Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 27

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Rachel G. Fox

Rachel G. Fox (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)

Very few sources. Not a notable actor. Should just be listed on IMDB as it doesn't meet the notability guideline. Themix32 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Looks more than notable enough: recurring role on Desperate Housewives, a few other television roles, a few films, and the 2014 Time magazine "Most Influential Teens" mention as well. I really don't think this one is even close; she doesn't need to be Meryl Streep to have an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - perhaps not too well known, and the references could use some improvement, but I think this definitely meets notability. -Pax Verbum 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to pass WP:NACTOR WP:GNG with the recurring role on Desperate Housewives combined with her other roles, and the coverage in the media related to this and her investing as well. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Threadworlds

Threadworlds (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)

The only reference here is to an article which does nothing but speculate why Bryan Konietzko has registered the name "Threadworlds". There is no confirmed tv series at all. Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON - speculation about a TV series that has yet to be announced. Couldn't find any sources other than trademark listings and the linked speculation. Kolbasz (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The only good option would be to mention it under Bryan's article but as there aren't that many details, there's not much to go with; my searches found links here and here but nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. After all of the single purpose accounts and unregistered editors comments arguing both ways, the consensus based on wikipedia's notability guidelines among established editors is clear that the article does not meet the guidelines, in particular lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Todd

Douglas Todd (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 an obviously notable journalist, who writes a column in the Vancouver Sun ... and that's it. I trimmed out some puffery, but a search for a sources brought up nothing except his own columns and self-published material. That's just not good enough for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree 142.59.217.7 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Todd is certainly deserving of recognition as a significant columnist and author in the Pacific Northwest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.141.162 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that this Vancouver, BC IP's only edit is to this debate in addition to a vandalistic edit to the nominator's user page. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I do not understand charges that Todd is biased. He is recognized around the world as a leading journalist of religion. He serves as a board member of the International Association of Religion Journalists, has twice won the Templeton Award for outstanding religion journalism, has several time won awards from the Religion Newswriters Association for outstanding journalism, and is read by a half million people each year. The complaint that he calls himself Doctor is unfounded. He earned a honorary doctorate degree in recognition of a lifetime's work. The person filing this complaint clearly has a beef with Mr. Todd, or, he has a beef with religion, failing to understand the difference between writing about religion as a journalist as Mr. Todd does, following the rules of journalism and maintaining objectivity, and being a religious journalist, who advocates for a particular religious point-of-view. Mr. Todd does not do this. --108.44.147.29 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this poster uses the same language (ie: "Mr. Todd") as the poster Stuart lyster below, who has already voted for a "do not delete". Is this vote from Stuart lyster's sockpuppet account, and does that influence your decision on the intentions of the poster? 142.59.217.7 (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

For heaven's sake. Would the complainer at IP address 142.59.217.7 either verify one of his/her allegations or quit vandalizing this page. Now he has accused me of having sock-puppet accounts. He/she has also accused me of putting this up as a fan-page. He's accused me of being a family member of Todd's. He has also accused Mr. Todd of religious bigotry with no citation to prove it, other than his/her opinion. How many of these is this poster allowed?Stuart lyster (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Lyster did not post the original comment. I did. As Mr. Lyster said, please verify your allegations before leveling charges. My name is Martin Davis. I am a Washington, DC, based journalist and free-lance writer who has followed Mr. Todd's career for many years. 108.44.147.29 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Additionally note that this is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Fredricksburg, VA IP. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with all the statements listed so far. A quick search for sources only came up with this: Interview with Douglas Todd, which is low-quality anyways. He seems to be just an average journalist as far as I can tell. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not delete I am the original creator of this page. Douglas Todd is a notable journalist in the Vancouver and Canadian journalistic scenes and is at least a notable as many existing Wikipedia entries of BLP. Is Wikipedia going to trim them too? It is my view that the original complaint about his "notoriety" is ironic, in that such a complaint with accompanying subject matter is precisely because of his footprint in journalism. No, he is no Anderson Cooper from CNN, and his beat is a niche of the market. However his impact includes recognition by the Templeton Foundation which issues awards for journalism, two of which he possesses. I'd suggest that he is in fact notable, and that the originator of a complaint himself does not come from a NPOV background. Stuart lyster (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am just coming up to speed with what the issues are here. But for heaven's sake, how can a page which has been up for eight years, suddenly come up for scrutiny for not being notable enough for BLP? Seriously? Stuart lyster (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Page flew under the radar. Page seems to have been created by DT himself or family member. Middle name is given, and terms of losing employment are not found in any search. Agree that deletion should have occurred 8 years ago, but better late than never 24.114.37.10 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? I am not a family member of DT's. I was a reader of his column who wondered why, 8 years ago, a notable, accomplished author like him was NOT on Wikipedia. Since then he's received an honourary doctorate because of his work. He has authored a well received book on Cascadia", makes sales on Amazon.... and what the criticism is is that all this "seems" to be his own self-promotion. What more do you want? I would appeal to Wikipedia senior editors to see this for what it is - people trying to invent non-notoriety, because they do not agree with what he has written. Indeed, that proves his notoriety. Stuart lyster (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Flew under the radar? This page had once to be locked by Wiki editors because of vandalisation - and one can say seriously that this has flown under the radar? I'd suggest that this is as it always been with this page: some people have just found new ways to vandalise it - now, trying to claim that, for instance, "Douglas Todd is not significant even in Vancouver." That is just nonsense, yet it was the first "talk" posting which started this. Todd has also been vandalised by people who did not like his coverage of Christopher Hitchens. None of the so-called allegations of violations of BLP is remotely true - I would once again ask senior Wiki-people to step up. Stuart lyster (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

70.70.249.154 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete The blog that Douglas Todd writes for is on the Opinion Pages of the Vancouver Sun. Not a notable author, and no notable achievements. 24.114.37.10 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Vancouver, BC IP. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete for reasons given by those above, thumbs up to deleting this bio 24.142.28.129 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Cold Lake, AB IP. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure where all these IPs have come from, but my reason for proposing to delete the article is that I can't improve it and can't see how anyone else can. The specific problem is that a biography of a living person must have inline citations to high-quality and independent sources. Without that, we really have no way of knowing exactly how notable Douglas Todd is or isn't, and for BLPs we have to err on the side of not including. As it stands, the article doesn't seem to have any inline citations and all, very little in the way of sources, and a search for sources showed me nothing outside his columns for the Vancouver Sun. The presence of any other articles is irrelevant for deciding what to do with this one. I'm not trying to be mean or belittle your efforts, but there have been so many problems with complaints and even lawsuits by subjects of a BLP that we have to be conservative these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so that we're on the same page, then, would the following inline reference count? [JUDY GRAVES AND DOUGLAS TODD TO BE AWARDED 2013 HONORARY DOCTORATES BY VST http://vancouver.anglican.ca/news/judy-graves-and-douglas-todd-to-be-awarded-2013-honorary-doctorates-by-vst] I could probably do that for each sentence, and don't want this to become an argument about what is and what isn't a legitimate reliable source Stuart lyster (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is an acceptable source, and if you can get about 6-7 truly independent sources citing all the unsourced facts in the article, I think we can rescue this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted 7 sources, some doing double duty. Please identify any remaining in-line sources which you think is needed. Stuart lyster (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, a church based newspaper is not independent, as the bias is towards members. Any recognition given thereof is also biased, and not reflective of notability. This constitutes the majority of the "citations", and "achievements". The truth is, being a Christian blogger doesn't make one notable in and of itself. It's impossible to clean up this article, as Douglas Todd has done nothing noteworthy in his field. He has made no contribution which shifted the dynamics of thinking in religion (if that's his supposed field). This article needs to be deleted, I'm sorry 142.59.217.7 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the dismissal of the Diocese of New Westminster as a "church based newspaper", it's a bit bigger than that, and it does suggest that somebody independently decided to write about Douglas Todd off their own back, so it can be used. The Simon Fraser University news source is another good one. The Amazon links are problematic, just about anyone can put anything on Amazon indiscrimanately, so it's not really much use. As it stands, we could possibly close with a redirect to Vancouver Sun, but that's about as far as I'd go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone supposes himself to be an academic, he should be published in academic journals. Doctors, teachers, policemen, and politicians all have reviews in their local chapter's monthly circulations, and yet they do not deserve a page on Wikipedia until and unless they have done something significant (good or bad) which affected their field. In the case of academia, this is published in peer-reviewed journals. The individual in question doesn't seem to have contributed anything, really to society. The link at Simon Fraser University shows another attempt by him to belittle minorities. It is not hard to have something put on Amazon, it is not hard to set up a blog, it is not hard to sign up as a guest presenter to fill the required credit hours for a theology course at SFU, etc etc. Show me something, anything significant which he has done, which contributes to his field in a meaningful way. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In my view the complainer at IP 142.59.217.7 is showing that he does not have a NPOV in relation to this. Take this comment, "The individual in question doesn't seem to have contributed anything, really to society." Yet Mr. Todd is not an employee of the church or any religious organization - the societal breadth he has is precisely because he is in the employ of The Vancouver Sun, a secular newspaper with a century-long presence in Vancouver and Canada. As a journalist, Mr. Todd has a weekly review printed in that paper, with opportunity for all to review it - and Mr. Todd has done that since the 1980s. Then there's the bait and switch from the complainer at IP 142.59.217.7. This betrays two things - one, he advances a non-verified, non-NPOV claim that few, if any, share. It is unsourced and can be nothing more than a personal opinion which is driving his vandalization, in my opinion. His complaint about the source moves his complain against Mr. Todd to SFU itself. SFU is also a secular - ie. non-church - authoritative source of Mr. Todd's contributions but IP 142.59.217.7 sees that (on other grounds, ones that prop up Todd's notoriety) as reason to delete Todd's article. Why then is he not arguing to delete reference to SFU on those grounds? Mr. Todd's page, as seen from the Talk-page, has gone through a number of vandalizations like this, and in times past Wiki-editors have intervened appropriately. This vandalization is simply more sophisticated. The former vandals would simply try to edit the article with their non-NPOV, unverifiable opinions. This vandal is arguing strawmen behind the scenes. Stuart lyster (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We're going to have to make a decision on whether the above poster is too personally attached to the subject matter to be able to maintain a neutral point of view on the subject. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought what was at issue was whether or not the in-line citations passed the Wikipedia requirement of being both from a NPOV and verifiable? Now this lone-complainer wants to attack the messenger providing the citations. Why not just let the citations speak for themselves? To repeat: why not also provide verifiable cites to the libellous claims claims he is advancing as if everyone knows his views are true? Stuart lyster (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I've given it a few days for all the information to surface, but have decided to vote for this article's deletion. The reasons are threefold:
  • Fails notability test, in that independent sources do not present any significant body of work which contributes or detracts from Douglas Todd's pursuant field of interest (religion?)
  • Creation of the page, and maintenance of, continues in large part by the actions of a single user only. This user also does not feel the page should be scrutinized, and has called due diligence vandalization, suggesting a personal conflict of interest.
  • Is unencylopedic in that the page lacks a balanced view of the person in question. Fanpages can be created on independent websites, Facebook, or Twitter. Wikipedia is not the place for a fan page. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the continued use of weasel terms like "fanpage" I can only repeat that this person, a single-voice calling Mr. Todd in essence a Christian-bigot betrays his lack of NPOV. Indeed, non-church sources are now in the article in question, which simply provide third-party citations to the material. I also do feel the page should be scrutinized, as it has been in the eight years of its existnce, just not vandalized by someone with an obvious bone to pick with the person in question. This person is not bringing due-diligence, but an unverifiable opinion about Mr. Todd. He should provide verifiable sources, from a NPOV to his claims about Todd. Until that happens, yes the claim of this being simple and continued vandalization stands. Stuart lyster (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, he's called me a 'complainer' and a 'weasel' now. This poster cannot speak about the subject matter without becoming emotionally involved. There's some personal connection here, and I suggest we consider it when we look at the reason for the page's creation. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that Alberta IP 142.59.217.7 is a single purpose account dedicated to this article, its talk page, and this deletion discussion. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Let it go, anyone who's so into this Todd guy had issues to start with. FWIW that's 6 to delete now according to the stats. When do we trash this thing?24.114.45.97 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Douglas Todd is an multi-awarded journalist and author who is notable not only within Vancouver but also within the field of spirituality and ethics reporting in North America. His columns were previously syndicated in the Hamilton Spectator (Hamilton, ON late 90's, early 2000s) and I've followed his writings from time to time since. Accusations that the subject of the BLP is behind the bio didn't hold up. Now the orig poster is being accused of using sock puppet accounts without any supporting evidence. I believe the suggestion the subject's books are self published is false. Suggesting that sources such as VST, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster or SFU are not independent and unworthy is unsupported by evidence. Most concerning is the comment, "The individual in question doesn't seem to have contributed anything, really to society" which reveals a level of animosity towards the BLP subject. Finally, let's be careful before suggesting BLPs should be deleted when google searches bring up pages of their own articles; I'd expect any publishing entity worth it's salt would produce pages of results for a writer with decades worth of print and online publishing.Cherms (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the only edit to Wikipedia by this account. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete As a faith page columnist for another Canadian newspaper, I can vouch for Douglas Todd's credentials and expertise in writing about a variety of topics related to faith, culture and society. Journalism and column writing is designed to provoke and prompt debate, discussion and, sometimes, disagreement. Trying to shut down someone's voice, or a page about them and them and their work, because of a disagreement over a point of view is not only antithetical to the practice of journalism, but also the workings of an open and free society. Through his writing, Doug Todd provides people in the lower mainland with seasoned and reasoned perspectives on topics of interest to the community, and beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.54.2 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Winnipeg IP. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of this person passing WP:JOURNALIST or receiving any significant independent coverage. Nice amount of meatpuppetry in this AfD though. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Living journalists are notoriously hard to source out under WP's notability rules since other publications tend not to write about their competitors and anything appearing in their own publications is regarded as "self-sourcing." We really do need some set of metrics for inclusion of significant career journalists akin to those we use for academics, in my opinion. This bio is probably not going to get over the notability bar while he is a living person, barring the winning of a Pulitzer or some such. I'm not convinced that is a good thing. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Suggestion Can someone not involved in this discussion filter through this page and list a summary of the "keep" vs "delete" points, so that we can come to a consensus 142.59.217.7 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete There seems to be very little even non-notable references to this journalist apart from the Vancouver Sun and things he wrote for the Vancouver Sun. That we have so many "Do Not Delete" rather than the more typical "Keep" suggests to me a strong hint of the stale smell of socks.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The Douglas Todd entry arguably includes too many irrelevant specifics, such as his childhood moves. But the page is certainly warranted: as an international journalist who has read Todd's work for two decades I can vouch that journalists in Canada in general, and journalists in the small field of religious and spiritual writers globally, are well aware of Todd. The National Newspaper Awards, in which he is a recipient, are Canada's highest honour. The Templeton Religion Reporter of the Year Award, which he twice won, is evidence of respect by his peers. One indication of his standing In his general and academic community is that he was chosen to moderate a Karen Armstrong forum in Vancouver iin 2014. His columns and blog in the Vancouver Sun have an erudite following, judging by comments on social media. He has proven willing to address with academic rigour topics that not politically correct (i.e., the impact on Vancouver of wealthy investors from mainland China, or the Sikh fundamentalism linked with the Air India bombings). The "Delete" proponents on this page fail to make their arguments on the basis of evidence and citations; if they had they would not have to resort to childish insults such as "the stale smell of socks;" and poor grammar "anyone who's (sic) so into this Todd guy .... " Finally, as a financial donor, constant reader and very occasional editor on Wikipedia, I am disturbed by the tenor of this discussion, and especially by what amounts to anonymous personal attacks. Wikipedia's stellar reputation and quality must be maintained by resisting the trolls that plague social media, and insisting on rigour and good faith. Tulpaloose (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that this 'international journalist' doesn't know basic grammar. I normally wouldn't be the grammar police, but he's calling out another poster for grammar, and the very thing he's got issue with is infact grammatically correct. Who's is the conjunction of who is. 24.114.41.163 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And that first colon you used should be a semicolon, Mr International Journalist who financially contributes to Wikipedia yet does not have a userpage on his brand new account. Get out the ban sticks for these socks already, this is just terrible 24.114.41.163 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Todd's blogs are written with similar grammatical errors. If you read that post by Tulpaloose carefully, you can see a few dead giveaways that it's Todd himself. The general tone is the same as Todd - plodding, self-righteous grandiosity, using a few synonyms swapped out by MSWord's thesaurus, but most importantly full of problems with sentence structure. It's an *arrogant* style of writing. It tells you what you should think, but fails to respect the medium (language), leaving you feeling ripped off. As though you were told you'd see MJ and the Bulls, but the Generals showed up. Just a thought. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment : "if they had they would not have to resort to childish insults such as "the stale smell of socks;" and poor grammar "anyone who's (sic) so into this Todd guy .... " - on this note, I would like to mention that we have a strict policy of no personal attacks. Debate the suitability of the article by all means, but anyone else who makes disparaging remarks at other participants may well find themselves blocked from editing. Be cool, people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. If the decision is to keep the article, can it be locked for a period of time to prevent the current (my opinion) vandalisation? Stuart lyster (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Try doing what this user asked you to on your talk page. Go read the administrator notice board, where there's a discussion about this article. It is unanimous that this article will be deleted 142.59.217.7 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's delete it already then. No new ideas for days now, just bickering waiting for a decision 142.59.217.7 (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 03:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sidian M.S. Jones

