalmario (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)globalmario[reply]
Keep. all about jazz review allmusic review JazzTimes review. Some of the articles on Paul Haag's website look usable, sufficient details are given to make them independently verifiable. [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. There's also coverage in German/French such as Schütz, Von Andrin (12 October 2014), "Paul Haag mit dynamischem Groove, Tempo und Präzision", Die Südostschweiz and Schütz, Von Andrin (19 December 2007), "Posaunen herrschten vor", Oltner Tagblatt. Both appear to be reasonably detailed articles about them. There's also another short review of Groovin' Bones Barbey, Michel (31 May 2008), "Twobones", Le Temps. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow further discussion for the new information provided by User:Duffbeerforme. Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by duffbeerforme, who seems to have done the more thorough research. Samsara 21:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think enough sources have been found to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1918 in Armenia

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

Lists a single event. Fails WP:SAL. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a second event and there must be articles on individuals who were either born or died in 1918. Is that something someone who has a better knowledge of WP:CATSCAN can help with? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've ~~also added a few events~~ added more than enough entries. Plus this is the year the first modern Armenia state was established. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enough happened for this to be a worthwhile article. However, the eponymous category probably needs to be removed at CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as although there's not much here, most of these articles are kept. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be redirected if deemed useful. Sandstein 09:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2027 FIBA Basketball World Cup

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

WP:TOOSOON. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic National Convention. WP:CRYSTAL. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: remember, it has some details, and important. 333 -blue 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon. 2019 is fine -- it's four years away and there are sources. This is just extreme. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIBA Basketball World Cup. Way, WAY too early. No real substantive info about the event itself 12 years out. WP:TOOSOON. Rikster2 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairways at Forsgate

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

Not notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources on that topic. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely classic WP:MILL stub of a suburban New Jersey development. Also fails my standards for housing developments. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect to Monroe Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey Nothing here constitutes a claim of notability, no meaningful sources in the article and none found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as there's simply no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest this is a notable development. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes in the 2010s by death toll

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

Redundant. This is a stand-alone list – it is not part of a series. We already have a series of list articles (that is almost complete going back to 1900) that covers each year in detail. Deaths are included.

So, lets keep creating the yearly lists (for notable earthquakes – not everything above a certain magnitude) and drop this one. It's just not necessary to create a series of "List of earthquakes in #### by death toll" when the topic is already covered. There's nothing to redirect this one to. Just drop it as its unnecessary. Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Technically it isn't quite redundant to the articles linked by the nom, because they only give information about one year rather than allowing the most deadly earthquakes in an entire decade to be seen. However, I don't consider that a reason not to delete; Wikipedia is not a rephrasing of other Wikipedia pages in a slightly more sortable form (that's what Wikidata is for). Besides, we have List of 21st-century earthquakes already, which this is pretty much redundant to (and which would make a good redirect target if the title is considered to ease searching, which I don't think it does). --ais523 07:47, 3 October 2015 (U T C)

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--Ymblanter (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaadwa Singh Koli

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

It's hard to turn up information about this figure, and he just doesn't appear notable in a historical sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I performed a search for books, websites, text, and historical references to this person and came up with absolutely nothing. If anybody finds anything that would meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, let me know and I'll change my vote. Until then, I have nothing to show any kind of notability.
Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elements club

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

Not seems notable ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I can't find any secondary reliable sources that significantly cover this band. If anybody does, please let me know and I'll take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources cited to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=y4GDzL82syMC&pg=PA89&dq=nakabayashi+judo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBGoVChMIu8iunKy2yAIVyTo-Ch0PIgsK#v=onepage&q=nakabayashi%20judo&f=false

[1] ttp://screencast.com/t/3mA4RUUrQ0

[2] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm2452260/?ref_=rvi_nm

[3] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm2452260/mediaindex?ref_=nm_phs_md_sm

[4] ttp://be100radio.com/index.php?do=/photo/19758/jane-bordeaux-featured-on-mafia-magazine-oct-nov-issue-october-november-201/userid_7854/

[5] ttp://reverbnation.com/janebordeaux

[6] ttps://www.facebook.com/janebordeaux

[7] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244365/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

[8] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280674/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

[9] ttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/chattininmanhattan/2012/12/07/inside-the-life-of-jane-bordeaux

[10] ttp://www.chatinmanhattan.com/portfolio-view/inside-life-jane-bordeaux/#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=56086f602694a163&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1

[11] ttp://www.chatinmanhattan.com/guests/

[12] "Fame Music Radio Interviewed Jane Bordeaux Live which streamed to 5 million people in 128 countries - Photo with text description". Retrieved 2015-10-02.

[13] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=y4GDzL82syMC&pg=PA89&dq=nakabayashi+judo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBGoVChMIu8iunKy2yAIVyTo-Ch0PIgsK#v=onepage&q=nakabayashi%20judo&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]