Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 30

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 29 June 1 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. There are several different assertions below, let me go through the main two from those asking for retention: 1) The sources provided confer the requisite notability for passing WP:GNG. This has been shown during the discussion to be false. The majority of the sources are passing mentions, or are primary references. The only potentially useful reference, [1], is not enough to establish notability considering this. 2) Being a Senior TED Fellow confers inherent notability per WP:NACADEMIC. This is easily tossed out, as TED states themselves that "The TED Fellowship is not an academic fellowship".

Given this information, it is impossible for the seeming lack of consensus here, to override the community consensus as laid out in our policies. Therefore this article is found to lack the necessary notability for retention, at this time. (Note: This close holds no prejudice towards an article being re-created in the future, if requirement fulfilling sources are found. This close was done in consideration of and accordance with WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:RS, WP:BASIC, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:PROF, and WP:ANYBIO.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Shaikh

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

Only claim of notability is being a TED Fellow, which is not enough. Plenty of coverage by her, but little of her on the web. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Doing a google search this way uncovers numerous interviews and articles. The amount of work she has completed alone should qualify her, but she has also been the subject of objective, third party coverage. One does not become a TED fellow by sitting around, and clearly she has done quite a bit of work. Easily passes GNG -- that said, the article needs work. Montanabw(talk) 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on your google-search link, I do find interviews, but on websites such as humanitarianjobs.wordpress.com i.e. self-published/unreliable. If it so easily passes GNG, would you care to give a few precise links?
About the amount of work she has completed alone should qualify her - which guideline are you referring to? If it isWP:ANYBIO #2, there would be interviews anyways.
Finally, while being a TED fellow is something, I am not aware that it was ever considered as a presumption of notability. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) internal press release of a board change (i.e. SPS). (2) published by the subject, not an RS. (3) wordpress.com blog (which I mentioned in my comment, BTW). (4) primary (see http://bloodandmilk.org/about-3/). (5) user page. (6) is decent, but not enough on its own. (7) passing mention in a non-RS pointing to (4). (8) very passing mention; (9) and (10) not independent (promoting their own seminars), and I doubt "worked for Devex" is a claim to notability. (11) arguably passing mention, and in any case "spoke at a conference" is not a claim to notability. (12) I cannot access. (13) self-promotion (not independent). (14) is OK-ish, like (6) it is a book, but with 54 interviews of professionals in the area which makes it worse (the more people are in there, the less any of them can claim notability).
So that leaves me with 2 sources, maybe 3 depending on what is in (12). I do not see that amounting to "enduring historical record" of WP:ANYBIO, nor "widely citations by the peers" or "well-known work or body of work" regarding her writings for WP:NAUTHOR, nor "significant coverage" of WP:SIGCOV (plus, the sources are not great on the WP:RS side).
FWIW, I had found (1) through (5) and (13) before nominating. Just because we could write a verifiable article with a neutral tone does not mean it is a valid topic. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point you're trying to make, but any person who has generated enough coverage for GNG is a valid topic for Wikipedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My view is precisely that none of the sources meet the GNG criteria "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Considering the !votes so far, it is pretty clear the community disagrees. Not withdrawing though, as I am still not convinced. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I respectfully disagree, Tigraan's comment was "Only claim of notability is being a TED Fellow, which is not enough." I disagree, the TED fellow honor recognizes her work, which is clearly quite extensive, but also it is work with the poor, and work in international development, which is not a popular topic with the mainstream press. We have enough, third party coverage, if you look at the sources I posted, which include interviews with her and other coverage, not her own writings (which are quite extensive). Montanabw(talk)
  • Analysis of sources:
  1. 1 Self published, not independent
  2. 2 Not independent, written by her
  3. 3 Self published, not reliable
  4. 4 Not independent, her own website
  5. 5 User page, not a reliable secondary source
  6. 6 Reliable, although it was in a guidebook and her example was used in a chapter about job search. They used her resume as an example and asked her questions about her careeer. Not great as I don't consider it a proper secondary source, but I will pass
  7. 7 Not a reliable source, user generated content. I mean see this quote: Got a career question? Alanna can answer it. And if she can’t, she’ll find someone else who can. For a nominal fee ($2/month) you get access to her insights on job hunting, grad schools, career paths and more.
  8. 8 Trivial mention, (a quote) in a user submitted content.
  9. 9 Not independent, she seems to have worked for them before and they are promoting her
  10. 10 Not independent, they are promoting their own webinar
  11. 11 Not a reliable source. Simply a user profile listing for a conference which we don't use for notability.
  12. 12 Unable to check, there is no way online to see inside this book.
  13. 13 Not independent
  14. 14 Reliable, but I am not sure what the selection criteria is.
  15. [16] Not independent Written by her
  16. [17] Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  17. [18] Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  18. [19] Guest at a podcast, not a reliable secondary source. This is also NOT an interview

The book features over 100 people from STEM field and 54 other profiles. That isn't a very solid indication of notability.

6 and 14 are not enough. Being a TED fellow doesn't mean a person is automatically notable. Our notability guidelines are very clear that if reliable independent secondary sources do not exist, we shouldn't really have an article unless it passes one of the other notability criteria. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Lemongirl942 has asked for relisting Sam Sailor Talk! 20:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 20:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any independent sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I pointed to 14, or did you not look at them? Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your response to Tigraan's demolition of them? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan noted the links to one wordpress site and ignored all the ones that are neutral, third-party sources. There are interviews, there are mentions in books, a significant number of articles she published are all on a third-party site and not just her own bloodandmilk site. The PBS interview on the show "on being" is a major source. This is a prolific activist and while I personally think being named a TED Fellow is pretty notable in and of itself, the weight of the work that they considered in presenting the award can be independently considered here. Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources to be integrated
  1. The Telegraph
  2. The Guardian 1
  3. The Guardian 2
  4. Minnesota Public Radio interview