Sidian M.S. Jones (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 was prodded three years ago for nn, autobio, and insufficient sourcing:[1]. The prod was removed, reason given that the two books he co-authored about his grandfather are not both on vanity presses. The only current source is to subject's own website. The "sources" I removed were blog posts and dead links. Top google hit is this article. Article subject started and has maintained this autobio. Other main contributor had to be warned by ArbComm to stop creating these promo articles about the people who attend his festival.

The only notability I can see is if the two co-authored books about his grandfather are better known than I think they are, or if his website is more significant than I think it is. Either way, this has been needing sourcing for three years and nothing better has been forthcoming. - CorbieV^☊☼ 20:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The article was created by a user of the same name, most likely himself, which is a conflict of interest. Also no significant news coverage was found in my searches. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparent self-promotion with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Previous commentators have summed-up the situation accurately. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. Almost Speedy Delete G11. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Fazbear7891 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Melanin theory

Melanin theory (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 page about a highly-biased yet not notable theory. It discusses solely about a fringe theory ("an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters" according to its page on WP). Looking at the policy page, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." I don't think the current list of refs support this part of the policy. Fazbear7891 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy keep "Melaninism" is a well known and very widely commented upon fringe theory (just click the automatically generated links in "find sources" above, several of which are already cited in the article). The article quite properly explains the views of the "theorists" who promote it, but it is very clear about the mainstream scientific view. Could it be better? Sure. But it's a fairly even-handed account of the topic. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep While I disagree that this is a speedy keep, there are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:V in my opinion. In particular, there are academic sources that examine this as an example of pseudoscience, which suggests notability. ~ Rob^Talk 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep 20 sources, at least some of them are decent, reliable sources. Definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep The theory is rather disgusting, and decidedly fringe, but even a quick search through any academic database comes up with enough coverage for this to be absolutely clear cut. Start with this set of results. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per nominator's withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Osadeni Dushi

Osadeni Dushi (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 seems like it should meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, but I can't verify it. It has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. There are potential redirect targets (author, lead actor) but I couldn't see one as a clear proposal. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Alts: multiple releases over multiple years under multiple titles:

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

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

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

East Germany (1977):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hungary (1979)(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

• Keep and continue work, as WP:NEGLECT of an improvable topic is not a valid deletion rationale. Having used some WP:BEFORE, I easily found non-English sources calling the film a Bulgarian classic,[2] and marking the film as among the top 10 most beloved films of Bulgaria,[3] so Boleyn I took a few moments and made some improvements.[4] More to do, as I believe this 40-year-old, pre-internet, top ten favorite surely has more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination per all above, notability has now been verified; thanks for finding these good sources. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to have done so. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was snow close. There may be some potential merit in having a properly sourced page that discusses rare cars, but this is too filled with WP:OR and too limited to be that page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The rarest vehicles

The rarest vehicles (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)

Unreferenced original research based on the editor's personal opinions, not facts. Unsalvageable. Huon (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the reasons given; the page is personal opinion. I had PRODded it but it was removed. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as clear OR, Seems odd all cars are Fords anyway!, The title is confusing too as technically all cars become rare eventually. –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly inaccurate OR. The rarest are from the 1980s and 90s? Ridiculous. I'm sure there were lots of one-off prototypes and concept cars, like the 1938 Phantom Corsair. Plus "vehicles" would have to include things other than just cars and trucks anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Kelly (Politician)

Ryan Kelly (Politician) (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 guy came third in the 2014 Ontario general election. That fails WP:POLITICIAN. However, I'm not sure a speedy delete is the correct avenue; he could have minor news coverage along the way, so I think a full AfD discussion is better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Whitby—Oshawa_(provincial_electoral_district)#Election_results per WP:POLOUTCOMES, as a plausible search term. The nom is right that CSD:A7 would be inappropriate in this case, however the subject still fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way. The only coverage in reliable sources is the type of standard local press coverage in an electoral campaign context such as this or this, which is definitely not enough for a stand alone article. Valenciano (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect fails the notability guideline for politicians. Might also be a case of WP:TOOSOON, if at some point in the future he has significant reliable coverage we can split this off again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Being an unsuccessful candidate in a provincial or federal election does not, in and of itself, entitle a person to a Wikipedia article — per WP:NPOL, a person must win the election, and thereby hold a notable office, to become eligible for a Wikipedia article on the basis of their political activity itself. This article, however, makes and sources no other claim of notability outside of the candidacy. I'd actually prefer to just delete rather than redirecting, as his plausibility as a search term is actually not significant (nobody seriously expects failed candidates to be covered on here, apart from people with a direct conflict of interest), but I'd settle for a redirect too if necessary. If he wins election to a notable office in the future, then he can have a new article. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: the political equivalent of a one hit wonder. Can always be recreated if he wins an election. Should not be redirected -- too common a name; potential for confusion. Quis separabit? 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NPOL, and a redirect would be useless (too common name + disambiguator make it implausible as a search item). Kraxler (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a specific action has emerged from this discussion, and no consensus has formed regarding the notability of the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations (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. The article is really based on a one off visit by the Bangladeshi foreign minister, with lots of we want to cooperate more type statements. They agreed to establish a joint economic commission but this never happened. There are no embassies, significant trades or agreements between the countries. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - as above. A collection of WP:ROUTINE events. Neutrality^talk 19:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing particularly noteworthy in Russian or Azeri sources. Some coverage but routine stuff. They unconditionally support AZE on Nagorno-Karabakh, which is not surprising/less noteworthy since Bangladesh is very tight with Turkey, who sides with AZE against ARM. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep according to the general notability guidelines, there are seven references with significant coverage. I have also expanded the article a bit. The two countries have signed three agreements and have some high level visits.[5] Besides, this article was earlier nominated just few months back, we should wait for some time before renominating it again. Nomian (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is the previous AfD discussion? It doesn't look like it was created. Additionally, they have had minimal contact as far as economic exchange. They want to set things up but they haven't yet. In 2014, they had something like US$70,000 in trade between them (almost nothing). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Check out the diff for the AFD. It was nominated in January this year. The relations have been growing recently which is reflected by the high level visits and agreements. Nomian (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

what are the 3 agreements? There's a MoU which is not the same as an agreement. There's also a draft agreement. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The official page of Azerbaijan foreign ministry says 3 agreements are in force between the two countries.[6] Nomian (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They are so minor they can't even name them. LibStar (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Nomian (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

the high level visit is one minister visit from one country in 23 years of relations, that's how lowly both countries see each other. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Merge Keep & merge: There are some sources but not enough to have a stand alone article of the subject. Hence. it would be better to merge it into another more general page. Mhhossein (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: KEEP & MERGE seems contradictory to me. Possibly it is an AfD 'term of art' I am unfamiliar with if so would you please explain so I can understand your argument better?. What article would you suggest as a MERGE target? Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: The useage might be wrong, but I meant to emphasize on the keeping of the materials and this does not mean to have a separate page for the title. Titles such as Foreign relations of Bangladesh and/or Foreign relations of Azerbaijan are good choices for this purpose. Mhhossein (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: OK. Thank you for making your !vote clearer to me. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - fair bit of in depth coverage, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Nomian. Satisfies GNG. ROUTINE is wholly irrelevant, as the bilateral relations of two countries are not an event. The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft), WP:N (lead section says a topic is notable if it "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words), cf. "significant [or] interesting ... enough to deserve attention" in lead section of WP:BIO, which I suggest is intended as a principle of general application). The impractical nature of merging a page that has two obvious but equal targets (the two countries) is also a very strong argument for keeping the page (and all pages of this type). James500 (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

the above argument is trying to make a claim for inherent notability without even discussing actual coverage or mention of Bangladesh or Azerbaijan. Bilaterals are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted, there is no community consensus regarding a draft guideline. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

*Delete No embassy, only two visits, Insignificant trade, diplomatic relations, Dipu Moni, Foreign minister of Bangladesh visited 187 foreign countries in 4.5 years for which she has faced criticism. Her visit does not imply any notability.

KeepFair amount of coverages and new sources found. The two countries have supported each other in international organizations. Have non resident ambassadors. --- Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG. Future agreements are not significant unless there has been significant coverage of the negotiations. Pro forma trips, which seem to be part of a multi-country tour, are not significant.

  WP:NBILATERAL is a draft edited only by the editor who cited it above, James500. The material in it is not supported by community consensus and much of it contradicts consensus. In any event this is not the place to discuss a draft guideline and it should not be cited in deletion discussions until it has had input from many more editors. Jbh^Talk 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

great pick up jbhunley, James500 basically invented WP:NBILATERAL unilaterally to deceptively try to argue there's a guideline that supports his argument. Ironically he criticised me in another AfD for citing an essay, when he disingenuously uses self crafted essays himself. I'm guessing the next topic will have its own draft guideline invented. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jbhunley: That is nonsense. If we can cite essays we can also cite draft proposals. "Only an essay" is one of the arguments to avoid, and "only a draft" can be dismissed with the same argument. As far as I am aware there are no restrictions on what can be cited at AfD, and the creation of any restrictions would impede proper discussion at AfD. It would also impede discussion of the draft. In any event, if you read my previous comment closely, you will see that I am actually citing WP:IAR, which is certainly policy. James500 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC) As for community consensus: I think the number of previous deletions is irrelevant. Firstly, stare decisis does not apply at AfD. (It would create a self fulfilling prophecy where editors cite guidelines at AfD, and AfD on the talk pages of guidelines, which would permanently lock us in to a particular result). Secondly, consensus can change, and not all of those AfDs will be recent. Frankly, Wikipedia is so large, and we have so many AfDs, and so many editors, that I don't think that 100 deletions is a particularly large number. It could be produced by an unrepresentative vocal minority. It unlikely that AfD participants as a whole are a representative sample of the community. I don't think it is likely that consensus (which is not the same thing as past results) is against the notability of such broad topics. And one more thing. I engaged in no deception whatsoever. I mentioned that the page was a draft (which was not actually necessary since it is plainly marked as one). I never, at any point, claimed it was a guideline. And the page history is there for everyone to see. So there is no deception there either. In that context, deception would mean nothing less than socking. James500 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@James500: No matter how you present it you created a guideline one day and cited your own, and only your own, opinion as if it were something others were working on. Whether you intended it yo be deceptive or not, and I will assume you did not, it is very dodgy. Since the material in WP:BILATERAL is only your view for which there is no consensus you should strike the link and simply express your opinion without the implied weight of a WP: blue link.