WP:GNG met. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging these up. #1 is an article on her approach to Alzheimer’s disease, the others are just mentions in passing. Unfortunately they don't add up to WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  1. The Telegraph Not independent Written by her
  2. The Guardian 1 Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  3. The Guardian 2 Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  4. Minnesota Public Radio interview Guest at a podcast, not a reliable secondary source. This is also NOT an interview
Someone who is notable would definitely have people writing about them. This doesn't seem like the case here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Telegraph Written by her - yes and can still be used to support content in the article. Is there not an editor at The Telegraph? How do they approve what is published in their paper? How many people does it reach?
  2. The Guardian 1 measured together with numerous additional "trivial mentions" in global newspapers where she is quoted as an expert per WP:BASIC}
  3. The Guardian 2 measured together with numerous additional "trivial mentions" in global newspapers where she is quoted as an expert - per WP:BASIC
  4. Minnesota Public Radio interview Program was hosted by Minnesota Public Radio and is considered an interview according to Wikipedia
  5. New one Mother Jones "trivial mention" to be measured together with all "trivial mentions" per WP:BASIC
  6. "most read articles in Alliance Magazine in 2011" NYU Development Research Institute WP:BASIC
Also, Lemongirl942 curious if you'd hold the same interpretation of Wikipedia policies to articles like Adrian Hong? Hmlarson (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Otherstuffexists. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that essay. My question is about policy. Hmlarson (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your queries Hmlarson
  1. Not independent per WP:BASIC Yes and can still be used to support content in the article - but not notability. We are debating notability here. "Independent" is the keyword. Otherwise everyone can write about themselves, get it published.
  2. Nowhere does it say she is "an expert". And even if it did, a quote is a trivial mention. Also, the content is "sponsored"
  3. Same as above
  4. Yes, it is independent, but not a secondary source. And also, had it been a sole interview about the subject and discussing the subject's life and work, I would have considered. But it is not. They are discussing something else and she is guest on the show. Being a guest doesn't make a person notable, otherwise all guests to talk shows would be notable.
  5. Motherjones: Trivial mention that too in a far removed context. You can see the footnote at WP:BASIC about trivial coverage.
  6. Publishing an online article (for one specific non-mainstream magazine) and then using webviews for it, is not a claim of notability.
I appreciate your work trying to find sources. Since you talked about Adrian Hong who is also a TED fellow, my conclusion is that being a TED fellow in itself is not enough. However if sources like this Washington Post article which focuses substantially on the person/a work by the person can be found or if the person has been featured in a book (which has received multiple secondary reviews), then the person is notable. Unfortunately, nothing similar can be found for Alanna Shaikh --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl942 It's clear your interpretation of policy is different from many editors. While I have enjoyed learning how to use font coloring for emphasis, I guess we'll see where the deletion discussion goes. Hmlarson (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that notability is not established, she hasn't had the level of coverage that the male TED fellow you mention has, but she IS mentioned in books, she HAS been interviewed by multiple sources (if less prestigious ones) and if we are going to go into OTHERSTUFF, for pete's sake, they just KEPT another article on some stupid pornstar -- we have got our priorities seriously screwed up around here if the only articles about women we keep are ones who take their clothes off! Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ADVOCACY This is a good essay which is similar to my own thoughts about the first 2 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. In general, I feel Wikipedia as an Encyclopaedia should mirror the world and articles on Wikipedia should represent how the state of the world is, unless there is consensus which decided otherwise. The GNG needs to be applied equally on article subjects regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and ethnicity. (However, this can change if we have consensus for having separate notability requirements for subjects affected by systemic bias, and I am not opposed to such a change. We have done it previously based on occupation for academics and musicians so we can do it for other cases as well). But till that time, we need to respect the current notability guidelines which apply equally regardless of gender. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is clear this article subject passes WP:GNG due to the dearth of reliable independent sources easily found by Montana. The person is notable. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These sources seem to me to clearly surpass WP:GNG, and the attempts to argue with every single person arguing for keep are pretty querulous. We get it, Lemongirl942 takes a different view of these sources from many others; insistently trying to argue with every respondent doesn't invalidate the abundance of different views as to those sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll self-source an observation: "Timbo's Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Virtually the whole content here appears derived from THIS BLOG: "Alanna Shaikh is a global health and development specialist with a decade of experience in the Middle East and Central Asia. Shaikh has worked for NGOs, consulting companies, universities, the U.S. government, and the United Nations. She writes about global health for UN Dispatch and about international development on her blog Blood and Milk. She holds an undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and a Master’s degree in Public Health from Boston University. She lives in Dushanbe, Tajikistan." Maybe an important person worthy of encyclopedic biography on an IAR basis, maybe we should be making TED Fellowship an automatic Keep criterion, there's room for debate about those things... On the matter of simple up or down over GNG or whether the ACADEMIC special guideline is met — let's just say that case really does need to be made a little better. I offer no opinion about deletion. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted the references in the article so they could be easily used by editors to expand content and there would be more than 1 per WP:CITE. As noted, "Timbo's Rule 14" is a personal assumption. Though creatively named, it's about as effective here as a Jump to Conclusions mat (see Office Space). Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Carrite, also it's unsightly to have so many references in the lede. Though as Hmlarson says, it was a helpful to have the references there while expanding the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "Ted fellow" is not an indication of notability on Wikipedia per WP:PROF. This is not the same as earning a prestigious fellowship with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, for example [20]. Not even close Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She's not just a "Ted fellow", she's a Senior TED fellow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "Senior Ted fellow" is not an indication of notability on Wikipedia, per WP:PROF. This is not the same as earning a prestigious fellowship within the Royal Society, for example. Not even close. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. One of the world's most notable aid workers, as demonstrated by the extensive coverage.
Some seem perplexed about why she receives so much attention compared to other scientists who rank much higher in citation indexes. While technical rankings can be useful, many of the folk who control coverage in reliable sources are more interested in impact on the world. Thanks to Alanna and similar aid workers, infant mortality in Africa, while still too high, has reduced massively this last decade. In RoW, populations are mostly falling or static (still rising in Asia, though at a deacreasing rate, which is expected to stop soon.) In Africa, women on average have over 5 babies each, and thanks to better health care over 85% of those babies survive to reproductive age. Population growth is already rocketing, and the unchallenged consensus among demographers, UN officials etc is that Africa will dominate the worlds population growth for the rest of this century.
The unstoppable Africanisation of the worlds population is the single biggest change facing the human race – billions of fervent Christians to change the world for the better, who are in many cases naturally inclusionist in their cultural output - spiritually and economically as well as in the more obvious ways. For example mobile money companies like m-pesa, co invented and popularised in Africa, now providing financial inclusion for unbanked individuals across eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America.
As one of the planet's foremost aid workers, Alana is one of the people most responsible for the better health outcomes driving the African population boom. This is why shes invited to speak at TEDs so often, while scholars cited more often in top journals are not. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with an eye to a future entry. At the moment most of the case for this entry seems to be WP:ORIGINAL--to me she does sound interesting and important, to the extent I'm surprised this discussion has not turned up a profile of her from an independent, reliable secondary source, and I'd love to see this entry resubmitted if or likely when that does happen (or better still, happens nmore than once), but the general principle that Wikipedia editors should not take on the task of evaluating the legitimacy and significance of primary sources seems both 1, applicable, and 2, well-advised, given the way this debate illustrates how hard that can be to sort out! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not see any mention in the article of her writings at UNDispatch (Not an organ of the UN but sponsored by The United Nations Foundation) so there may be some WP:NJOURNALIST criteria if anyone wants to go digging. She is being quoted in news articles as the primary "counterpoint" voice. See "GLOBAL: USAID urged to tackle urbanization". IRIN Africa English Service. 19 May 2010. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)  – via HighBeam (subscription required) She and her writings/blogs have been mentioned in David Lewis; Dennis Rodgers; Michael Woolcock (23 January 2014). Popular Representations of Development: Insights from Novels, Films, Television and Social Media. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-135-90263-6. so here social media work (that is what the book is looking at) is recognized as influential there.

    As to the "notability" of the being a TED Senior Fellow from this they chose 10 people in 2015 from a group who had already been TED Fellows so it is rather selective. To compare in 2015 the IEEE (the society given as an example in NPROF) elevated 297 of the 833 people nominated as an IEEE Fellow [21]. JbhTalk 23:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like there is an entire profile of her in Mueller, Sherry Lee (Feburary 26 2014). Working World: Careers in International Education, Exchange and Development. Georgetown University Press. From TOC:Chapter 5 - PROFILE: Alanna Shaikh, Director of Communications, Outreach, and Public Relations, for AZ SHIP, Abt Associates {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - enough to get over GNG unless the TOC turns out to be totally misleading. @Montanabw: JbhTalk 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is available for Kindle at Amazon [22]. I just lucked out finding a copy of the table on contents at the Georgetown Press site. There is a posibility that this is an online version from something called AcademLib but the site looks sketchy. JbhTalk 02:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same reference 6. We have already looked at it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As folk like Andy and JBH have advised she's a Senior TED fellow, which is a very selective position. So as one might expect, folk have written multiple entire profiles about her. Alanna is one of only 10 people to have a profile in the book Getting your first job in relief and development by good Nick Macdonald a leading aid worker and university lecturer on international dev. Alanna was the only one to whom he dedicates two whole chapters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That "book" is a self published ebook, see this. We don't use WP:SPS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. We do use self published sources in some circumstnaces. Please read your WP:SPS link, it specifies exceptoins. However, I hadn't read WP:RS for a few years, and I agree that with current wording, policy allows Nick's book zero weigtht towards noteability for Alanna's article. So it's fortuneate she still easilly passes WP:GNG regardless. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's a difference between RS that support content and RS that confer notabilty. Looking at the sources above, it's clear that there hasn't been broad coverage in multiple independent sources of her, and so she does not meet GNG. Many passing mentions or self-published sources do not add up to in-depth independent sources. Ca2james (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm.... you do realize I just provided a book by Georgetown University Press which devotes many pages to her? While it is indeed a profile/example it is a secondary RS from a university publishers which essentially verifies her entire CV because they found her significant enough to use as an example so that can be used to write quite a good article. What more do you want than extensive coverage in a scholarly publication?? JbhTalk 13:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC) (@Lemongirl942:, I am interested in your thoughts on this as well as I simply do not see the logic you are applying here. GNG requires significant coverage how is the coverage in Working World alone not significant particularly when there is so much other material which, once notability is established, can be used to write a good article. Note in scholarly works are way up above a couple of 2 paragraph articles in a regional newspaper which is what gets most people over GNG. She does not need to meet any NPROF SNGs if she passes GNG and I do not see how you can argue, at this point, that she does not. Thanks.) JbhTalk 13:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if the chapters in Getting your first job in relief and development mentioned by FeyHuxtable above pan out that is coverage in two separate books! JbhTalk 13:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Typo in username re-pinging @FeydHuxtable: JbhTalk 13:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: The book by FeydHuxtable is actually a self published ebook assembled from blog posts (See this blog). The quality of sources is important. The other book is OK, but not enough to pass GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A SELFPUB work is of no help. We will need to agree to disagree on the other book though. On its own it may be arguable but in combination with the other coverage, including brief mention of her work in another academic book, the TED Senior Fellowship and a small, but based on the topic not insignificant numbers of quotes in RS I have to say she passes GNG. The Georgetown press book shows third party interest in her career why else interview her and use her as an example. It is at least as good several columns in the NYT and that gets people over GNG all of the time. The additional bits, even if not significant on their own, show her effect and notability is not transitory.

There is enough material out there to write a good biography, her profile in the Georgetown Press book essentially turns her entire resume into a secondary source - per Wiki - because it is being used as an illustrative example and is being presented under the rubric of a publication "with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" so it is not the same as pulling it off of her web site. As to the interview questions - we would not throw out an interview piece from the NYT as "primary" we would see it as an indication that someone at the NYT saw the person to be significant enough to interview in the first place.