Aslo,WP:IAR is not something to cite in a deletion discussion you wight as well cite WP:BECAUSEIFEELLIKEITNOMATTERWHATANYONEELSEHASTOSAYBECAUSEMYOPINIONISBETTERTHANEVERYONEELSE'S. Jbh^Talk 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue links carry no weight at all. I did not cite it as if it were something others were working on. I will however strike my citation of it above as it has been edited in a way that is not compatible with the context of that citation. WP:IAR is the main policy of the project. It should be certainly be cited in deletion discussions and everywhere else it may be applicable. Applying GNG to a topic as fundamental as this one would prevent us from improving and maintaining the project, as GNG is highly subjective. Allowing its use as an argument for deletion would allow users to argue that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant, or at least, to demand a level of coverage that is excessive. That is, in my opinion, what is happening in this AfD, as I can't see anything wrong with Nomian's sources. We have to draw a "bright line" somewhere and say, beyond this point, we will not accept "I want more sources" as an argument. GNG does not do that adequately. James500 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My primary issue is one of perception. While blue links do not carry procedural weight they do carry perceptual weight, in particular with those who comment on AfDs in topic areas they are unfamiliar with, which many editors seems to do.

I will read through the sources which have been provided since this AfD started to see if they change my opinion. One of the things I look for when deciding if coverage is 'significant' is depth of coverage not simply quantity of coverage. Jbh^Talk 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

so will you be inventing another draft guideline for the next AfD? When I've seen WP: IAR cited in AfDs it's when someone knows they can't prove notability so bring out the IAR card as some weak attempt to establish notability. The fact is there is no inherent notability for bilaterals and unilaterally inventing a draft guideline for the sole purpose of this AfD carries zero weight and is also proves a lack of notability . LibStar (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) Since WP:NBILATERAL now exists, we don't need another draft proposal for bilateral relations. (2) I did not create that draft for the purpose of this AfD. I created it after the last AfD about that ambassador Patricia Cardenas (and I forget the rest of her name) and all the other discussions I've participated in or read on this subject. That is why it mentions ambassadors, embassies and treaties, which have nothing to do with this AfD. I did not know that this AfD existed until after I created the draft. I was expecting the deletion sorting list to be empty when I looked at it. I was surprised that another nomination of a notable topic had been made so soon after the last one. Why on Earth would I need to create a draft proposal only for an AfD on a topic that clearly satisfies WP:GNG? That would be absurd. Think about it. (3) Regardless of what other people might do, I do not cite IAR to support the inclusion of non notable topics. My primary argument is WP:GNG (which is enough to keep this article by itself), and I also take the view that the wording of WP:N supports inherent notability of anything objectively "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words (which results in a keep as well). I mentioned IAR because it necessarily allows us to mention essays and proposals. (4) Since telepathy is widely believed to be impossible, it is probably not helpful to speculate on why someone wrote an essay, or why they cited a policy, in the absence of an explanation. James500 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

it is a blanket draft gudieline that no one else has worked on, and has zero chance of becoming a real guideline because community consensus has not granted inherent notability to ambassadors, embassies and bilaterals. There has already been an attempt to give ambassadors inherent notability at WP:BIO that went nowhere. To quote this draft guideline that does not reflect established community consensus would not sway a closing admin. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@:::User:LibStar: I disagree. So far, three people, all whom are participants in this AfD and who want this article deleted, have criticised the draft. That isn't a consensus, or even a representative sample of the people in this AfD. There was substantial support for the inherent notability of ambassadors at WT:BIO. There is a realistic prospect of that achieving consensus, though it may take time. The other propositions are not devoid of support either. There is an emerging consensus that bilateral treaties are notable. James500 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

your draft guideline states that all embassies, ambassadors and embassies are automatically notable. That does not explain why 100s have been deleted which proves no inherent notability whatsoever. You would have a basis for claiming inherent notability if you could show that almost all afds ended in keep. Instead you are pushing your own view and pretending you somehow have some basis for inherent notability when in fact you have none.like previous afds you resort to long winded deflection and argument that actually achieves nothing LibStar (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:LibStar: It is a draft proposal, not a draft guideline. Proposals not claim anything is notable. They propose that we should come to an agreement that they are. And the basis I suggested for inherent notability was the lead section of WP:N. Read what I wrote more carefully. I don't think inherent notability is determined by common outcomes for the reasons I've explained above. James500 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

quoting a self written proposal to advance one's argument in an AfD is hardly credible. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

For the second time, I quoted WP:N. James500 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This document already linked is the entire extent of the AZE-BAN history, spanning the years since Azerbaijan became independent (1991) through last year (2014). It's barely a single page with giant oversized font. This is not indicative of ANY significant relationship. "Supporting each other in international organizations" means nothing - as I pointed out, Turkey and Bangladesh have a huge economic relationship (billion+ in trade), and Azerbaijan is very politically aligned with Turkey against Armenia in the very ugly disputes in this region. (Turkey and Azerbaijan are the only countries that deny the Armenian genocide.) There are simply no sources there, and I scoured in Russian and Azerbaijani trying to find something. Caucasus is one of my primary interests and if there was any way I thought this met GNG I would say so. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Merge The article appeared to reference seven substantive independent news sources. On closer inspection, however, most of those pieces are not independent of the Bangladesh government; they are simply reprints of the official press releases from the government run Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) news agency, with no additional reporting, analysis, or interpretation. Only three sources provide any meaningful degree of independent coverage of the topic.

For me those three sources' coverage of 1) the Bangladesh Foreign Minister's visit to Azerbaijan and 2) the Bangladesh Ministry of Commerce's plan to hold a meeting to review a proposal for an accord, does not amount to significant coverage of the subject Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations. So it does not meet WP:GNG, and at this time a stand-alone article on the topic is not warranted.

Articles are supposed to be based primarily on independent, reliable, secondary sources. To meet that guideline it appears that some of the content attributable only to non-independent or primary sources will have to be trimmed. I propose that what is left be merged into Foreign relations of Bangladesh and a piped "See Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations" link be added to Foreign relations of Azerbaijan. Why that target? It's somewhat arbitrary, based in part on the fact that so far the only independent sources are Bangladeshi. If people feel strongly that Azerbaijan should be the target, or that the text should be merged into both, I could support that. No prejudice against recreating the article at a later date if something happens in their relationship that draws significant coverage. Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I just want to clarify that my analysis of the news sources that are not press releases is that they clearly satisfy GNG. My previous !vote did not rely on the sources that have been identified as press releases by Worldbruce.
• In my view, any guideline that says that content should be based primarily on independent secondary sources is probably invalid. Article 2 of the WMF bylaws says that "useful information" may not be deleted from WMF projects (though it may be transwikied or otherwise moved around). It seems obvious that utility is an intrinsic quality of information that cannot possibly be equated with an obviously arbitrary numerical rule that more than 50% of content in an article must come from independent secondary sources. (I assume that information from unreliable sources is always useless). Since the WMF owns this site, it seems to me that no community guideline can overrule their bylaws. James500 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are completely twisting that to justify keeping a pointless article about the relations of two countries which have almost no relations (no shared history, no significant interaction, no permanent diplomatic mission, and next to no economic trade). Quote: "The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity." Nowhere does it say "every iota of information ever written down or recorded is useful and shall never be deleted from Wikipedia." The community decides what is "useful" by whether or not it meets GNG. The criteria to meet GNG is very throroughly clear and understood by most people. If you can't understand all of this, perhaps for your own sake you should not participate at AfD, to save yourself from experiencing this repeated frustration. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That is total nonsense from start to finish. That simply isn't what I said. You are the one twisting my words. The guideline that I and Worldbruce referred to isn't GNG, it is content guideline relating to the removal of information from primary and non independent sources from articles on topics that are notable. So I did not question the compatibility of GNG with the bylaws. Indeed GNG is my main argument for keeping this article. I did not suggest that "every iota of information ever written down or recorded is useful". I said that the guideline in question seems to contemplate removing information under the prescribed circumstances even if that information is useful (which it may or may not), which clearly would not be compatible with the bylaws. The proposition that the sum total of useful information in all independent secondary reliable sources is greater than that in all other reliable sources in the world seems to be one that is not obviously true (why should it be?) and probably could not be proved. My objection was to the precise formulation of the guideline invoked above. I did not object to the removal of any particular piece of information from primary or non independent sources now in the article because I have yet to assess whether that information is useful. I objected to the criteria proposed to be used for determining whether such information ought to be included in this article or another, a determination I have yet to make. Since Worldbruce's argument was advanced against merging certain content into other articles, I was not advancing an argument for keeping this article. I think the word "useful" in the bylaws has to be construed according to its normal meaning as an ordinary English word. Whilst the community has to decide whether information is useful within that meaning of the word, I do not see how the community could have been authorized to redefine that word to have a meaning incompatible with its said normal meaning. If that guideline seeks to redefine "useful", it seems to have ascribed it a meaning that is at least potentially (depending on how much useful information primary or non independent reliable sources actually contain) incompatible with its said normal meaning, which won't be compatible wit the bylaws. I understand GNG perfectly and my understanding of it is far better than yours. IIRC, I rarely experience "frustration" at AfD, as I generally get a result that I consider acceptable, and I expect that continue in the future, as my opinions are a perfect reflection of community consensus, and any rules etc we have to obey in situations where consensus does not apply (CONEXCEPT). I do not think I am going to be "frustrated" in this AfD either, as I am fairly confident it will result in the article being kept. James500 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Another extremely long winded response which actually mentions nothing about Bangladesh nor Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It was the correct answer to the question posed. James500 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:N, which can't be argued against in good faith. Running down the relations as unimportant is really running down the countries as unimportant, which is positively shameful. WilyD 11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

how precisely does it meet WP:N. You haven't addressed that. The argument for deletion is that relations are very limited not that the relationship is unimportant. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the countries are unimportant. Their nearly non-existent relationship, however, fails to meet the requirements of a Wikipedia article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Victorian Plumbing

Victorian Plumbing (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. The refs are merely notices: one of them is even an advertisement they are looking for a new advertising agency. t DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Article has facts are from a variety of often cited, reputable sources. Business is notable as has had a variety of non-incidental coverage and none of these are adverts.JoePascoe (Talk) 16:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — JoePascoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak Delete I don't think "notices" is a fair description or saying that this is an advertisement. A couple of the articles, including that one, are bylined by editors from the publication. However, they are all short blurbs and do not show any substantive investigation into the topic. We need more meaningful coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 19:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• delete i agreed with the initial speedy on this. the article is just promo and the company fails WP:ORG. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Consensus is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

John's Incredible Pizza

John's Incredible Pizza (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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - the only reference is a local article. WP:ORGDEPTH criteria are not met. The pizza is not that incredible.--Rpclod (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: I can believe it. It looks like a slightly out of date article on a mid-size local chain. Getting an award for growth in 2007 is ominous, given the business climate since 2010, and retail food is strikingly volatile. Without RS on notability (will change my motion if sources are found), it fails on corporate notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: NorthAmerica1000's sources are not substantively different from the ones in the article. They are sources. The most significant coverage seems to be for the $30 million borrowing and then restructuring, and that would argue a pretty strong company. Otherwise, these are frequently local (one opening here, or there, or there again), so the sources are less convincing to me than the capitalization. It's not enough for me to change my opinion, however. (I think the standards may be too tough, actually.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources include: , , , , , , , , . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems notable, but 7/9 on NA1K's sources fall under WP:Routine, ie the majority are only notices of restaurant openings - only #2 & #6 are actually about the company. However, if they exist there are probably more that can be found. Remember, just because the source is notable does not mean the subject is... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE is a part of the notability guideline for events. This article is about a company, not an event. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Store openings are events, and coverage of them falls under WP:Routine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - just barely meets GNG. Event guidelines only cover articles about the events themselves (ie, building collapse; school board election etc). Life (and the timelines of businesses) are a series of events. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - NA1000 has persuaded me with the sources he has found. GuzzyG (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets the notability guidelines. --JOJ ^Hutton 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 List of Selby books. MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Selby characters

List of Selby characters (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. A google search brings up no discussions of subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Adpete (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Selby books. Comment whatever the outcome, it should be the same for List of Selby places and Template:Selby. i.e. either it all gets merged into List of Selby books, or it stays as a 3 separate articles and a Template. I prefer the former, to avoid duplication and fluff. Duncan Ball is a notable children's author so I don't think the material should be deleted. Adpete (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Further comment - a lot of the article should probably deleted anyway because it's unreferenced (though at least one potential reference exists: [7]). But even if we could reference it all, I still think one "Selby" article is what we need. Adpete (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment, thanks for editor comments, agree that author is notable but not sure about merging to List of Selby books (LOSB) as it may not be notable either - it does not have any references (I've done a brief search, and have not found any refs discussing the books as a whole.) The majority of the author article is a list of his works, I was thinking of suggesting that info from LOSB be merged there after this afd is done. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: non-notable list topic; fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. Esquivalience ^t 19:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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.