I can see the arguments for how she may be marginal but, in my opinion and by my editorial judgement, that margin falls on the side of keep. This is not a person pushing self promo - I might be inclined to delete in that case. She has a major accomplishment per TED, an academic thought her career was worthy of study, another made specific study of her effects on social media and she gets quoted both in the popular press and, even as a non academic, in a couple papers. All of that adds up to "significant" when I see people passing AfD with editors regularly saying "two or three mentions of a paragraph or so in a major regional newspaper" is enough to be"significant coverage". My firm opinion is she is way over that and I am solidly in the "deletionist" camp (23 Keep out of 320) (Although I do see we have a similar voting pattern but you have a better 'hit' rate than I so maybe your read is better than mine) Edge cases like this is where we exercise our editorial judgement and I just can not come up with a solid arguement for delete that does not make me feel that I am stretching the criteria to keep a good bio out. (Not saying others are doing that just trying to explain my personal thoughts) It is late here and I am likely rambling so I will leave it at that. JbhTalk 05:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm.... you do realize that to confer notability, coverage has to be independent and in-depth significant? The "many pages" are an interview with her, which is not an independent source. Sure, it's a reliable source and would flesh out an article but it doesn't confer notability. And as far as being a TED senior fellow, there's no guideline that says that this automatically confers notability. Therefore, unless you have an independent source that talks about her being a TED senior fellow, she still doesn't pass GNG. It isn't enough that she is this or that; people have to be talking about her being this or that. Ca2james (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC) (edited Ca2james (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
WP:GNG only demands "significant coverage", not "in depth coverage" as some seem to be reading it. They're not the same thing, though Alana would pass by either definition.
Also, the fact the "Working World" source conducted an interview doesn't mean it lacks independence! Many profile writers, and just about every biographer of a living person conducts interviews while writing a bio. A source lacks independence only if its in some way controlled by the subject, such as written by the subject themselves or paid for by the subject. If you need further help understanding this, the patient folk over at WP:RSN would be happy to help you out.
@ JPH thanks for the ping. I share your astonishment at this discussion. Struggling to find reasons, I wonder if it's as Alanna is too good a person for her own good? What I mean is, it's impossible to find negative coverage to balance out the many positive things one could say about her. She has a rare, almost paradoxical quality of self effacement combined with luminous generosity of spirit. Which is why even haters don't tend to say anything bad about her. It would be trivial to fill her article with statements demonstrating she's one of the worlds most prominent aid worker. Many books list her in their top 10 authorities to consult, often even ahead of heavy weights like Duncan Green. Former Italian foreign minister Giulio Terzi isn't even directly involved in development but has still noted Alanna as a top global influencer. The Guardian ranked her as number 1 twitter user in development. Even Helen Clark , former Newzealand PM and no 3 at the UN was only listed as "tenth most interesting" , with good Jeffery Sachs at no 11. I've not added such content to the article as with no critical coverage to balance it out, some might see it as promotional.
As you've clearly demonstrated, she easily meets GNG. Multiple profiles in books, including a university press book, literally thousands of mentions in development related websites, as well as substantial coverage in mainstream news papers, both in the Anglosphere such as New York Times and the Telegraph, and in non English media such as Deutsche Welle. Not that she needs it, but she also passes SNGs several times over. WP:NACADEMIC only requires the subject to meet one of its criteria; Alanna seems to meet 1-3 and 7. This AfD has already been closed as Keep, yet one of the delete voters did not accept community consensus and got it re-opened. Why is so much energy and aggression being expended on trying to destroy this article, when the policy based case for keeping is so overwhelming? Im sure delete voters have some sort of good faith IAR reasons, but like yourself I'd be interested if they could explain? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested to see this coverage in The Times, The Telegraph and Deutsche Welle. Can you link me please? If they're actually secondary sources (I only see The Telegraph piece she's written, which is a primary source) that substantially engage with her work, together with the Georgetown UP chapter she might meet WP:BASIC for me in which case I would change my vote. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing: Deutsche Welle The New York Times FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable I did mean significant and not in-depth and I've adjusted that. Being a number 1 twitter user in development isn't something that confers notability because it's not a major award. Unless any of these "thousands of mentions" are significant mentions, they don't support notability. She's also not an academic and most definitely does not meet WP:NACADEMIC - I couldn't find any indication that she has published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications so doesn't meet criteria 1 (see WP:NACADEMIC#Specific criteria notes). Of course if there is significant coverage in the Times, Telegraph, and Deutsche Welle, I'd be interested in seeing it, but the articles you've linked to aren't about her; they mention her only in passing so aren't considered significant mentions. Ca2james (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I agree with Ca2james that the secondary sources are still too thin to meet WP:BASIC: one book chapter and two short passages in articles that--while reliable--don't get to her until 10+ paragraphs in doesn't feel like significant coverage of her as a subject. Will post a note below asking for arguments under a different header. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Can anyone make an argument for TED Senior Fellows conferring notability under a rubric other than WP:NACADEMIC? To me the latter does not apply here at all, as Shaikh is not an academic and TED is not a scholarly society, but if TED Senior Fellowship meets some other notability guideline, great. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can. Good editors like Andy are voting keep on the bases of her senior TED fellowship alone, as that is all that's needed per Wikipedia policy. If you look at the Additional criteria section of WP:BIO, its says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" . Then under Any biography it says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour, or has been nominated for one several times."
Note that in the cases of pornographers: "a well-known and significant industry award." is sufficient. I'm a man who appreciates folk who make a living by taking their clothes off, but even I'd not be happy if Wikipedia ranks a pornography industry award above an honour so widely respected as being a senior TED fellow. It's embarrassing! It's this kind of deletionist nonsense that drives almost all folk who are accomplished in global affairs away from Wikipedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's now look at the view Alanna might not be an academic. One can see how that may be true by some personal definitions, e.g. if you think an academic has to be someone who works at a uni or college. However, Wikipedia consensus is all about putting policy ahead of one's personal definition.

Note how WP:Bio defines academics: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

As per sources above, Alanna is a top global influentier in the field of dev. As the United nations have noted, "Alanna has a knack for explaining complex global health issues in a language accessible to non-experts" She has an MPH. Much of her professional work has been as a researcher. This is why four keep voters have cited WP:NACADEMIC.

Even if folk insist on interpreting policy as excluding Alanna from being an academic, there is no question that she's notable due to the extensive coverage she's received in reliable, independent sources. Note the wording from WP:Bio "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" This implies that a single source is sufficient, when the coverage is substantial as is the case with our university press source. As a top global influencer in her field, Alanna is naturally also covered extensively in the specialist press. For example Alliance magazine which is one of the world's top publications in dev and philanthropy; its readership includes dozens of billion heirs. Or the top Spanish language dev magazine Ecología Política . Sadly, the non trivial coverage of Alanna is either behind a payroll or offline. However, I've written several dev articles over the years, e.g. Seoul Development Consensus or The World Development Report 2011 and have displayed a reasonably in depth general understand of the field, e.g. Talk:Hunger#changes_made_04_Dec_2012. So perhaps you can accept I have seen detailed coverage of Alanna in those publications? Even if not, coverage in main stream online sources, like the 5 paragraphs engaging with her work in both the The New York Times and Deutsche Welle are easily sufficient for her to pass WP:BASIC, not that she even needs to, as per policy she's notable by several of criteria. Thanks for the good question and being open to policy based discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what we have here, I'm not going to change my vote. My view has not changed on WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC, and I don't believe TED Senior Fellow is a "well-known and significant award" for WP:BIO. If it were, one would expect to see secondary source coverage of the announcement of Shaikh and others appointed as TED Fellows (as one does, incidentally, for pornography awards), but we have not. (It thus seems appropriate to me that Wikipedia redirects TED Fellows to the TED (conference) page, rather than gives it a standalone entry, and I can't see how a non-notable award can confer notability on another subject.)
I considered briefly whether I thought TED was enough to establish Shaikh as significant within her field, but absent confirmation from other specialist sources, I'm uncertain, and asking people to take sources on faith is diametrically opposed to WP:V. I understand the frustration that what seems to be a good person doing good work might not qualify for Wikipedia, but it does not overrule the principle that these decisions should be made from sourceable information, not individuals vouching for them. Absent additional sources (and I'll confess I don't think it's a great sign that even this very lengthy discussion still has not produced them), I don't see a notability guideline that's met here. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. The sole question at AfD is notability, which can be be established either directly with multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG or presumptively, e.g., as a WP:SCHOLAR. I reviewed each of the sources cited in the article and made a good faith attempt to search for others. My conclusion is that the sources to support notabity do not exist. Her own articles are obviously WP:PRIMARY, but so are the WP:INTERVIEWS and passing mentions where she's quoted on various topics. I simply could not find the sources I would need to support a keep. I also do not believe she qualifies for presumptive notability based on either TED fellowship (not quite the same as, e.g., an IEEE fellowship) or as a scholar based on her meager citation count. I came here from the discussion of systemic bias at WP:N talk page to get a background on the issue. But this is not the poster child for claims of bias. This is someone who's just not (yet?) notable under our guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is closed, but for anyone interested in working on this article I userfied the content in my user space sandbox prior to deletion at User:Montanabw/Alanna Shaikh if anyone wants to work on it. I may not have a lot of time myself, but several people !voted "keep" and some of the "delete" !votes expressed some sympathy, so here it is. Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highrollers with Heart

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

A US charity of single event fame (2006), likely no longer in existence (no Internet presence found). — kashmiri TALK 20:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. North America1000 07:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1934 Michigan State Normal Hurons football team

edit
1934 Michigan State Normal Hurons football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmine Hughes

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

Supporting Organization or People Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hi, original article creator here, I'm confused too about why this was nominated for deletion. As far as I can tell it's very similar to many other pages for American writers that have been accepted. Happy to make any necessary changes if I'm missing something but as far as I can tell it meets requirements for neutrality, notability, and so forth. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a significant American writer and editor who's been highly accomplished at a very young age (joining editorial staff at the New York Times Magazine at 23), and The Washington Post, The Guardian, Teen Vogue and The Huffington Post have all run articles about her and her work, in addition to the many significant outlets that have published work by her (The New Yorker, The New Republic, Elle). Please see this entry's reference list for links to all. To me she clearly (and verifiably, neutrally) meets standards for notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources so WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow later. This person has done much writing, but there is little written about her at this time. I can find interviews (which are primary sources) and mentions, but not an in-depth article about her and her accomplishments. She is quite young, so this could well be rectified in the future (maybe she'll write a best-seller!), but right now what I see is TOOSOON. Note that we often have a hard time finding sufficient sources for journalists since they tend not to be written about. That they write a lot, though, is because it is their job; we require sources ABOUT people for notability. LaMona (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just added seven more secondary sources (i.e. not including interviews) on her career, her work, and accolades for them. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request User:Innisfree987, the page is oversourced. Overstuffed with article by and articles that merely mention Hughes. You would help your case is you flagged in this debate profiles of her, major prizes won, secondary coverage supporting notability of things she has written, and articles from secondary sources covering her job moves. Letting some of the hot air out of the article would also help. Flag me to revisit, if you like.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request User:E.M.Gregory:
Links to secondary sources on subject's job moves:
  1. http://www.poynter.org/2015/jazmine-hughes-named-associate-digital-editor-at-nyt-mag/329963/
  2. http://www.mediawiredaily.com/2015/03/thehairpincoms-jazmine-hughes-joins.html
  3. http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/jazmine-hughes-joins-ny-times-mag/337534
Links to secondary sources solely devoted to engaging with subject's work:
  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/23/editor-at-new-york-times-magazine-dresses-up-for-work-for-cosmo-experiment/
  2. http://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/want-to-beat-impostor-syndrome-a-new-york-times-editor-shows-how-its-done.html
  3. http://www.dailydot.com/via/new-republic-hughes-racial-humor/
  4. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/leon-wieseltiers-head-just-exploded/
  5. http://saintheron.com/news/this-ny-times-editor-channelled-cookie-lyons-style-for-a-week/
Links to articles naming subject to "Best of" lists (also secondary sources):
  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/required-reading-for-women-2014_n_6336424.html
  2. http://www.bkmag.com/2016/03/01/the-100-most-influential-people-in-brooklyn-culture-2/
  3. http://hellogiggles.com/internet-women-we-love/
  4. http://www.autostraddle.com/215-of-the-best-longreads-of-2015-all-written-by-women-319679/
And then as you say, there are still more secondary sources that mention her. I'll note from WP:BASIC: "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
As for editorial choices like reducing number of sources or "hot air", seems like we should save that for entry's talk page rather than the AfD discussion of the entry's notability, no? (Or of course please dive in and make changes you see fit!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • very, very weak keep she is clearly having a moment. It is very early career for a journalist, and, certainly, it would be preferable to have an actual profile of her somewhere. Or even a substantive Q & A. A major award or piece of journalism with substantive impact (many journalists can claim credit for a story that caused a piece of legislation, a significant new regulation, some other real-world game-changer to happen. or a career to crash) The impact of her work documented above here is trivial, and may look more so in a few years. But I think that there is enough to keep, if just barely. Thanks to Innisfree987 for making the case simple to sort out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! And actually, when I went to retrieve Q&As to add, I'm reminded there is a profile:
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/jazmine-hughes-dream-jobs-the-hairpin
And then here's the Q&A I was thinking of:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/06/jazmine-hughes-women-are-magic
In case those may be helpful to anyone. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will point out that job title is not a reason to overrule the presumption of notability WP:BASIC gives when multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources have found the subject noteworthy--unless I misunderstand, it's not one of the exclusion criteria. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Other than maybe the dailydot, all sources Northamerica1000 lists above are entirely about the subject. Even a few paragraphs in mutliple quality sources like the guardian are enough to meet WP:Basic, so the keep case here is compelling. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 05:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molemo Maarohanye

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

This one is definitely borderline, mainly because the subject doesn't meet WP:PERP, and although he's supposedly a former child star and current hip-hop artist, the gospel tune mentioned in the article appears to be his only real hit song ever, and the South African charts that are RS are for airplay only. Therefore, I can't verify anything in the vein of WP:BAND, WP:ACTOR, or anything like that. There is a lot of coverage, but it is all written about the court case and things that happened afterwards. The articles aren't tremendously in-depth, and tend to be repetitious. In short, I can't determine with any certainty if he was really notable prior to the crime, and the crime itself hasn't been portrayed as notable other that the fact that it involves a minor B-list celebrity (maybe?), so despite the coverage, I can see this being WP:NOTNEWS. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Adam Phillips (animator). MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brackenwood

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

Brackenwood is a WP:NN series of videos hosted on Newgrounds. Most of the citations are to the page of the Flash Foward Film Festival, a minor event which seems to have ended in 2008 (there is another, continuing festival with the same name which showcases films made by disabled artists). One of the videos was an "official selection" at the 2006 Annecy film festival (http://www.annecy.org/about/archives/2006/official-selection/film-index:film-20065026 link), but it's unclear what that means. The only website not belonging to the creator is coldhardflash.com, a news site about flash animation which has only a single author.

In addition to the notability problem the article falls afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL for its coverage of all sorts of planned and unfinished projects, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is a troubling whiff of WP:PROMO in with all the talk about fundraising, frequent in-text linking to the creator's website, and comments on the talk page about the creator's finances. an IP editor from Australia has also modified the section on merchandising quite a bit, most notably the inclusion of a link to a book the creator has published on Amazon. In the interest of openness, I should also mention that I have also nominated the related article for Sarus for deletion. Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any chance of participation if we give it another week, please? Sam Sailor Talk! 18:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Adam Phillips (animator), where it is mentioned. Yes, I agree, a lot of promotion in the article. I was unable to find in depth secondary sources about this series. I suppose the awards contribute somewhat to significance, but I couldn't consider them "in depth" RS upon which to build an article. Thus the article seems to fail notability guidelines. That the series exists and was created by Adam Phillips is verified, however. This is a plausible search term, so redirecting to the creator's page, where it is mentioned, seems best. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge/Redirect to Adam Phillips (animator). That article could probably stand to have a bit more information about the series, but I'm not seeing enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber People

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

Unsourced NN artist, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBAND. MSJapan (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete. Article's citations don't reveal any evidence of notability. OldNewZealand (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Party

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

Unsourced, does not meet GNG. This exists, but the website has no candidates, no party history, and no other information other than yes, it is indeed a registered political party. The name of the party is also a seemingly unrelated political slogan and a film, both of which we have articles on. Someone apparently also missed that the article was apparently created by the guy who is the leader of the party. COI much? MSJapan (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article asserts a bunch of unverifiable claims; the best of which is It's one of the leading parties in India. There is literally very less coverage in English language dailies in India, which I would expect for a leading party. The coverage of this party is usually trivial mentions in most news sources (I haven't been able to find a single article which talk about this party in detail). This is far from the significant coverage needed to fulfil WP:ORGDEPTH. In addition, the COI editing confirms that it is a case of WP:PROMO. Delete this article, at this time there is nothing to show that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYDW-FM

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

Unsourced NN radio station, WP:ENN. MSJapan (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. We have seen hoax articles created about fantasy radio stations that didn't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to merely claim those things as true — the claim to passing NMEDIA does not actually get the radio station over NMEDIA until it's supported by reliable sources. So I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DXNS-FM

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

Unsourced, notability not established, WP:ENN. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. We have seen hoax articles created about fantasy radio stations that didn't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to merely claim those things as true — the claim to passing NMEDIA does not actually get the radio station over NMEDIA until it's supported by reliable sources. So I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PangeaMT