Erik de Haan (author)

Erik de Haan (author) (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are unhelpful. Most of the sources are just links to the subject's various bio pages scattered around the web and which appear to have been submitted by the subject. Most of the rest simply quote the subject but are not actually about him. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The only extensive articles about "the book" (that is, the one that gets almost have of the cites in the article) were written by de Haan himself, so those do not count at RS. Other sources are bios that accompany speaking engagements, and (from experience) those are usually provided by the speaker, so those are not RS (nor are they substantial). There are a few mentions (e.g. the Sunday Times article), but there is also padding, such as Goodreads (not an RS), the publisher's site (not an RS) and at least one blog (not an RS). The New Business magazine is an actual review of the book. Unfortunately, this page was created by a now-blocked sock puppet that was creating pages for most or all Kogan authors. LaMona (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - promo advert, trying to sell his self-published books, fails WP:NACADEMIC Kraxler (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. This is a tough decision. WP:COMMONSENSE trumps all policy here at Wikipedia, and always has, and I'm leaning on it a bit here. The problem is that WP:V is also important. Critical in fact. WP:V only requires that contentious fact CAN be verified, not that they always are, but this is a BLP, etc etc etc The votes are leaning towards delete, but are tempered by the reasonable claim that it is virtually impossible for this person to not be notable. The issue isn't one of WP:GNG, it is one of WP:V, and often, that means time to find. Because of the weakness of the delete votes, I'm kicking this can down the road as I really don't see a hard consensus for outright deletion. It is strongly, strongly advised that the search for sources continue. I'm hoping this never comes back (or at least not for 90 days to allow time) but most everyone here agrees that it should be sourceable, so maybe it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Barry Lando

Barry Lando (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)

Successful in his chosen career, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment he does seem to be an up and coming writer....Antonio El Unico Martin (que que??) 10:42, 20 June, 2015 (UTC)

Would be silly to delete this. He's the father of investigative journalism (anything Mike Wallace did, he created and produced). The Herbert v Lando case also had a tremendous impact, and over time he's become one of the world's leading experts on the Middle East. Many more sources to be found, his book "Web of Deceit," his many pieces in the NYTimes, LA Times, Atlantic, Herald Tribune, Le Monde just to name a few, his documentary that came out about Saddam, his appearance on the Colbert Report... Just to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonynathaniel (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC) — Anthonynathaniel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at contribs (UTC).

A journalist does not get into Wikipedia on the basis of sources in which he's the bylined author of content about other things — he gets into Wikipedia on the basis of sources in which he's the subject of content written by other people. So "his many pieces in [any publication you can possibly list]" and "his appearance on the Colbert Report" don't count for squat in the notability sweepstakes, if he isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to earn one. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• While there is a credible notability claim here, the sourcing ain't cutting it. Three of the five sources namecheck his existence while failing to be about him, and the other two are primary sources — meaning that in terms of satisfying WP:GNG, we're sitting at exactly zero. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if the sourcing can be improved significantly — but as it stands right now, the quality of sourcing necessary to support either a GNG or a WP:JOURNALIST pass simply is not there in the article's current form. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this should remain. His behind the scenes contributions make his inclusion mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boosieb (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• delete insufficient sources to meet WP:BIO or GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - bios refer to him as Emmy Award winner (which makes sense). Per WP:ANYBIO he easily qualifies. Unfortunately the complete list of winners for the News & Documentary Emmy Award (official website) only goes through the past 10 years. But if he worked that long at 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace, he probably has wheelbarrows full of Emmys. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Deletefor lack of reliable sources. —Мандичка, where did you see a bio that said he was an emmy winner? I didn't see that in the articles I looked in. Also, I have a vague recollection that somewhere in the policies there is something about being the party to an key lawsuit, but I can't find it. My recollection is that the lawsuit itself is considered notable, but not necessarily the parties -- they have to be notable on their own, not just for the lawsuit. Ring a bell? LaMona (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

LaMona - it's in everything that mentions him. [8], [9]. Yes, he and Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes were sued for defamation by someone unhappy with the profile: see Anthony_Herbert_(lieutenant_colonel)#Herbert_v._Lando [10] —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia I looked in NYT coverage of the Emmy's and his name doesn't appear. My guess is that he worked on a 60 minutes program that got an Emmy -- and they give them to the main producers (but without their names in the headline). It would be great to have a good RS for this - one that provides actual verifiability. I'll keep hunting. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I found sources, but I can't get access to all of them. Most are about the lawsuit: Time. 11/21/1977, Vol. 110 Issue 21, p127. 1p.; Time. 4/30/1979, Vol. 113 Issue 18, p53. 1p.; a search on Variety. I found an article he wrote: [11]; and an award he won [12], the Polk award, but I can't see the article. However, the award itself, along with presumed evidence of the "60 Minutes" Emmy, should be enough. I'm still non-plussed at the lack of sources about this person, because it may mean that the article remains stubbish, which is too bad. Keep LaMona (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Where on NYT do you have the Emmy stuff? I have an online subscription and I couldn't find anything much. From 1972 there was an article that said 60 Minutes won every award in its news categories but didn't list them (which stories won, etc) or who specifically got them (reporters/producers/cameramen etc). It's frustrating the Emmy's website only goes back 10 years for News & Documentary winners. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia -- I didn't find his name related to Emmy's on NYT -- Just in Time. That's why I tried Variety, thinking they'd be more "Emmy" interested. I can't think of any other magazine with a good archive that might cover it. Meanwhile, here's a link to a rather vague statement in WaPo that Lando got a Robert F Kennedy Journalism award, although it's in an aside so it's not quite clear what they won. [13] However, it is another award to add. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: as failing WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 13:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I gave it my best shot [14], but there isn't enough there. Being a party to the lawsuit, no matter how significant a decision, does not establish Lando's significance. John Lawrence of Lawrence v. Texas does not have an article. 95% of the Variety mentions are in relation to the legal case. The only thing it has going for it is the Polk Award, based on WP:ANYBIO. He is just as much, if not more, responsible for Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes' stories, but no one talks about the producer. Not enough for me. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Stereo Hits

Stereo Hits (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 regional radio format from Multimedios Radio, now known as Hits FM, that only broadcasts in six Mexican cities. Probably does not meet the WP:GNG unlike some of the national formats like Ke Buena. Raymie (t • c) 22:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tentative delete because I haven't found any good coverage even in the least aside from some non-significant mentions here and here. Although it's common to have articles for radio stations, and several may actually be notable, I'm not seeing anything to satisfy WP:NRADIO as well. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

XKore

XKore (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 music producer with the best of my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) being News links from non-notable websites. I'm also not seeing a good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - article doesn't specify any claim to notability, web searches turn up social media, no coverage in independent RS. Kraxler (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanibel sea school

Sanibel sea school (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 and my searches here and here suggest it's a newly created organization with no solid coverage yet. I acknowledge this could easily be deleted as G11 but I nominated it instead so users could comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The article seems a bit like an advert for a snorkeling school... Alec Station (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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 Coshish. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Shrikant Sreenivasan

Shrikant Sreenivasan (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)

Nothing to suggest this musician has independent notability and probably should be moved to Coshish instead. My searches were this, this (one link from News) and this. I was actually going to fully say delete but I noticed he may be best known for the group so I changed to move. It's also worth noting that it was BLPPRODed and sources were provided but the page has not been significantly edited and improved since. @TheMesquito and Yash!: are welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Re-direct to Coshish or delete - the only references are from entities that "endorse" the subject and are not authoritative. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect per above - No evdience of notability, Makes sense ot redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Academic Detailing Collaboration

Canadian Academic Detailing Collaboration (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'm not sure if this is notable or can be improved as my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and the best results were here and here (basically all passing mentions). There's also no possible target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Sources are extremely limited. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT, This was written in 2009 by an editor who contributed nothing else since then. It seems to be written like an advertisement, although not a well-written one. And in fact, one of the sources has the extension /ADS.htm — Maile (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Leo Leggins book series

Leo Leggins book series (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Sifting through the first 200 sites of a google search (which mostly came up with sites on leggings:)), brings up nothing notable, a few bookseller sites but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• This source shows that the overseas title was "Joris Jofel", so I'll try to search under that name. The book also mildly gives off the impression that these might have been released overseas first? That might not change anything, but if it was released overseas first then that might mean that it was popular. I'll see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• If this Amazon link is legit, then it looks like it was published in the Netherlands in 1974. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yep, it was originally published overseas. It looks like it was originally a comic strip per this bio for the strip's authors. If not for stuff like this I'd never have connected the two names together, at least not per the artwork on the cover. The name is also backed up by titles like this one that mirror the English titles. However all of that said, I'm still not finding anything that would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyo Girl - you seem to have found a copy of the Netherlands "Books in Print" that lists them. In Finnish the character is called "Riku Rivakka". However, I couldn't find an easy way to search Finnish libraries to see if they are a commonly held children's book. The British editions get very low hits in WorldCat (4, 5, 3, 3, respectively). The weird thing is that no author is listed anywhere -- in fact, Google Books lists the author as Harper Collins publisher. They are part of a larger Collins series [15]. I can't find any sources that would lead to a keep on this page. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of information, in case my conclusion above wasn't clear. LaMona (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. A lot of editing has taken place, and someone mentioned potential POV issues, but there isn't a clear consensus to delete here. There does seem to be a consensus that the article is problematic, so I suggest anyone really interested in keeping it, go and actually fix and demonstrate notability, as it might not pass the next AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu

Jun Hong Lu (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)

Notability: while the page has been flooded with cites, they were self-published, paid or otherwise highly unreliable (word press pages, "Danish royal news" inexplicably located in Hong Kong). It remains an orphan and I have been able to find little *information* on Jun Hong Lu on the web that is *not* self-published. Even these pages don't give information about Jun, they just mention his name and that he's a superior spiritual master. Ogress _smash! 21:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep . I dare say anyone here regards Jun Hong Lu of no notability is not a Buddhist otherwise you would have heard of him. He is extremely well known, not necessarily for the right reason, especially for Buddhists in Asia among the Chinese speaking population. I am surprised that Wikipedia does not have an article on him. I guess it is difficult to be impartial if you actually know him well enough to write about him. There is one official English website for his Dharma door which is guanyincitta.com. All the other websites that might look like his, are mostly created by his disciples in various countries in order to reach out to their local population which is a suitable thing to do. You need a bit of patience to find what you are looking for. Doctor1931 (talk) 3:33, 15 June 2015(UTC) — Doctor 1931 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You, sir, are a blatant puppet. Ogress _smash! 05:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep & revise. This person is a significant religious leader who was recently invited to the 2015 UN Vesak celebration sitting on the first row out of the attendance of 6000 people who are all Buddhist or religious leaders in one way or another. I managed to find a very bad imiage to support the claim on the vesak's offical website-- it is the 7th photo on this page http://www.undv.org/vesak2015/en/news_detail.php?id=125 and Lu is the person on the very right in the black suit. There are noticeable coverage on Lu by the convention medias such as television and newspapers, some of which are mentioned in the disputed article. Furthermore, if you find it difficult to search anything on Jun Hong Lu on the internet, please try to search "Guan Yin Citta" which is foundered by Jun Hong Lu. This article certainly has plenty of room for improvements but Jun Hong Lu deserves a place in the Wikipedia. I suggest revision rather than deletion.VThomson (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2015(UTC) — VThomson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• "This person is a significant religious leader" who we can't even find a single source for that isn't his own website? Ogress _smash! 03:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• then look harder .Doctor1931 (talk) 3:37, 15 June 2015(UTC) — Doctor1931 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You, sir, are a blatant puppet. Ogress _smash! 05:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• There's none so blind as those who will not see. unsigned comment left by 101.174.6.161 — 101.174.6.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Platitudes don't change that you are a puppet.Ogress _smash! 09:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite extensive efforts by the article's creator, we still don't have any trustworthy evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator. Ogress _smash! 11:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• keep for the reasons noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.6.161 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — 101.174.6.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Why is an IP voting on this article? Special:Contributions/101.174.6.161 demonstrates that not only is he voting, he's voting fraudently, as he is an IP sock of User:Doctor1931. Ogress _smash! 12:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• very tenuous keep - this is a hard one. The Radio Australia link looks legit (Google translate here [16]) but a lot of the other references are very obscure publications, if not self published, and I've no idea if the conferences are reputable or not. A pre-revert version of the article [17] claims 4 mentions in China's Peoples Daily but I don't know how to check them. He's appeared on the Turkish satellite TV channel a9 TV here [18] but I'm not sure how significant that is. A google of "guan yin citta", as suggested above, only gives a few forum discussions (for and against) and a lot of their self published material. On the weight of Radio Australia appearance I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Adpete (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also "Lu Jun Hong" seems to give more hits then "Jun Hong Lu". Probably the most important one is a warning against him from a number of Malaysian Buddhist organisations. [19] Adpete (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (TNT)/delete Adds possible Chinese {{Find sources AFD}}, which does give more independent sources: [20][21][22]. IMO the article has been very WP:POV in being fully supportive/promotional of Lu, with apparently no regard of the negative incidents that also exists, including as reported by Malaysia's Chinese language press. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - he is an important leader of Chinese Buddhists and this article mentions he won an international award [23] Alec Station (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep for now - Ogress, you're not supposed to delete non-contentious, non-copyrighted material because it's from primary sources. Please don't do that. He's certainly considered a reliable source on when his own birthday is etc.[24] And often this information is very, very useful to get keywords to find more info! For example this article - I don't know what The Arab Telegraph is but if he's actually getting awards from the UN and US Congress, that's important information we need to have to in order to consider deleting or keeping this article, and we need that to quickly be able to do the right searches to get info from RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at the full article in the history, there is nothing to indicate notability. The award is not notable either. There is no indication the movement is notable; giving speeches is not by itself notability, unless there is extensive coverage rom reliable independent sources. All I see is notices and PR. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 23:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Esther Gordy Edwards