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

Searching for sources results only in press releases or brief mentions in news reports. I couldn't find sources actually about the platform. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PangeaMT is a translation platform with 3 academic articles at the American Association for machine translation (1) (a2010.amtaweb.org/AMTA/papers/4-04-HerranzYusteEtal.pdf) and the Asian Association (2 .info/english/journal/journal52-e.htm and http://www.aamt.info/english/journal/journal50-e.htm). PangeaMT is a tool! We are also part of EU research (http:www.expert-itn.eu). We have not finished editing the article! This article is not spam at all, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mherranz (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not be promotional in tone, but the company hasn't been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Breeze

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

This page fails to meet the standard of WP:BLP, as well as a lack of WP:NN. This article has been left flagged for years, and there seems to be no desire to improve it, or show notability. Apriestofgix (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to consider WP:BLP, but yes, I will concede he does appear to meet notability guidelines. Apriestofgix (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Old Three Hundred. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zadock Woods

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

NOT MEMORIAL. Handbook of Texas is a comprehensive not a selective source DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Merge to Old Three Hundred . I'm not impressed with the sources from Northamerica1000. The sources don't discuss the subject in any real detail and the subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE, too. WP:BASIC says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" which I think is the case here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm fine with a merge too. Note that other books are likely available that cover the subject though; every reliable published book in the world has not been digitized and uploaded to the internet. North America1000 02:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech (newspaper)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This article relies on references to primary sources. It fails WP:GNG. For guidance in determining notability I recommend looking here: WP:N for Media guidelines and here: WP:N for Periodicals criteria to help determine notability. Please try to find published material to back up assertions for notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't reference a specific point on the notability guidelines for this at a glance, but campus newspapers at major universities tend to have articles it would appear, and it's well-established clearly. I'm purely basing my contribution on that and a feeling around that (given nobody else has contributed yet), but others with strong arguments are welcome to supersede me. KaisaL (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that the newspaper was certainly the first college newspaper on the web, and among the first newspapers period. Also, there is at least one cross-reference, from the Patrick J. McGovern article.
  • Keep. Deletion wouldn't be appropriate in any case: at least some of the content and sources from this article would at minimum be incorporated at Traditions and student activities at MIT#Publications and media. The article has several substantial reliable sources independent of the subject (albeit some of them are connected with MIT). "The Tech" is problematic as a search phrase, especially given the apparent existence of other newspapers with similar names, but search results do indicate that this paper is frequently used as a substantial source for both books and news coverage relating to MIT, meeting one of the indicia of notability mentioned in WP:NME. The longevity of the the paper and its distinction as an early pioneer of newspapers on the web also militate in favor of maintaining this as a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NMEDIA, WP:GNG- The newspaper has a signifant history as it exists for 100+ years and was a pioneer on the internet. There are sufficient reliable sources to support the article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz Radio

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

Non-notable online radio station. Previous AFD discussions many years ago were plagued with new users and sock puppets, no doubt helped along by the young age of the subject. Long story short, it's a small online radio station that used to falsely claim it had millions of listeners. The operator received a minor award, and a couple of national newspapers also published one-off articles by not doing the research. Most other coverage is ridicule on forums like Digital Spy. If we had articles for every person or subject that has had one piece in a newspaper, we'd run out of bandwidth. No real notability and all but forgotten almost a decade later. KaisaL (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I think it's very important to look at those links more closely, before claiming that they indicate "significant coverage". They're mostly feel-good, one-off stories about a boy running a radio station, much like you might get about somebody on a morning TV show or in the middle of a magazine. The Ayrshire newspapers are local level, so we can discount those. The others are write-ups on an awards ceremony for young people called "Our Heroes", and again, those happen all over the world. None of this coverage was sustained and none of it was really of the radio station - it was of the founder and mostly the amazement at his alleged success at the age of 15. Some of them barely even mentioned Hitz Radio and none of them lead on it. Local news stories and small "look at this" style stories shouldn't really be an indicator of notability, else we may have an article about every person that found a potato that looks like Jesus or had an operation go wrong. (Not really related, but you get the point - newspapers run pieces on lots of people but it doesn't indicate notability.) Ryan was, undoubtedly, a great self-publicist at that time - which is why the radio forums ridiculed him so much - but I think it's important to be realistic about the radio station's notability. I don't know if this makes you reconsider your weak keep, but I would implore you to at least properly look into the articles, and look at how many of these sorts of pieces run in a daily newspaper. KaisaL (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KaisaL: Well, there's no need to discount the local papers -- they can still be reliable sources and contribute to notability, but the GNG does indeed require regional/national/international coverage, too. But yeah, it's not great, and I've added a "[Very]" to my weak keep. :) Admittedly, my weak keep is based on the sources above, but also the knowledge that there's more searching that could be done and the opinions of two highly active wikiproject radio members in the last AfD. That's not ideal, I know, but I'd like to monitor the discussion to see what other sources do (or don't) come to light. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Ok, no worries. I feel WP:1EVENT is another valid point here (the event being the non-notable award which led to the coverage) and that wasn't quite so established a guideline back at the time of the previous AFDs. But absolutely monitor, hopefully more will participate from various areas of Wikipedia and not just the radio community. KaisaL (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject has sufficient coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. These are not just passing mentions but reasonably in depth about the station itself. This article has survived 2 other AFDs with coverage in 3rd party sources playing a large part in the discussion. I'm not seeing WP:1EVENT as applying here. The article, and its references cover several years of activities. While this article wont be featured on the front page anytime soon, it meets guidelines for inclusion. RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I of course understood you would be likely to back keeping the article again, but I'm going to challenge the claim that the sources are "reasonably in depth about the station itself". All but one starts on something like "15-year-old school boy" or a similar phrase; One of them mentions Hitz Radio as "his firm". With the exception of the one about the probe, they're all about Ryan Dunlop, not the radio station, which is bundled in as the reason he is being covered. Here are the openers overviewed in full for each source provided in this debate:
1. Volunteering hero Sonya Stewart has two reasons to celebrate (it goes on to refer to the first anniversary of a kidney transplant and cancer survival); Ryan's mention is as 'Our Business Hero' and it focuses on overviewing his activities;
2. Again, no lead on Hitz Radio or Ryan, another list of the award winners - The relevant part starts on a "fifteen-year-old schoolboy's net radio hit";
3. A school boy who runs his radio station from his shed is broadly the lead;
4. A teenager that convinced Scotland he was the new Richard Branson is being probed by trading standards;
5. Talks of a "schoolboy tycoon" being on the way to being the new Richard Branson;
6. Focuses on Ryan and his business empire and that he can't toast it because he's 15.
None of this, I'm afraid, is substantial coverage of the station - it's a series of exaggerated feel-good quotes and non-notable award write-ups that were not prominent in any newspaper, except for the one about trading standards which is about how he had lied about all of the claims in the previous pieces. And, most importantly, Hitz Radio is a supporting point, it's the business of the person that's being covered. Only one really goes into any depth about the radio station, because the interesting bit for the journalists looking for a quick story was his age. Also, the comment about how "its references cover several years of activities" is misleading. All of the sources are from a short space in the middle of 2007 save for an archive of the Hitz Radio website from 2004, which is not a valid source, and a later copy of a page at Companies House. All coverage dissolved very quickly after the 15-year-old school boy interest story was irrelevant, and Hitz Radio has never met any point of WP:BROADCAST.
I understand that those passionate about radio topics might feel that a few mentions of a public interest story confers notability, but if anything, the sources support moving the article to Ryan Dunlop because he is the focus of all of them. There's no actual evidence that the radio station itself had substantial coverage beyond forums that mostly teased the claims of millions of listeners and 40 staff. KaisaL (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the above comment seems to me to be more issues with the subject than with the references. The references, at least the good ones, are largely newspaper articles, they are only going to go so deep on the subject. Both the Sunday Times and Daily Record articles focus solely on the subject of this wikipedia article (not just a trivial mention). Coverage has also been demonstrated over a sufficient period here. If you are looking for book length coverage of this topic, you aren't going to find it, but that's not necessary to meet general notability guidelines. Reiterating a comment from the first AFD, internet radio stations usually aren't notable because there is scant if any coverage in reliable sources, this is one of the few that rises above that. --RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD is turning into an "and another thing" type argument very quickly. The nominator has questioned the validity of national and local newspapers as reliable sources, when that argument met resistance they switched to arguing that the article covered a single event, when that met resistence they switched to questioning the depth of coverage. While appreciate the nominator's eagerness to defend their position that the article does not belong, things are getting pointy here. It would be nice have some other editor opinions here as well. Hopefully the lists North America posted the AFD to will generate some interest soon. RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is most certainly with the references, and the general non-notability of the subject. I do find it ridiculous that this has had an article for years, yes, but I have no gripe with the subject at all. It's just not notable. (I go into this much detail on quite a few AFDs.) But I am sorry, you are absolutely misleading in your comments. The Daily Record articles do not "focus solely on the subject of this Wikipedia article", have you actually clicked on them? The first one opens with a cancer survivor and dedicates one section to Ryan and is mostly quotes from him and stock quotes from the awards, giving a brief overview of the fact he runs radio stations. The second one from the Daily Record states, "Ryan's firm Hitz Radio has already attracted five million fans", and this is the only time it even mentions the station. I have no issue with disagreement in debate but you are not reflecting the actual content of the sources, which is why I am responding at such length. (And the five million claim was a lie - I would hope you at least accept that. Hitz Radio simply does not meet WP:BROADCAST.) KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I take serious objection to you attacking my character and accusing me of being "pointy". You yourself seem to have just as much of a strong opinion as me, and I have not changed my views at all, I have argued the same point throughout. I don't know if you know Ryan personally but as established and long-term Wikipedians we should not be fighting it out like this, it's quite embarrassing for both of us. KaisaL (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously as a quite vocal nominator I am biased, but could some people not involved in the topic please make their opinions known in this debate? Whether you support deletion or not, it would be very unfortunate for this to purely be voted on by those heavily invested in radio subjects, rather than those that can view this as a non-notable organisation and failure of WP:BROADCAST. KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without getting into the rest of the dispute above, I'll just take issue with one point: There has been exactly 1 person "heavily interested in radio subjects" commenting on this AfD. More importantly, I don't know why that would count against him/her. In the WikiProjects I do participate in (WP Radio is not one of them), I treat in-project articles at AfD the same (if not harsher) than others, and I don't know why you'd assume otherwise. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's an inherent subject bias if an AFD debate is dominated by those with a vested interest in the area. (That includes me as a journalist that can see how minor the links actually are.) There's a number of regular, balanced AFD contributors and this debate sorely needs them. The last AFD, several years ago, was scarcely participated in and thus kept without being properly scrutinised by this process. (The sources are potentially significant as newspapers but the coverage is not substantial or even primarily about the radio station and the relevance of this under WP:BROADCAST has never been adequately assessed, and we cannot have articles on every person or organisation that has been in a newspaper; This is the crux of any decision to delete or keep.) It would be a very unfortunate failure of process if people just ignore this debate because two people have had such a heated conversation about the issue, I would like to be able to leave it to those neutral parties to decide based on the facts presented. KaisaL (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comes off as passive aggressive. Perhaps you don't intend to be, but I don't find this to be a helpful or productive line of argumentation.
First, there is no "subject bias" because someone is interested in a broad subject. That's a COI accusation or otherwise an assumption of bad faith, and it most definitely does not apply to members of a WikiProject. Argue as much as you want about the substance of the arguments, but leave it at that.
Second, I don't know why you're still saying this debate is "dominated by those with a vested interest in the area". You've already implicitly lumped me in with some nonsense WikiProject COI agenda, which was inaccurate. I found this afd because I searched for "nomination" among all open discussions to look at repeat nominations (something I do occasionally as a sometimes "AfD regular", since repeat nominations can be fraught and benefit from additional participation), not because of an interest in the subject. I've never even heard of Hitz Radio, let alone listen to it (or any Internet radio outside of Pandora).
The statement purporting to include yourself in that "vested interest" is likewise ridiculous. On one hand you're saying RadioFan and I must have a vested interest which biases us to keep radio-related articles (or somesuch). On the other hand, you have a vested interest because your job makes you know the right answer ("journalist that can see how minor the links actually are"). It's not just a false equivalence; it's a transparent claim to extrawiki authority.
Third, saying this discussion "sorely needs" "regular, balanced AfD contributors" implies those who have contributed thus far do not qualify. Actually making that declaration here not only doesn't do anything to attract participants, but it builds a wall of text, which can deter participation (something with which I am now complicit). The only people who are sure to receive the message are those editors whose opinions you're dismissing (hence why I say passive aggressive). Obviously, from my "[very] weak keep" I don't have a strong opinion about this subject, and may wind up switching to a weak delete by the time this is over, so it's weird for me to be typing out this windy "well I never!" response, but I find this kind of politely dismissive ad hominem destructive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is for people to actually look at the article and the sources properly. I'm going to unfollow this discussion now and not return to it. I consider this to be a stonewall delete and I'm so very frustrated at being told I'm being "pointy" for properly scrutinising the issue and being accused of taking personal issue with the subject (who is presumably in his mid-twenties now and embarrassed by his teenage self, I would imagine, but I wouldn't know). I'm standing by my statement that this discussion needs neutral input but I'm not going to be participating any longer, the whole debate is ridiculous. KaisaL (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss Patrick

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An insignificant scion of the most illustrious of hockey families, the subject was a career mid-minor leaguer (and only a fleeting career at that) of no particular accomplishments. The article creator was Qcurt8, whose sole Wikipedia activity was the creation of this article and the repeated recreation of such articles as Ratfink Funny T-Shirts and Ratfink T-Shirts, involving multiple CSDs and an eventual AfD. One can see why in this sentence, found in the original iteration of this article "In 2008 Curtiss started the online T-shirt company Ratfink T-Shirts," which included a hyperlink; obvious COI is obvious. I'd support a redirect to a Patrick family article, and am somewhat surprised that there isn't one, given that the Sutters and Appses have one. Ravenswing 08:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited from the rest of his family. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.Mdtemp (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 02:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing

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

Fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see many books about the conference published by Springer so on the face of it the notability criteria are met.[29] However, meeting the criteria only leads to a presumption of notability and there may be reasons why this article should be deleted. If so, the reason should be given because it is not at all clear to me. I don't agree with some (or, even, any) of the tags currently on the article. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I venture no opinion on the conference, but the Springer "books" you list are just the conference's own publications, so they are WP:Primary and in no way establish notability (each conference gets written up in one "book"). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the publisher is Springer and as such is independent (they publish these books to make a profit, not because they want to further the aims of the conferences). I expect the authorship is by the participants. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoLeanSixSigma

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. I find some mentions in press releases, but little else. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find any strong third-party sources. They are active across social media, but the only article I found about them is from a blog. This seems odd because they seem to have accounts at some public universities, so I would expect to find more. LaMona (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAGMA (Molecular Animation, Graphics and Modeling Application framework)

edit
MAGMA (Molecular Animation, Graphics and Modeling Application framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software package appears to be non-notable. The first page of Google hits is entirely Wikipedia mirror sites; I have not been able to find it discussed in secondary sources. Moreover the text of the Wikipedia article is copied verbatim from [30]. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Control System

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

WP:NOTESSAY RegistryKey(RegEdit) 15:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Closing as nominator as notability has now been established and article vastly improved. KaisaL (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Shmatko

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

Contested PROD. Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gymnastics her notability is borderline, as junior gymnasts that win a gold medal at an "elite international competition" are deemed notable. The question is whether the junior portion of the 32nd European Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships qualifies, which on the surface it may do. KaisaL (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romstal

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

Has been marked as only primary sources since 2012. A search turns up some listings in directories here and here. There may be Romanian news sources, but the only news item I found was this and it gives a 404. Possibly a notable company in Romania, not clear if it meets notability within English Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Romanian or other sources: here, here. press release. There are others that are paywalled. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some references to the article, hope this helpes. BineMai 09:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches have simply found nothing better at all, nothing else currently convincing and although I would've frankly suggested PROD, chances are that would've been removed. By far nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by nothing convincing? I've added some Romanian and English language references BineUser talk:Bine Mai 12:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here are some sources (in Romanian language) that look to me like "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": Ziarul Financiar, Business Magazin. Razvan Socol (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Razvan Socol. G-Translate is failing me, and I cannot find in any of the articles (including the ones you added) verification for "biggest sanitaryware distributor in Romania and one of the largest in Eastern Europe". Some of the articles list the countries and numbers of stores (which are hard to quote because they are quickly out of date), but I don't see "biggest" anywhere. Are you able to find that? Thanks. Also, the "Businessmagazin" article seems to say that the revenue of the company has fallen. However, that was from 2009. Is there later information on revenues? LaMona (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone living in Romania, it's common knowledge that Romstal is the biggest sanitaryware distributor, but I tried to find a source for that and I found this top 5 (based on official data), which shows Romstal Imex SRL to be the top company in Romania for the CAEN code 4674 (Wholesale of hardware, plumbing and heating equipment and supplies), both as turnover, profit and number of employees. In the page regarding Romstal Imex SRL (which shows the same data as official page of the Finance Ministry) we can see that the turnover decreased since 2008, but that's kind of expected after the boom of construction business in 2007-2008 and the financial crisis in 2009. This turnover data is in Romanian Lei and applies only to Romstal Imex (the main company), not the entire group. According to the articles I could find in the press, the turnover for the group decreased from over 500 mil euro in 2007 or 528 mil euro in 2008, to 350 mil euro in 2009 and 330 mil euro in 2013. Razvan Socol (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added some Romanian and English language references, company is notable enough. BineMai 21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This now gives us three references; one is a directory entry, the other two are from the same journal, ZF Comanii. We generally say that directory entries do not support notability, and multiple entries in the same journal or newspaper count as one for notability purposes. (As per wp:n: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") By my count, a few more reliable sources are still needed. Can you find some, Bine Mai? LaMona (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a strong believer that if a subject is notable in one Wikipedia, it is notable in all; Otherwise, we end up with all kinds of cultural bias. KaisaL (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added two new references. The article may now be marginal. I would not oppose it remaining. As for "notable in one, notable in all" - that would be reasonable if all Wikis had the same policies for notability, but that is not the case. Try adding all of the US porn stars to a WP with greatly different attitudes toward sexuality. I actually prefer that the wikis reflect the culture they support, although I realize that is tempered by the use of language as the determination. LaMona (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose culture can play a part on others, but the English Wikipedia doesn't really have that problem. We have quite well-established notability guidelines, and I don't feel that these should be subject to a cultural bias, and that companies of equivalent importance in English and non-English speaking countries should be treated any differently. Some may disagree. KaisaL (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they should not be treated differently, and that means that they must meet the @en WP notability requirements based on sources if they are to be entered into @en WP. That is where we run into difficulty when sources cannot be found or are hard to evaluate. In fact, my intention (and hopefully my action) is to apply @en WP notability criteria here. Replies that "everyone in Romania knows this is an important company" wouldn't work for a US or UK source, and it shouldn't work here, either. If we really did say that "notable in one, notable in all" then we'd just have one big WP. Would it make sense to add all of the articles from @en WP to @ro WP? I bet that would look like cultural hegemony. The thing is that @en WP has become the "catch-all" that everyone wants to be in, and I think that is causing us both growing pains and decision pains. If Wikidata becomes strong, then we will have a unified index for all WPs and the need to "copy" articles from one to another will make less sense. That, of course, ignores the Google/SEO factor, which unfortunately we have no control over. LaMona (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gianfranco Lotti