Esther Gordy Edwards (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 am not sure Edwards counts as being part of a "enduring historical record" in the music industry. She worked at a high level for the Motown label, and later was responsible for the museum dedicated for the label, but I am not convinced either are notable actions. One of the arguments of notability was that she was labeled the "Mother of Motown", but that label seems to be more indicative of her very loving nature and her work preserving the history of the label than it was of "giving birth" to the label itself. There does not appear to be significant coverage of her work independent of her brother (WP:INHERIT) and it seems like it would be more appropriate to have her included as part of the Motown article. 217IP (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject of multiple obituaries in reliable independent sources - [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc. Clearly a notable person, irrespective of her relationship to other notable people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment My nomination for this article stems from her notability as a business manager only being notable because the business itself is notable. Does the CEO of every notable company deserve his or her own article simply because they were the CEO? Even if he or she did nothing notable as a CEO? It seems like the cause her publicity after death is largely the result of the position simply being a very publicly visible one because of the well known nature of the company itself. Because of that, it seems like her notability is largely the result of the same principle as WP:INHERIT. If anyone can explain why this counts as notability, I would appreciate it since I am a new user and would like to better understand the guidelines. 217IP (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@217IP: There is no automatic notability for everyone who has been the CEO of a notable company. However, there is similarly no rule that a CEO's notability doesn't count under WP:INHERIT. Instead, WP:GNG requires one has to assesss the coverage received by each such person. Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, including sources cited above by Ghmyrtle. Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BEFORE - many, many reliable sources attest to her notability, as found by other editors. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 Zynga#Real-money_gaming. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ZyngaPlusCasino

ZyngaPlusCasino (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. It got a little press upon launch in 2013 but since then nothing. Every game that gets a few tech blogs to write about their launch is not worthy of an article. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Update: If you visit the website of the game, it has actually been closed completely. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - game is dead —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - unnotable. --Anarchyte 23:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Zynga#Real-money_gaming as a useful redirect term. Some really shoddy AfD work above! First, notability is not temporary, so if a game once received lots of coverage, enough to write an article or to establish its importance, we don't stop caring because the game goes offline. Second, "simply not notable" is an unsubstantiated argument. Now for the sources:

• http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/03/zyngas-first-real-money-gambling-apps-launch-this-week/ (launch)
• http://www.gamezebo.com/2013/04/15/zynga-unleashes-two-online-gambling-games-uk/
• http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/03/zyngas-real-money-casino-games-double-down-in-uk/
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/02/zynga-zyngapluspoker-zyngapluscasino/2047937/ (launch effects on stock)
• http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/24/zynga-q1-net-income-up-but-monthly-active-users-decline-to-253-million/
• http://www.cnet.com/news/zyngas-real-money-gambling-said-to-be-coming-to-facebook/ (relation to Facebook)

This is all from a simple video game reliable sources custom Google search. With a little more digging, we could support a small article on Zynga's casino games foray, but for now it can be built in the Zynga article summary style. – czar 15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the re-direct and if you want to copy over the content to the Zynga article. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect - Holy shit this AFD looks exactly like the other one literally ... , Anyway seems better to redirect than delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Zynga#Real-money_gaming. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ZyngaPlus Poker

ZyngaPlus Poker (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. The game got a little press when it was released but since then nothing and I'm fairly certain it is near-dead. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Update: if you visit the website of the game, it has actually been closed completely. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - game is dead —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Not that much coverage and my first searches (News, Books and highbeam) only found News links. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - They're dead & they can take the article with 'em, Found nothing notable and or worth adding to the article. –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Zynga#Real-money_gaming - My bad I should've spotted that, Makes more sense to redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - the intro is the same as ZyngaPlusCasino, doesn't show notability. --Anarchyte 23:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Zynga#Real-money_gaming as a useful redirect term. Some really shoddy AfD work above! First, notability is not temporary, so if a game once received lots of coverage, enough to write an article or to establish its importance, we don't stop caring because the game goes offline. Do sources exist or not? They do:

• http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/03/zyngas-first-real-money-gambling-apps-launch-this-week/ (launch)
• http://www.gamezebo.com/2013/04/15/zynga-unleashes-two-online-gambling-games-uk/
• http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/03/zyngas-real-money-casino-games-double-down-in-uk/
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/02/zynga-zyngapluspoker-zyngapluscasino/2047937/ (launch effects on stock)
• http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/24/zynga-q1-net-income-up-but-monthly-active-users-decline-to-253-million/
• http://www.cnet.com/news/zyngas-real-money-gambling-said-to-be-coming-to-facebook/ (relation to Facebook)

This is all from a simple video game reliable sources custom Google search. With a little more digging, we could support a small article on Zynga's casino games foray, but for now it can be built in the Zynga article summary style. A redirect on a major game from a major games company should seem obvious. – czar 15:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the re-direct and if you like you can just copy over the content to that section of the Zynga article? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Nomation withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

TNA King of the Mountain Championship

TNA King of the Mountain Championship (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)

Delete - This isn't a wrestling championship that will regularly be defended (like a World title), but merely a trophy for winning a special attraction match. Similar to winning the Andre the Giant Memorial Trophy for winning the namesake battle royal at WrestleMania. Vjmlhds 14:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

*Delete - no evidence of ongoing notability beyond the single event, and as Vjmlhds, the article is in complete error as to the nature and scope of this trophy. In short, the entire article needs to be scrapped, and there's really no reason to recreate it, as the subject has no independent notability. oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Comment I think we should wait. The KOTM Championship was covered by various sources, like prowrestling.com or PWInsider. However, we don't know what it is. We should wait a few hours to talk about it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to TNA Television Championship - According to this video, Mike Tenay says it shares the same lineage.LM2000 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • on a side note, how many names is this championship going to get? It's the John Hennigan of belts.LM2000 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know... I saw the belt, but I don't know if TNA'll continue the Global/TV/Legends history or will start a new one with that belt. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, Eric Young said he didn't won the New King of the Mountain Title. Looks like a new title with an old belt. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this article as Mike Tenay said in the video that it was the Legends, Global and Television title. 2.218.193.50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Close/Keep The article that was originally listed for deletion is not the same one currently in existence. The article with the current title actually shares the same history as TNA Television Championship.LM2000 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep As it has become clear that (as per TNA) the KOTM Title is a resurrection/reactivation of the Legends/Global/TV Title, then by all means the article is a keeper, as the title has some history to it, and is certainly notable. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WITHDRAW REQUEST

When I made the original request for deletion, it was for the quickly made, 2 sentence article that was specifically made for the KOTM Title as it's own entity. But now that it's become apparent that the KOTM Title is a continuation of an already existing championship within TNA, I am withdrawing my request for deletion, seeing as though the AfD somehow migrated over here. No need for deletion - this is a good article, and the subject within is clearly notable. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. - it would have been nice if TNA had said all this to start with.

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

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

The result was Delete and salt. Could have been speedied under G4. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Giuseppe Prinzi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi
• Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi (ceramist)

Giuseppe Prinzi (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 artist. SPA-recreation of a deleted article without significant new coverage. Probably need WP:SALT due to recent promotional activity (see last AfD comments). GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I restored the AFD template so that this discussion can continue. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously AfD material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and salt.--Rpclod (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's an author interesting and potentially very encyclopedic --Miloslink (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)— Miloslink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KeepAs honestly have to say, the candidate is sufficiently encyclopedic, I do not see the purpose of promotion --Lallpok (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)— Lallpok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy delete as G4, and salt. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Content of the biography a little indefinite, but the sources are there and the page can be improved --Anvidejeres (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)— Anvidejeres (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I am in favour of maintaining voice, meanwhile, would add a good source --> http://www.ilcieloditalia.it/?cat=20 --Ferlitt (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Struck out confirmed sockpuppets' comments --JAaron95 ^Talk 13:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Note to closing administrator. The new accounts who've voted here are  Confirmed sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libiolibiobot.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete a tad reluctantly, as the work seems of decent quality & he has clearly been around a while. But the article is apparently by Google translate, & none of the refs demonstrate meeting WP:ARTIST. No Italian article - was that deleted? Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was, Johnbod, here's the deletion discussion [31] Apparently previously created under different names and speedy deleted multiple times. Also deleted on the French Wikipedia after discussion[32] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! We should follow them. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Victor Ademake

Victor Ademake (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:NMUSIC, the only secondary source is a blog-looking article about him marrying a 62-year-old American woman in 2009. That article only mentions his being a musician in passing, and says nothing about acting, modelling, software engineering, etc. McGeddon (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Victor Ademake does have other articles that defines his other professions on the internet. Just google him. — Sokydimgbas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:04, 27 June 2015‎ (UTC).

Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you can provide specific links to reliable secondary sources that discuss Ademake's work (ie. mainstream media coverage), please do so - I couldn't find anything. --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources are given, much less anything that indicates WP:ENTERTAINER notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

India–Australia field hockey record

India–Australia field hockey record (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 and not sure what makes it notable. Played over 100 times, but that alone does not make a "rivalry" notable. Kante4 (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete At present it's just a laundry list of statistics, single reference. Google search does not reveal any notable rivalry between Australia and India at field hockey. Aspirex (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to show there is a "rivarly" and just a bunch of stats. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• delete notability isn't granted by simply listing the results of 2 teams playing each other. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Australia and India are both very successful in field hockey and w have rivalries in a few sports. At the Olympics India is the most successful of all time and Australia is third of all time. We played India in the final at the last two Commonwealth Games. I think this article should not be deleted. Alec Station (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

the rivalry needs to be the subject of significant coverage, please supply sources. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is called the "record" not the "rivalry" but yes we do have a rivalry of course, though not as strong anymore as India has slipped behind as they cannot afford to practise on astroturf like the wealthier teams. All Commonwealth nations have rivalries in the English sports like cricket and hockey, and India and Australia are the dominant nations historically. What sources do you want? The record is very strong. Articles that discuss our many important matches? Alec Station (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

sporting rivalries are not inherently notable as per WP:NRIVALRY. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. The article is called the "record" not the "rivalry". What sources do you want? (this should be deja vu) Alec Station (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

we don't have articles simply listing results between 2 major international teams. Any rivalry that is notable should be documented in reliable sources. It's not my job to find them the onus is on you as a keep voter. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If I may interject, statistical records between two sports teams – regardless of the richness of their onfield history – are seldom adequate for an article, falling under the category ofWP:INDISCRIMINATE §3. Rivalries will generally get an article only if there is some sort of off-field manifestation of the rivalry which goes beyond the results, and I've not seen any suggestion of this. The prose you've described, IMHO, is content well suited to (and already mostly present in) Australia–India_relations#Hockey and Field hockey#International competition. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for the nominator There are also similar articles entitled India–Malaysia field hockey record and India–Pakistan field hockey rivalry (the latter of which is called a 'rivalry' but is substantially the same article format as the two 'record' articles). Should those articles be bundled into this same nomination, or is there a specific reason to treat them separately?

Should be deleted aswell. But that's not a discussion that should be held here and now. Kante4 (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Antonella Fiordelisi

Antonella Fiordelisi (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 non-notable, local model that fails WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, no credible claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity article failing to establish notability. No significant independent coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT - none of the sources are reliable, and the text is obviously a bad translation of some Italian website. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Run of the mill fencer. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 03:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Papoo Photowalah

Papoo Photowalah (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)

Unreferenced, no signs of it being notable. Amortias (T)(C) 09:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No references to indicate the notability of this unreleased film; does not seem to meet film notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: No references to indicate that subject meets WP:GNG, appears promotional. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete While apparently filmed, there is no confirmation of it ever releasing, nor has not gained any coverage in reliable sources. Existing is not notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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 deleted as A7 by Jimfbleak (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Zin kyaw kyaw

Zin kyaw kyaw (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 dancer/university student. —teb728 t c 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, self-penned vanity article about non-notable personTheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fawzi Saadi

Fawzi Saadi (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)

The only working link is to a blog spot/interview with the player. It is clear he has not played a competitive match for AFC Bournemouth (as opposed to Bournemouth Poppies F.C.), and even if it is correct that he has played some games in the Algerian top-level, is this enough to make him notable? Eldumpo (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - as unverified. The Algerian top flight is fully-pro, meaning if his appearances there can be confirmed the article would meet WP:NSPORT. However, with the sources currently listed in the article, it does not. He also appears to fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Could be notable if sources can be found to support his time in Algeria, but I cannot find any. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Elite SEM

Elite SEM (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 came across this via speedy deletion and the Crain's source and the link to the clients gave off enough of an assertion of notability to where I figured that it'd be better off going to AfD. The problem though is that ultimately I just can't find coverage to really show how this company is notable. I'd redirect it to the founder, but he has some big notability issues as well. He and the company appear to be known, but I don't particularly see where that's translated into notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete "Known but not notable" should be a thing. Brianhe (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's not a bad idea. It looks like it'd fall under WP:POPULARITY, so I'll ask if something like that can be added there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - I try to make a special effort to comment on articles about marketing, as one of very few prolific editors with a background in it. In this sector, we need to be even more cautious than usual about awards, because there are so many awards in the PR field that are trivial or pay for play. Note in this case for example there were more than 15 categories to win in, and with dozens of awards like this, everyone has won a bunch of them. Most of the awards listed do not meet the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS and even if they did, an article on the company focused exclusively on the awards they have won is not acceptable. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt. SEO spammer. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue Chip Cookies

Blue Chip Cookies (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It is written by someone with a conflict of interests, and although there is some coverage, it seems to not add up to notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:CORP[33][34]. Most of the promotion has been stubbed. (does anyone have access to that Highbeam article so we can take a closer look?) CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on the weak side. Sources found include [35], [36], [37], [38]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 08:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per sources above as well as these [39][40][41][42], Sources aren't perfect but they're better than nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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 John Underwood Bateman-Champain. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Harriet Sophie Currie

Harriet Sophie Currie (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)

Biography of a person with no substantive claim of notability under any of Wikipedia's inclusion standards — the article just asserts inherited notability by virtue of having been the daughter of a diplomat, the wife of an army officer and the mother of several notable cricket players, and sources or even suggests no reason why she would qualify for a standalone article of her own. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, on which anybody gets to have an article just to help fill in the family trees of more notable people — if she isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage in her own right to get over a notability criterion in her own right, then having had more famous relatives doesn't give her a free notability pass. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Nominator is cruel, but exact. Nothing to indicate notability.Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 08:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing suggests that WP:ANYBIO criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge - normally, I would agree with Bearcat (no relation) - this article fails GNG. However, the stub acts as a nexus for several other articles. Could it be renamed something like Currie family (Baronets) or merged in Corrie family? Bearian (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob Gibsun

Rob Gibsun (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 artist. No significant coverage, article doesn't establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 08:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing indicates that WP:ENTERTAINER criteria are met. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Partha Pratim Sarkar

Partha Pratim Sarkar (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)

Unable to find significant coverage of this Partha Sarkar (by any variation of the name, including Bengali script) in independent reliable sources, so does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe redirect to BytesForAll where he is mentioned because my first searches of "Partha Pratim Sarkar" found nothing so I added "Partha Pratim Sarkar BytesForAll" where I found mostly passing mentions and nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 08:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - the notability of BytesForAll is questionable and this article bases itself on inheritance, which cannot support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 10:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Kolkata Football Club

Kolkata Football Club (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)

Does not meet general notability guidelines, amateur sport team, no coverage in reliable sources CutOffTies (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Club has not played in a national competition, which is the generally agreed upon baseline for club notability per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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 FIIOB. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FIIOB F.T

FIIOB F.T (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 verified by reliable sources CutOffTies (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• This should must be kept as of what are my views as this page is a real football team that participates in famous second division tournaments of India. So my only request is that, that there are more than a 100,000 people who know about this club in India and support it too. So this club must be included in here for being quite a famous and money spending club. There have been several articles published in newspapers about this club too

No one can now disagree the fact that this has no such significance or its not verified from trusted sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmmb (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

References

• Merge to FIIOB article —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Merge with FIIOB article, although significantly trim. FIIOB seems reasonably notable from the sources provided in that AfD, but this tem is not in itself as it has not participated in any national competition, the generally agreed baseline for club notability per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Merge with FIIOB (if that article gets kept), else Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Per consensus, non-notable knock off.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IPed

IPed (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)

Articles about counterfeit devices proceed every major Apple product release; none of it very sustained or significant. This is just another in a long line of dreadful knockoffs that had about three days of awareness before it was buried under a heap of other bad Chinese electronics. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable counterfeit brand(s): possibly never receive attention more than satire of China's counterfeit market. Also objects to redirect to iPad as {{R from misspelling}}. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: Agreed with above, it is a knockoff and irrelevant. _Truco ⁵⁰³ 07:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as knockoff, Not even worth mentioning in the Ipad article, –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. I withdraw this nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

M. A. Rab

M. A. Rab (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 finding coverage to qualify an article as per WP:V and WP:BASIC. Sources found include Wikipedia mirrors (e.g. [43]), a passing mention of a major general of the same name ([44]), and other sources that appear to be about a different subject (e.g. [45]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Article is part of Wikipedia since 3 years. [46]--Human3015 knock knock • 23:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: He is the Major General. Major Generals should be notable. Needs improvement, but is notable. Other sources :([47], [48], [49] , [50] ) Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SOLDIER Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs considerable work, but the subject is notable. It isn't obvious to readers unfamiliar with Bangladesh, but "he was elected as lawmaker from the Jatiya Sangsad constituency ..." means he was an elected Member of Parliament. So he meets WP:POLITICIAN. I also agree with Vinegarymass911 and Hawkeye7 that he meets WP:SOLDIER - specifically points #3 and #4, and arguably #1. All of this is supported by: Hossain, Abu Md. Delwar (2012). "Rob, Major General MA". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.. Worldbruce (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I think this person is notable thats why article is survived for 3 years. Moreover I appreciate admin NorthAmerica1000 for not deleting page directly despite being an admin and he nominated it for deletion. But one should also note that he is doing it on request of another user Farzana zardari. I think she should defend deletion here.User talk:Northamerica1000#I have found another lame page. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:SOLDIER, former Major General of Bangladesh Army, received Bir Uuttam the second highest gallantry award of Bangladesh. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Consensus to delete seems clear. While there is some talk about redirecting or merging, it looks like the critical information is already there and there hasn't been proof that these would be valid search terms. As such, I am simply deleting all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg (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)

Boyconga278 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Hi, I'm the creator of this page. I believe that the editor nominated the article for deletion prematurely. I had just created the page at that time and was obviously going to edit and add in more details afterwards (well it seemed pretty obvious). The content that I had wanted to add in was already commented (<!-- -->), but I guess the nominator thought that the page was incomplete. I've already added in details into the page, so I hope that the page can be kept. Thanks! Danialrosli (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: @Boyconga278: What was your rationale for nominating this page for deletion? BU Rob13 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I think all of the individual event pages for this competition should be deleted. None of them have any significant independent coverage. These divisions seem even less notable than the divisions at the Asian wrestling championships that were all deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg). Even the main article (Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games), which gives all the medal winners, has no significant independent coverage. Jakejr (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that all of these sub sub pages should be deleted using the same arguments that were given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg. WikiPedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK with few or any of the athletes being notable. Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games is as low as it should go and it should be pointed out that other events see (Category:Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games) are overly paged also.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for reasons described above:Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 50 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 55 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 60 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 65 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 70 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 75 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 85 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 55 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 60 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Redirect all nominated articles to Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games. Per the reasons of Jakejr and Peter Rehse. Optakeover^(Talk) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 problems with a redirect. First, these article names are unlikely search targets. Second, the main article has no significant independent coverage and could also be deleted since it fails to meet WP:GNG so redirecting there doesn't look like a good idea.Jakejr (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the additional articles were added to the nomination on 10:24, 15 June 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. The additional information in the articles beyond what exists at the Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games does not warrant an additional article, let alone a dozen. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK certainly applies. I disagree with creating redirects. The chance of someone typing "Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games - Men's 85 kg" into the search bar is negligible. It's not a redirect that would be plausibly useful. ~ Rob^Talk 07:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 04:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Merge content for all 13 individual / team events into Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games or delete. There is no notable content for the individual events.--Rpclod (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with user Rob's comments--both about WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and that the existing article titles are unlikely searches so that a redirect doesn't seem very useful. User Jakejr also makes a good point about the failure of the main article to meet WP:GNG. Since the main article already contains all of the medal winners, I don't see that there's anything else of value in the individual event articles that needs to be added to the main article--making a merge also seem like an incorrect outcome. Papaursa (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete all None of these meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep all This is consistent with other continental competitions, we show individual event details. Compare with Athletics at the 2011 All-Africa Games Trackinfo (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Many of those should go to - this is not WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete These pages should reflect the amount of information, not be created blindly for every possible sport. There is not enough material here to justify it. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 23:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Two predominate voices in this discussion, with no clear consensus in favor of either. There is sourcing, and no BLP issues, so default to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

K. Satyanarayana (academic)

K. Satyanarayana (academic) (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he has done pioneering work in the burgeoning Dalit studies, that is studying the literary works of the former untouchables of India. His two books on Dalit writing and movements (that he has co-edited and introduced) in the four South Indian languages of Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu, running into to more than 1400 pages are remarkable for their erudition, breadth of scholarship and the insights that it offers into Dalit writing and Dalit politics. He has also edited another book on Dalit writing which has been prescribed as text books for B.A. literature students in a University in Kerala. (http://www.amazon.in/The-Exercise-Freedom-Introduction-Writing/dp/8189059610)

His academic engagements https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/visiting/satyanarayana https://barefootphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/k-satyanarayana-on-dalit-writing-the-politics-of-self-representation/

Take a look at excerpts from his book http://www.thehindu.com/books/no-alphabet-in-sight/article1594191.ece

and some reviews of his book: 1. http://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6924:no-alphabet-in-sight-understanding-caste-formulations-after-1990s&catid=119:feature&Itemid=132 2. http://myeverydayreading.blogspot.in/2012/08/book-review-no-alphabet-in-sight-new.html

I therefore think the author/academic is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Amazon links to the books: http://www.amazon.com/Alphabet-Sight-Satyanarayana-Susie-Tharu/dp/0143414267 http://www.amazon.com/Steel-Nibs-Are-Sprouting-Writing/dp/9350293765 -Mohanbhan (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht and Gene93k:A few more links to his articles and his academic engagements. http://cssaame.dukejournals.org/content/33/3/398.abstract http://www.museindia.com/newsview.asp?id=51 I think he is working in the field of Dalit studies (the study of the literature of former untouchables) who more than 20% of the Indian population and have suffered oppression and exploitation for centuries. I think the notice for the deletion of this article should be removed. Especially considering the fact that his books have been published by three of the most respectable English-language publishing houses in India -- Penguin Books, Harper Collins Publications and Navayana -- and the importance of his pioneering contribution to Dalit studies. -Mohanbhan (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mohanbhan, if you haven't done so already, the description of acceptable sources at WP:RS will help you make your point more convincingly. Links to sales sites like Amazon, to blogs, and to the writings of the person do not establish notability. One needs to find more articles like the review of the author's book in Round Table India. However, that site seems to be not a neutral third-party since it exists to promote a particular viewpoint ("Round Table India believes this is the Ambedkar Age, the age of rising and working towards reshaping society in the light of the Ambedkarite ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity."). It would be better to find reviews in more mainstream publications. So far I do not see sources that would support a keep !vote. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have given the sources and links that I found on the net but the fact that these two volumes on Dalit literature in South India are published by mainstream publishing houses like Penguin Books and Harper Collins, and that one of the co-editors Susie Tharu is a renowned academic and Indian feminist should be enough to establish notability as per WP:RS. He is doing important work in bringing together in English translation writers who write in four South Indian languages of Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam and Telugu, about a common theme: the struggle of the subalterns (Dalits). This remarkable and highly significant work must be considered. And what you call "writings by the person" are writings in academic journals, and academic engagements (like delivering lectures and keynote speeches about this new field of Dalit studies) and an academic's notability is established by these things. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht, Gene93k, and LaMona:I have put together these links which establish K. Satyanarayana as an academic of international standing in the field of Dalit studies. The deletion notice may now be removed.

Journal Article

“Dalit reconfiguration of caste: representation, identity and politics” Article published in Critical Quarterly

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/criq.12137/abstract

Public lectures:

'Caste, Identity and Dalit movements in contemporary South India' Public Lecture in the ‘Interrogating Social Justice’ series on 'Caste, Identity and Dalit movements in contemporary South India' by Dr. K. Satyanarayana, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.

http://www.delhievents.com/2013/04/identity-dalit-movements-in.html

‘Writing, Analysing, Translating Dalit Literature’

An event hosted by Leicester University’s Centre for New Writing in partnership with the Centre for Postcolonial Studies at Nottingham Trent University and EMMA, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3, France 25 June 2014, 4-6pm.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/events/2014/june/2018writing-analysing-translating-dalit-literature2019

The Dalit Intellectual Collective (DIC) conference, held at Hyderabad (August 10-12, 2006) The conference was organised by Dalit Intellectual Collective and the Department of Cultural Studies, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages(CIEFL), Hyderabad. In order to facilitate an interaction with the public and the press a public meeting was organised at the Press Club, Basheerbag on the 11th of August addressed by Prof. Gopal Guru, K. Satyanarayana and Sivakami.

http://www.vakindia.org/pdf/report-dic.pdf

“Conceptualising Dalit Politics: Caste, Identity and Dalit Movements in South India”

K Satyanarayana, The English and Foreign Languages University, Tarnaka, Hyderabad at the 40th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology held at Delhi in 2012 organized by Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, Uppsala, Sweden and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.