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

non notable, with obvious coi editor. The two purported new articles are actually disguised press releases, as can be seen by reading them .. Once we become a vehicle for echoing press releases, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - created as pure promo ("The most distinctive detail on every Gianfranco Lotti bag: the iconic key-lock shape, dipped several times in gold, as it is a precious jewel. A symbol of bold identity, taken from one of Florence’s historic city gates.") by an editor whose name basically announced COI, Gnews has a reasonable number of links, but once looking from them, they seem to be a mixture of press releases, announcements of staff changes, and minor sites; not seeing the sort of thing that meets WP:NCORP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per the sources provided above by Cavarrone. Note that the sources listed above by Cavaronne are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. North America1000 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as NorthAmerica says, this appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH per the sources provided by Cavaronne. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshkiller

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

Not notable - scant coverage by independent reliable sources. Most sources discuss the band Schaliach, which was a different band, despite the claims by this article 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't delete Fleshkiller, just change it to Schaliach and remove sources for Fleshkiller. Schaliach may have been a short lived project, but it is still notable. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 15:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Schaliach might be notable, I agree, and the article could be moved there is there is a consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with nom that although the article claims "Fleshkiller started originally in 1995 as Schaliach" this is not supported by sources, AFAICT. Fleshkiller reunites the same people, but it is announced as a new side-project of Ole Børud's, not a continuation of their work in the mid-late 1990's. This voids the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music source. Please also note that Fleshkiller is "a project in the works", and they are only now, according to their Facebook page, working on their upcoming album. For now the band fails GNG, but could be mentioned in Ole Børud. I would not be opposed to creating a redirect to there. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justifide

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

Article has been around since 2007 and nothing news worthy if any at all could be found. Does not meet WP:GNG JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow keep. Band does appear to have been prominent enough in their brief run to justify inclusion. It's not a ground-breaking source of course, but the fact their albums have double-figure reviews on Amazon from the early 2000s is a good base indicator of prominence at the time, and if it had been ten years later I think there'd be much more reliable material. One other website here states, "Christian Rock fans from the early to mid 2000's will surely remember the band Justifide". While again I do not take this source as especially significant, it's the sort of generic content that leads me to believe this band should be included - and that the issue may just be that their early split makes it difficult to find verifiable content. It might be worth pinging any experts we may have on Christian rock music. KaisaL (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityMetrics

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

Almost entirely sourced to its own publications: an obvious naive advertisement, listing its executives and its products. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quasicrystal Research

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

Not notable. Awards are not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 16:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 03:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Choudhuri

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

I could not find any notability regarding this person, google search returns no results, similarly no results in google news or books. Speedy delete request contested by an IP claiming He was published in regional newspapers and international anthologies, but I could not verify that claims. Article currently cites no sources. Darwinian Ape talk 13:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even assuming everything here to be documented, this is not a notable career. The publications are minor and do not meet NAUTHOR, and the academic work does not meet WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Altavest Worldwide Trading, Inc

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

Issues of many kinds since July 2015 and debatable notability. Has some references to Bloomberg, Reuters and Marketwatch which make it appropriate for AFD discussion. Inclined to delete as non-notable. KaisaL (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline Umubyeyi

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

Orphaned since 2015. Seems to be a non-notable beauty pageant winner and model to me, does have a couple of references but nothing that suggests to me she's important enough for encyclopedic inclusion. Others may disagree so listing. KaisaL (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. It does not assert notability. It also does not have any sources whatsoever: see WP:V. BlackVolt (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the absolute weakest of sources for her status as Miss Rwanda USA in 2014 - the link to BAU International University. Certainly the vast majority is unsourced, but there is a link proving she's a real person. KaisaL (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To me, the more difficult questions would be whether the pageant is notable (despite not having an article here) and whether the winners of this ten-years-running pageant might be notable. But that's not the question here. The subject was a contestant in, but not a winner of, the pageant. And I'm seeing nothing else in the article that would confer notability, either. By the way, the article does contain a direct link to the subject's page on the pageant's web site, which strikes me as a pretty strong source for her status as a contestant. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winner of a non-notable beauty pageant. I have to admit I have not kept up with some of these debates. Has it been decided whether the winners of US state level pageants (say Miss Nevada and Miss Nevada USA) are notable or not by default or whether you need significant sustained coverage?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NewYorkActuary, though if the Miss Africa USA pageant is deemed notable, then indeed, reassessment might be a question. And if so, Johnpacklambert's question of how far we follos the qualification tree we go for pageants is relevant. This is perhaps a broader discussion that should be held, somewhere. Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- there are plenty of pageant-related questions that ought to be discussed in a context that is broader than an AfD case. Perhaps one of these days we'll see one or two of those discussions on the Talk page of WikiProject Pageants. But in this particular case, I don't think we need the broader context. This pageant is not structured the same way as, say, Miss USA or Miss America. The latter pageants have a well-defined "feeder" structure (i.e., winners of the state-level pageants proceed to the national-level pageant). Here, contestants make their applications directly to the national organization and, when making their applications, they declare the particular African country from which they trace their ancestry (at least one parent must have been born in that country). If in any particular year, there is only one applicant claiming ancestry to a particular country, then that applicant automatically becomes Miss ThatCountry USA. The organization's web site is silent on what happens when two or more applicants are claiming ancestry to the same country. But the web site did have those little news things (Twitters? FaceBooks?) showing that two contestants, Miss Cameroun USA and Miss Ghana USA, were selected on the same day in Washington, D.C. And judging from the photographs, it looks like the ceremony was held in one of those hotel break-out rooms that often are used in business conventions. Winning Miss Africa USA might or might not be Wiki-notable, but being a contestant almost certainly is not. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. per WP:SNOW and WP:COMMONSENSE. There is clearly a political leadership crisis in both of the main parties which is indisputably WP:NOTABLE. We may quibble over the title but this article is simply not going to be deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016

edit
Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no confirmation that there will be a leadership election -- this article is entire speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's not our place to declare something will happen that is very much unconfirmed. Besides, the candidate Angela Eagle hasn't even confirmed that she would be standing. We even have unverified twitter accounts as citations!