http://www.swedishcollegium.se/iis/iis2012/pdf/mohan_2.pdf

-Mohanbhan (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Mohanbhan, speaking at conferences is a normal activity for academics. To rise to notability as an academic, it has to be shown that this person has had a particular impact on his field. I checked in Google Scholar and his books and articles are rarely cited. Being heavily cited is one way of showing the importance of the person's work. Also, I note that he was editor of the book published by Penguin, not the author. That does make a difference. This may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If so, an article may be appropriate at a later date. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep LaMona, I understand what you are saying, but I would like you to consider the fact that this is a new academic field in which very few scholars are working. The Subaltern Studies Collective has existed for two decades now but in spite of having "subalterns" as the field of their study they haven't seriously engaged with the the Dalits (the former untouchables) and their systematic exclusion in India from mainstream discourse. Susie Tharu, Satyanarayana's co-editor, is perhaps the only member of the Subaltern Studies Colective, other than Vijay Prashad, to work on the Dalits and their literature. What makes Satyanarayana so significant he, unlike Susie Tharu and Vijay Prashad is a Dalit himself and is among the few handful of Dalit scholars writing in English. Also, I think it is wrong to judge his notability by looking at the number of citations that his books and citations have received as this is brand new field -- many universities in India started offering courses in Dalit Studies in 2011, after his first volume of Dalit writing South India was produced. Given the "stigmatized" nature of the subject matter -- this being the literature of former "untouchables" of India -- and condiering the pioneering nature of Satyanarayan's work in English, esp. with regard to South Indian Dalit writing I think this article should be retained. (Just take a look at the number of pages I have created based on the three edited volumes of Satyanarayana and Tharu to understand the scope and breadth of his work: Ajay Navaria, Ravikumar (writer), B. Krishnappa, H. Govindaiah, Siddalingaiah (poet), Raj Gauthaman Imayam, Madara Chennaiah, P. Sivakami etc. K.S and Tharu have collected Dalit writing from four South Indian languages spoken by nearly half a billion people. It is not a mean task to have done that. Their work has been funded by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o and the International Center for Writing and Translation of which he is the Director. All these things must be kept in mind while deciding notability.) -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If your argument is that there isn't evidence of notability because "this is a new academic field", then perhaps it is simply too soon for this person to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's role is not to determine what is important and publicize it, Wikipedia's role is to summarize subjects that are already widely covered. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 14:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Did I say there isn't enough evidence of notability? He is working in a non-English subaltern studies field, and I gave you evidence that Subaltern studies which has been active for over two decades has not covered this stigmatized field. I have given you enough sources from the net to establish the notability of an academic who is working with the marginalized literatures of non-English South Indian languages. How many citations would you get for an academic working in the literatures of say Swahili, Yoruba, Setswana and Amharic? Not many I would say. I can't agree with you on Wikipedia's role. WP is operated by human editors who can think and judge about the significance of people and issues, if it was only about collating and summarizing "subjects" which were widely covered computer programs could have done it. Also, if you are not aware of South Asian literatures and not acquianted with the social issues here I don't think you should take the cocksure stand you have taken. Also, for your info, there are plenty of non-significant people who have a page on WP simply because they are widely covered and their potboilers are sold like FMCG. Literature and books are not capitalist products that their merit could be judged by how much they are sold or how widely they are advertised or "covered". -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Dalit studies is a new but significant field of study and Dr. Satyanarayana appears to be a widely cited, prominent researcher in this area. Unfortunately his first name being an initial makes it difficult to search as there are other K Satyanarayanas who appear to be prominent engineers/biologists, but "K. Satyanarayana + people" has an h-index of 22, "K. Satyanarayana + tribal" 15 in Google Scholar. I also put a ref to an interview with him in a RS. As pointed out by Mohanbhan, his books have been well-received and I think it's significant that two of the biggest newspapers in India chose to excerpt them (most academics don't get this attention). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - FYI LaMona, it is standard to be listed as an editor rather than author when much of the work is from multiple contributors; in this case, he is presenting the writings of multiples authors, so even if he writes commentary analyzing their work etc., he would not be listed as author. Being listed as editor does not diminish the significance of the work nor his role in presenting it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I know what an editor is -- not only am I a librarian, but I've been the editor of a book myself. The question is, do we have RS to show that he meets wp:academics and, if so, under which criterion? I'm guessing that the best is #1 "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." We need "independent reliable sources." If I've missed them in the lists above, please point them out. It's worth reading through the specific notes on the policy page for hints about awards, etc. If someone can find verifiable links then I'm happy to reconsider. LaMona (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• LaMona, these are the notices that his book No Alphabet in Sight: New Dalit Writing from South India Vol 1 has received from reliable sources:

1. Review in The Hindu: http://www.thehindu.com/books/an-alternative-history/article2150148.ece
2. Review in The Indian Express: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/confronting-life/930644/0
3. Review in Economic and Political Weekly: http://www.epw.in/book-reviews/valuable-intellectual-resource-dalit-writing.html. The last one is pay-walled and can be accessed through JSTOR. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep User has given reliable sources to show author is notable and author's work is widely read. I think author deserves Wikipedia article, we can improve the article. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a notable personality.Soham321 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: We have three keeps to two deletes. Can we keep the article? LaMona, you said you would reconsider if you find verifiable links to establish notability. And I have provided 3 reviews in prominent Indian periodicals. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not an actual vote, and the admin will make a decision based on the information. I still think this person doesn't meet the criteria for wp:academics and that this page is wp:toosoon. However, the closing admin may see it differently, that that's fine. LaMona (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Metaphorum

Metaphorum (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, or find a suitable redirect. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - I found no independent, authoritative sources online that discuss the subject. The article itself provides not independent reliable sources. Nothing indicates WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not familiar with this but my searches found nothing to suggest good coverage and the only good thing I found seemed to be these Books links. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 The Blaze#Personalities. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines but an appropriate redirect has been supported. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Billy Hallowell

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Billy Hallowell
• Articles for deletion/Billy Hallowell (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Billy Hallowell (journalist)

Billy Hallowell (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 journalist just doing his job. No significant independent coverage about him or his publications. The provided references fail to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or maybe move to The Blaze#Personalities where he is mentioned - My searches of "Billy Hallowell journalist" at News, Books, browser and highbeam returned results but nothing significant so there's nothing to suggest solid independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - seems somewhat self-promotional. Isn't writing some articles and interviewing some people what journalists are supposed to do? Nothing suggests WP:JOURNALIST notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to TheBlaze#Notable personalities (with the history preserved under the redirect) per SwisterTwister in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find substantial coverage about the subject to allow him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly.

  Cunard (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Julian Gardner (poker player)

Julian Gardner (poker player) (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)

Extremely poorly sourced BLP and from the text is barely marginally notable. Standards have moved on since this was created and I think we should remove this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep - notability is not temporary. I found a few references to him as a "phenom" and "star" though I don't know much about poker unfortunately. It seems like if he'd already $2.5M by 2009 at that age he's probably pretty good. [51], [52], [53] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Did well enough to make money from poker in the 2000's, but not actually that notable as a poker player, and I can see no notability outside of poker. Not one of those poker television celebrity from televised poker, haven't won any major tournaments, is published but not notably so. -- KTC (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Placing second in the WSOP Main Event and winning over $1 million satisfies the informal Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria. The Main Event gets by far the most TV/press coverage of any poker tournament; those players good (or insanely lucky) enough to make the final table get spotlighted. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here are a PokerNews article[54] and a pokerlistings interview.[55] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as per Clarityfiend. The article needs additional sources, which I'll look at adding now, but the World Series of Poker is televised and certainly a top-level tournament. Placing second and winning $1 million makes him notable, especially given that he broke a record for youngest person to do so at the time. This article isn't so poorly sourced as to fall afoul of the BLP policy, but further sources are needed to meet WP:V fully. ~ Rob^Talk 02:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Placing second in one tournament does not make him notable. See WP:BLP1E. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've added a citation that Clarity found, attributed other information to existing citations, and updated some info on the page. Unless I missed something, there should be no concerns about inadequately sourced BLP withstanding. A separate issue is whether PokerNews qualifies as a "reliable source". I have no answer to that, as I'm not familiar with the site or knowledgeable in this area. ~ Rob^Talk 02:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes (IMO), PokerNews do qualify as a RS. Large (in context), independent (does run paid for adverts by poker sites though not unlike TV station), poker specific news agency. -- KTC (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep delete per Clarityfiend BMK (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• On re-evaluating, KTC seems closer to the mark. BMK (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. WP:BLP1E Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

to consider a sporting event as "one event" is surely taking that policy above and beyond, in fact it even says it might not apply to sports... GuzzyG (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Per Clarity, seems to pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria, one event was one of Poker's top tournaments, not a local news story in Timbuktu or Jeremy Meeks esque reporting GuzzyG (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria Govindaharihari (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, and Pokernews is obviously a reliable source. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets WP:GNG. There is enough non-trivial coverage in WP:RS to satisfy notability requirements. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep as per the above. There's enough sourcing here to justify a claim of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 was due to poor souring in article, and poor condition of article, combined with a sources search which turned up apparently inadequate sources. However, as pointed out (and evidenced by my own searches) there is a lot of coverage, including by the BBC - [56]. Sources date back to when company was formed in 1993. Four keeps, and no support for deletion. Sionk's provisional keep is based on there being a connection with the American parent - that is shown here: [57] SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

McArthurGlen Group

McArthurGlen Group (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 company has received a lot of coverage as shown by my searches here (News) and here (News Archive), Books, Newspapers Archive, thefreelibrary, Highbeam and Thefreelibrary but I'm not sure if it is notable. Thoughtful searches at BBC and Telegraph found nothing and I simply don't see any improvement to this currently unacceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Without looking at the article and just focusing on the sources, I see where you are having a problem. There is a ton of media but a lot of it is routine mentions, press releases, announcements, brief mentions, etc. However, there is some in-depth coverage [58] and I think its partnership with Simon Property Group [59] makes it pretty notable. As far as the article, I will do everyone a favor and strip out the junk. There are plenty of references out there for anyone looking to build it with reliable sources other than the company website.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree the current article is woeful and needs a lot of improvement, but nevertheless the company is notable. It runs shopping centres across Europe and has an annual turnover in excess of a billion Euros. Neiltonks (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I am sure the sources the nominator found are so-called significant coverage that speak to notability, as does The Drum citation in the article.[60] For example, Moodie Report and Kent Online would be enough to satisfy me, though I expect there is much more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep- rather annecdotally, McArthurGlen had a profile of sorts 20+ years ago (though maybe this was because they advertised on the TV a large Designer Outlet in my region). Assuming this 1993 article in the Washington Post is about the same company, this would indicate the Group has had significant coverage in major newspapers over a long period.

Of course, if the American company is something different, I'd change my !vote to "Weak delete". Unfortunately at the moment there is no information about the subject in the article and it is, in effect, a directory listing of (non-notable?) shopping malls. We should draw a distinction between the notability of the shopping malls (their products) and the notability of the controlling company. WP:NCORP requires evidence of significant coverage in general, non-specialist publications. At least it is good that the nominator has drawn these problems to a wider audience! Sionk (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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) JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Gordy

Robert Gordy (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)

Does not meet notability in WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. His only cited acting role was insignificant. He musical career consisted of only one song of significance, which was only due to novelty and does not meet guidelines for notability. He has co-writing credits for a few other songs that are not notable. He has not been the subject of any notable published secondary sources and doesn't appear to have ever received any notable public interest in his career. 217IP (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Berry Gordy where he's briefly mentioned as my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing to suggest independent notability with this being the best coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, with an alternative option to rename as Bob Kayli. I've expanded the article a little, based on easily available and reliable independent sources. He was a marginally notable recording artist (one Hot 100 hit - see WP:MUSBIO #2), and the chief executive of a very important music publishing company (Jobete - part of the Motown empire and deserving of its own article some time) for some 20 years (1965-85). I'll try to find some more details to expand it further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

With this improvement, my vote changes to somewhat weak keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Gordy is notable for co-writing "You're What's Happening (In The World Today)," the B-Side of I Heard It Through the Grapevine by Marvin Gaye, Motown's biggest selling single up until that time. While surely the A-Side was primarily responsible for the single's success, it is significant given the overwhelming success of the single and the fact that it was a cover version of a single by Gladys Knight & the Pips released less than a year before. In its own right, "You're What's Happening (In the World Today)" has appeared in numerous compilations, attesting to its popularity. Another Marvin Gaye recording that he co-wrote, "The World is Rated X," has also appeared in several compilations.. Per WP:NTEMP once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The article has been on WP for almost nine years without anyone suggesting that it should be deleted. Igbo (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as there is notability for the songs Gordy has co-wrote. CDRL102 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ray Singleton

Ray Singleton (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)

Does not meet any guidelines for notability in WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. There are several citations mentioning her involvement in her husband's work, but she was not personally the subject of the notable published works. Her only arguably notable action is being a producer for three albums, but the albums themselves are not notable and I don't believe being a producer for someone else's work is a notable action. 217IP (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. She appears to pass WP:GNG as she has been the subject of significant coverage in mainstream media sources. Published profiles focused on her include People magazine, Detroit Free Press and Record Collector. See also her autobiography published in 1990. Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your first source talks almost entirely about her relationships with her husband and really doesn't focus on her at all. It was basically an interview about her husband. Your second source talks almost entirely about a book that she was releasing and was essentially a press release (not independent). The third article is only a few paragraphs and not in any way significant coverage. Her autobiography is neither independent nor secondary nor reliable and does not count towards notability. The coverage she has received is not, in my opinion, at all significant. Even if she has been mentioned in a few articles, being interviewed about your deceased husband is not notable. Please see WP:INHERIT, which specifically states: Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. I do not believe this article passes that test. 217IP (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you specify in what way it satisfies? 217IP (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Per other comments - widely profiled, and a notable player in establishing an internationally important cultural phenomenon. Allmusic article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as per the others, there is more than enough significant, reliable coverage here to comfortable pass GNG. Enough of it is detailed coverage, too, not just passing mentions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE on several levels. As previously stated, she played a significant role in the early development of Motown. This includes the establishment of the Rayber Voices and her unofficial capacity as a historian of the company. Also per WP:N#TEMP, once a subject receives significant coverage, it does not have to be ongoing. Igbo (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. – czar 23:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