Perhaps in the next couple of days this will be rendered incorrect, but for the time being this is total guesswork. — Richard BB 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources do need to be cleaned up. However, Eagle is making an announcement later today at which point we will know for certain (what looks almost certain now) if she is running against Corbyn. If, for whatever reason, she isn't running then the page can be deleted. Philip Stevens (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same reasons as Philip Stevens. Earthscent (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the non-confidence vote and subsequent events a leadership election is obviously underway. Electoralist (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WaitDeleteSee update below Nothing would surprise me in UK politics today (well, nothing that hasn't already happened) but it does seem the eagle has, basically, landed. Assuming the announcement this afternoon is actually what we expect (and let's face it, there have been two so far today that haven't been) this is a keep. Normally I'd agree with the WP:CRYSTAL arguments and say delete, but we'll know well before this AfD is closed. GoldenRing (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update Eagle has announced that she will not announce a challenge today. She says she will, but when is not at all clear. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or even Snowball). Sending this to an AFD is overkill, it's an important current event. At most, add "potential" or "rumoured" to the title. KaisaL (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I don't think this article should've been created (frankly, since the result on Thursday there have been about a dozen articles created that should be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BREAKING, WP:109PAPERS or WP:MASK but are being kept alive by people's emotions clouding their judgement) the event has progressed along far enough and it seems incredibly likely this leadership election will happen, making it pointless to delete it today. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a notable political situation. If appropriate, a name change (perhaps to "leadership challenge" instead of "leadership election" if an official election timetable doesn't develop soon) can be discussed on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note The introduction has been improved to reflect that this is not yet a formal election and current events as a whole. KaisaL (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC). Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aberfoyle, Warwick

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

Fails notability guideline. The article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. I have searched for additional sources but found a lack of sources. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Hamid

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

Not at all a notable subject, completely fails WP:GNG. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Census in Pakistan. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province

edit
1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article by the same creator has already been deleted. See: AfD of 1901 Census of Rajputna. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and redirect to Census in Pakistan, just as it has been done with 1998 Pakistan Census. No need to copy data across. — kashmiri TALK 16:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no need for census per year per province; this is not a textbook. I do not see the comparison that kashmiri makes above because the 1998 Pakistan Census was for the complete country, for which there is a fitting main article, not for a province. DeVerm (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but to an article on early censuses in India (meaning the British Raj, not the present republic). Anything relating to Pakistan before 1947 would be an anachronism. We had a discussion of some early Indian censuses a while back. The argument was that they were thoroughly unreliable as statistical sources, so that the target needs to be an article discussing that. The Northwest Frontier Province was also known as the unadministered zone, so that the ability of the British to obtain a reliable population count must be questionable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that but which is the article you want to redirect to? I mean, it must exist for a redirect !vote to work... DeVerm (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OWL7seven

edit
OWL7seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable YouTuber. Googling them brings up nothing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Sessions

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

Procedural nomination; I've declined a WP:CSD#A7 request on this, on the grounds that there are enough articles on similar cases on Wikipedia that it's certainly a potentially viable topic, and there would have been enough press coverage at the time that the sources can reasonably be presumed to exist. Procedural nomination, so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article should absolutely be included. There are so many other articles with less importance, so why shouldn't this one should be included? Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (I nominated for A7). Another sad but unsolved missing persons case. Over 2000 people go missing in the USA each day, hundreds of thousands yearly worldwide. There's no special notability about this case, which is often based here on what evolves from the case, such as new laws, stronger penalties, etc. Of course it made the news, that's what the news is. But nothing more than thousands of others. As for the others, lets start applying our normal policies of notability and trim the rest of the cruft.--Dmol (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dear Wikipedia administrator Dmol, I believe there definitely is special notability about this case as I have read about it in books, and you can find out about it all over the internet, so it very notable. It took me a lot of effort to make this article, and I think that any contribution to Wikipedia is a good thing. Please don't let it all go to waste. Davidgoodheart

References

  1. ^ "The search for Tiffany Sessions". CBS News.
  2. ^ Good, Meaghan Elizabeth. "The Charley Project: Tiffany Louise Sessions". www.charleyproject.org.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoliberalism

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

In the course of the first nomination, some sources were found to prove that this term has been used by a number of authors. Still, people use a great many of terms and neologisms that don't necessarily constitute a school of thought in its own right. If the term is used to denote either of left-wing socialists, liberal policy hawks, or right-wing paleolibertarians, covering almost the whole area of political orientations, then it obviously doesn't constitute a real current but is an ambiguous (self)designation that is best presented as a DAB page. PanchoS (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Incoherent attempt at a dictionary definition about a non-notable neologism. This is clearly a play on paleoconservatism, which is a real thing, with self-described adherents and substantial coverage in secondary sources. There is no such thing as paleoliberalism — no self-described adherents and virtually zero use of the phrase outside of a handful of chattering public intellectuals trying to hammer out a column. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huy Duc

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

This is kind of unusual - a procedural AfD where I am suggesting we should keep the article! I am submitting it on behalf of the original author, User:Eastgarden, who has been trying desperately to delete the article. First they added PROD tags three times, which I declined because I believe the subject is notable. Then they tried WP:G7 twice, which didn't work because they are not the only author. Their stated rationale is "as creator, I've changed my mind"; they also said something about incorrect facts, but they have not specified what facts they believe are incorrect. My involvement: Back in April 2015 when the article was new I declined CSD A7, because I felt the person was notable. I expanded the article sevenfold, added references, and took it to DYK. All was quiet for the next year, until this week, when Eastgarden started trying to delete it. I have put notes on their talk page, explaining that it is not up to them and they don't WP:OWN the article, and trying to understand where they are coming from. No response. It appears they don't understand the system. When they persisted I decided to take it to AfD on their behalf, to get a community decision. At this point I think we need an impartial community evaluation and a definitive decision to either keep or delete. MelanieN (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author posted the following on the talk page of this discussion; I am copying it here so it can be part of the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC) They said:[reply]

    Regret so very much after created this page
    I've regretted so very much after created this page: the subject is a pre-communist, the red-mafia like; not enough words to decriber him and, if MelanieN want to keep him, just simply create him by your own, so easy! Eastgarden (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep the subject is clearly notable as he is covered in significant depth by reliable sources including. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Harvard so WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nom. Sources are solid. But Note how flawed (easily gamed) our deletion process is. A very similar article was recently deleted [[44]]. It was similar in being sourced to major media, but deleted because a handful of editors appeared to find it politically uncongenial. So few eyes come to some AFDS, that it can become a popularity contest, especially in politically sensitive cases. End of screed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary fisher, dumbarton

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

Not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:A small development of recent new houses. West Dunbartonshire Council website does not distinguish this as an area, the only mention being that their mobile library has one stop in Mary Fisher Crescent. I see Mary Fisher has been added to Dumbarton#Districts which seems sufficient, possibly even undue attention. Arguably a redirect could be added (after standard capitalisation), but I don't see notability. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per AllyD. The article is unsourced. I couldn't find anything to indicate that this area is specifically recognised in any official capacity. I couldn't find anything in reliable sources to suggest that this collection of buildings is notable for any reason, so it isn't notable when judged according to WP:NGEO. There was a ship named MV Mary Fisher built in 1964, but I couldn't find anything to verify the claims of the area taking its name from this vessel. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unsourced, can't find any evidence of notability -- The Anome (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ERK talk 10:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Form 1040

edit
Form 1040 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an instructional article on how to fill out a 1040 tax form. Wikipedia is not a manual or instruction book: please see:wp:notmanual. There is no noteworthy coverage of this as a topic in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination withdrawn. I withdraw my AfD nomination for this page. At this time, it seems I created this AfD in error. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Xin

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

WP:BLP without a single reliable source, nor is there any indication of notability, the so-called "official fan site" says "There is not known so much about her personal life." Timmyshin (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Keep per nominator's withdrawal and WP:SKCRIT. There seem to be no objections and any renaming can be done via normal editing. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics

edit
Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication that the continuum form of the first law of thermodynamics is notable in the sense of warranting a stand-alone article. All of the forms of the first law of thermodynamics can be included, with appropriate references, in the main article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That's not a matter for AfD. You can merge the disputed article into the main article with no special process, and see if anyone opposes it, or more cautiously you can open a merge discussion at the articles in question. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this AfD is very premature. If it is to be merged anywhere, content involving the continuum form of the first law probably belongs in the article Navier-Stokes equation rather than first law of thermodynamics. I don't really think it belongs in the latter article at all, simply because the second article is just the wrong audience for continuum mechanics. But in any case, currently neither article discusses this equation (at least in connection with the first law, Navier-Stokes equation is a bit of a mess, so it's hard to tease out exactly what is going on there). I don't see any harm in having a separate stub where this content can be improved upon. Furthermore, notability is clearly established by sources like the two standard textbooks on fluid mechanics that are now cited in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is still plenty that can be added to this article, such as a derivation, or expanding its relationship to the Navier-Stokes equations. I'll also note that the article with its current name is easy to find via google even if it is difficult to find using the Wikipedia search bar. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Flores

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

I tried to have a look for sources for this guy but it's proving pretty difficult. He's played 32 times for Crystal Palace Baltimore (a professional team) so he meets WP:NFOOTY, though honestly I'm not sure he played a pro game for them. Looking for a second opinion here. — foxj 00:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — foxj 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — foxj 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Also cannot find any source to verify the notability claims. GiantSnowman 07:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's interesting... If I add "Crystal Palace Baltimore" to the search above, to weed out all the other Sergio Flores, my first two results are a sports photographer's website, with images for sale of Mr Flores playing in USL2 matches, and the third is a preview of a USL2 match that includes a paragraph about Palace's last USL2 match, in which Mr Flores scored the winner and earned a spot in the Team of the Week. As he clearly did play in the allegedly fully professional USL2, he clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortify Solution LLC

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

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:CORP Exemplo347 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Abbas

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

This article is doesn't cite any sources nor have any external links. It is also very short and possibly seems like autobiography. NepaliKeto62Talk to me 01:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to have been a player in first-class cricket in India, with 5 or 6 matches played, depending which source you believe. It's not a lot of play at first-class level, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and by our standards, apparently he's notable enough to merit an article. Rockypedia (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_30&oldid=1142621954"