2011 Huizhou refinery explosion incident

2011 Huizhou refinery explosion incident (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) (in Chinese)

There is no indication whatsoever that this "incident" was anything more than an incident. It was not a disaster, and that its happening simultaneously with an oil spill is neither here nor there. And since the blaze never threatened a nuclear plant, let alone blew it up, there's nothing there of note either--besides a somewhat underhanded stab at the plant's location. Delete. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect - Transcribe a summary and redirect to List_of_industrial_disasters. Searching in English, some links and images of this incident do come up, but not many. Perhaps a search using Mandarin Chinese would yield better result. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The article's contents seem well attributed and notable, but the title is a mouthful, and the incident isn't well attested in English-language media. A redirect seems logical, but a redirect and merge to a nebulous list seems like too much of a loss of the information. I can't agree with Waters.Justin's target, but I can't think of a better one. It's possible to simply keep and rely on a Category: Chinese Industrial Fires and Explosions by analogy to the category for the US and various companies. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This explosion caused no casualties and apparently didn't cause widespread ecological damage, so it had no lasting effect, and therefore notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - there is nothing notable about this news event.--Rpclod (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete While there is some coverage in Chinese sources (see link added above), Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no mention of the "incident" in Chinese Wikipedia, which would definately be there were it considered a notable event.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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. – czar 22:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Connelly La Mar

Connelly La Mar (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 artist and curator; refs are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete no indepth sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - this appears to be a case of throwing as many random references together to try to make the subject appear notable. However an examination of the first half of the references indicates no notability. 1, 6 - primary - non-authoritative; 2, 7, 8, 12 - general with no reference to subject; 3, 9, 17. no reference to subject; 4, 10, 11, 14, 16 - dead links; 5 - blog authored by subject; 13 - invalid URL; 15 - one photo attributed to the subject; 18 & 19 - blogs that mention subject once among others for same event.--Rpclod (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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) 08:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Aakash Santhosh

Aakash Santhosh (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 case of WP:TOOSOON. Could find no refs to establish notability. Please add refs if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for now - I was going to suggest moving to his first role Philips and the Monkey Pen but he's not mentioned there; my searches immediately found nothing and that's not surprising. Better to delete as there's no sign of improvement and may potentially have BLP issues. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Only starred in one children's movie. Does not suffice for WP:ENTERTAINER notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Mustafavi Students Movement

Mustafavi Students Movement (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)

Promotional. Antigng (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under WP:G11.  sami  ^talk 12:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - no references given at all, let alone any reliable sources. No notability is indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - My searches found nothing good aside from this and this so I'm not seeing any possible improvement. Moving elsewhere is not a option as there's no good target aside from Minhaj-ul-Quran and it is currently mentioned so there's no need to leave the page vulnerable to recreation. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The policy-based arguments for notability are sound and demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Danny Sullivan (technologist)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Danny Sullivan (technologist)
• Articles for deletion/Danny Sullivan (technologist) (2nd nomination)

Danny Sullivan (technologist) (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)

Per subject request (see talk:). A web SEO salesman, not surprisingly, has acquired a WP article. Yet the article fails to clearly demonstrate WP:BLPN notability, mostly due to the quality of the sources used. A Google footprint is not the same thing as a notable career, of encyclopedic merit.

Previously AfDed in 2008, an AfD which was non-admin closed by a now-indeffed editor Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to vote, but I will point out two falsehoods in the nomination. (1) Mr. Sullivan does not sell SEO services. He's a publisher and conference organizer. (2) The prior AfD was unanimously keep, and the closer does not seem to be indef blocked. close; clean block log Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what's happening with that AfD close, but Instinct (disappeared 2010) appears in the page history as the editor doing the close, yet they sign it on behalf of Milk's Favorite Cookie, who is blocked (2009) for account impersonation. Maybe this is all innocent, in which case I withdraw my comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You've still got it wrong. The account was blocked and then unblocked 2 minutes later, probably because it was a mistaken action. To me it looks like the user might have renamed the account after the edit was made. (Perhaps Milk's Favorite Cookie became Instinct) In any case, the prior AfD appears to have been "regular". Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Well-known, well sourced. --Davidcpearce (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete Admittedly, at one time there were news articles about him -- 2 or perhaps 3 (I'm getting 404 on the CNET news link). Neither of the articles is what I could consider "in depth." Most of the other links in the article are blogs or non-stable/non-RS sources. Meanwhile, there has been little about him lately that would add to his notability. In fact, I probably would not have considered him notable during the first AfD, but at least then his star was rising. That no longer seems to be the case, and I don't see a lasting legacy. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  What do you think about the citations on the talk page? Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  Replied there. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Full disclosure: I don't know Danny Sullivan's world very well, and don't have much intuitive sense for who's notable in it and who isn't. But I took a look at the citations on this discussion's talkpage, and several of them seem quite convincing to me: notably the chapter about Sullivan in David Vise's book The Google Story. Also Ken Auletta seems to be a fairly eminent journalist and author, and for him to refer to Sullivan as "the closest approximation to an umpire in the search world" in his 2009 book Googled: The End of the World as We Know It surely counts for something. At least that's the sense I got from checking out our article about Auletta as well as our quite elaborate article about the book itself. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The provided sources are overwhelmingly just news articles quoting something Sullivan said or are primary sources. It comes across as a very concerted effort to appear notable without actually being so. Sullivan does not appear to meet any of the guidelines in WP:BIO. If Sullivan has done something notable that is of lasting historical impact in his field, I can see him being notable, but I am not seeing any evidence of this in his article or the sources provided. 217IP (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - An article from Fortune this week calls him an "authority" on Google. He started the two top SEO news sites and a marketing site that is notable in its own right. You would basically be deleting the article of the godfather of SEO journalism. This seems like a lazy nomination. Actually research who you are talking about. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Forbes article given above is only a mention. Mentions are nice, but they are not substantial, as the policy requires. I think we are still looking for some substantial coverage that would attest to notability. I looked at some on the list provided on the talk page. Jehochman, so that we don't all have to look through all of the sources you found, could you point out the ones that show extensive coverage? for example, the NYT articles that I accessed [61] [62] [63] are each just a single quote from him, so that doesn't help here with notability. Ditto the Wired articles that I looked at. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - I concur with the nominator. Searching for the subject online reveals articles that quote the subject but never discuss the subject. The subject's "notability" appears to be a Kardashianesque self-creation.--Rpclod (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Full disclosure: I work at Google. This is my first time participating in a "AfD" discussion; I don't know what the criteria are, and I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. I just wanted to say, from my point of view, Danny Sullivan is a widely recognized authority in the search industry. As just one example, he frequently appears on shows such as This Week in Google on the This Week in Tech network. 50.240.216.94 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since this appears to be your first edit on WP, it would be good to read at least the policy statements in articles for deletion, the policies on notability, and the policies on biographies of living persons. Decisions are made based on those policies, not on the knowledge that persons have in their heads about the subject. If you want us to consider the This Week in Google as evidence of notability, you will need to provide resources that can validate the statement. So that means to also need to read reliable sources and verifiability of facts.If you plan on editing Wikipedia in the future, it is a very good idea to create a user name for yourself so that your contributions themselves have an author we can recognize, since IP addresses are not stable identifiers.Hope you stick around! LaMona (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe if you were nice to this person they would stay around and help build the encyclopedia. Instead, you were unfriendly to them because they didn't agree with you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Hi, I'm a novice at Wikipedia, so I apologize if I make mistakes on the decision criteria or markup. But I am a Distinguished Engineer at Google, and I would definitely classify Danny Sullivan as notable in the field of search. I'm happy to attest that people within Google take Danny's journalistic coverage quite seriously. I would think the USA Today and New York Times articles would both count toward notability, in that both pieces contain significant coverage of Danny, not just quotes from him. Likewise, the page on notability calls out author/journalist criteria such as "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Danny is widely regarded as an important figure and expert source by both fellow journalists (in terms of the number of different journalists who quote him, such as John Markoff or Ken Auletta) and by search engineers as well. When I talk to Google founder Larry Page and say "Danny Sullivan wrote X," Larry might agree or disagree, but Larry knows who Danny is and his expertise. But it sounds like Wikipedia prefers published material, so I'd point back to the USA Today and New York Times articles. Or see Chapter 7 ("The Danny Sullivan Show") of the book The Google Story, by David Vise. MattCutts (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Matt, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news archive. That you read some news articles by or about Danny Sullivan doesn't mean that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. If you want to add his information to somewhere where it will be uncontested try adding to a dedicated news archive such as Newslines or similar. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You are not making any sense at all. News is the rough draft of history. Of course Wikipedia articles can be written using news articles as sources. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a summary of a notable topic. The questions here are 1) what is to be summarized? and 2) is it notable? By comparison, a news archive is not a summary and attempts to capture ALL the news about a topic. It is more concerned with what is newsworthy, a lower bar of inclusion than notability. If we were making a news archive about Mr Sullivan we would include all the news we could find, and consider almost every news article to be notable for that purpose. However, you are trying to make an encyclopedic entry. There appear to be several news articles about Mr Sullivan (plus some anecdotal evidence from Mr Cutts). We'll disregard the anecdotal evidence as just that, and concentrate on Wikipedia's rules. Of course, many WP articles are made up of news, especially those about news events, such as a train crash or a shooting. However, that's because the event itself is notable. In this case the question is: is Mr Sullivan notable for an encyclopedia entry? Saying that there's news about him does not make him notable, only that he is newsworthy. He's notable for a "who's who in tech" or "notable figures in the SEO industry", but does he really belong in an encyclopedia? Surely bored editors who are looking for something to do, and "inclusionists" will say yes, but that's a stretch of Wikipedia into something beyond its purpose. The question is moot anyway because the decision to keep or delete is made not according to the rules, but to the most powerful group on the page. The ambiguity between these two different functions (news archive and encyclopedia), and how the rules are arbitrarily applied by the most powerful group to suit each situation, is the real problem. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I respect that view. I wish we applied it universally, but that's probably too much to ask. We'd have a lot less trouble with biographies of we had a high bar for notability. Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, thanks for the additional perspective. My impression was that simply being quoted in reliable sources that are independent of the subject didn't count for that much. But I was also under the impression that significant coverage in the form of a profile did carry more weight, and both the USA Today and NY Times referenced on the page about Danny Sullivan presented profiles of him. Likewise, David Vise spends an entire chapter in his book The Google Story profiling Danny Sullivan. Should that source be added to the Wikipedia page about Danny? (I don't know AfD etiquette, so I didn't want to edit the main page to add a source if that's bad form). Likewise, in John Battelle's book about Google entitled The Search, Battelle refers to Danny as an industry expert as well and thanks him. So my thought would be that Danny qualifies as notable based on the significant coverage criterion, and possibly also under WP:AUTHOR since two different authors of published books refer to Danny as expert or providing expert commentary. If it helps, I also found this quote in The Google Story which helps turn my anecdotal evidence into something more verifiable. The quote is "[Google founders] Brin and Page were not discouraged. They knew they had a better search engine and they sought a relationship with Danny Sullivan so he could help them spread the word globally without their having to spend money on advertising." So instead of me, that's a Pulitzer-winning journalist (David Vise) asserting that Google's founders considered Danny Sullivan an important enough figure as a journalist that they sought to build an ongoing relationship. Would that check the box for the first criterion of WP:AUTHOR? MattCutts (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I don't have a horse in this race. I respect Danny Sullivan and actually do think he is notable in the industry. However, you can see that my discussion is really about how Wikipedia works. As someone working on a different way to crowdsource biography and news-based information, I am very interested in finding Wikipedia's boundary cases. This is a perfect example. I believe the wiki software is ill-suited as a news archive, and fairly poor in general. An archive would work better for Danny's page, as it would allow more to be written about him, without the imposition of an arbitrary standard of notability. For example see this one on Paul Graham. In part, this discussion is driven by the fact that people want to be on Wikipedia because it's at the top of Google's search results. Talking about that, I think you will be interested in this blog post I wrote about Google and Wikipedia's co-dependency: (Google and Wikipedia: Best Friends Forever). You even get a name check. You may also want to check our some of my other blog posts on Google Search and Wikipedia's software. If you or Larry would like to discuss further, drop me a note ;-) All the best. -- Sparkzilla talk! 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, I feel this article shows notability, albeit it may need re-written slightly to improve the quality of the article. CDRL102 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The discussion about the difference between Newsworthy and Notable belong on WP:N or the village pump. The very well accepted Wikipedia guideline at GNG is that substantial RS third party news reports make anyone or anything notable, unless they fall under the policy of NOT NEWS or other policy. The only useful discussion here would be in terms of whether the subject falls under that policy. (Myself, I have frequently expressed my personal dissatisfaction with the use of the GNG, and I would be very willing to modify it or even to deprecate it except for situations which can not be decided by more objective criteria related to the true encyclopedic importance of the subject. But my personal views on this are not the accepted guideline. We have accepted tens of thousands of bios where there is no substantial underlying notability , except that major papers think the subject worth covering. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, because Danny Sullivan is an industry leader in search and search marketing, this article if definitely worth it to be published. If SEO and Search Engine Marketing are relevant topics for Wikipedia, leading persons are too. And if Danny is not notable when referencing the search industry, then who is? Herndler (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Descom

Descom (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)

Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The nine references are all either self-published, press releases, or directory entries. ubiquity (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - References consist of primary sources, list of Finnish tech companies, list of IBM Finnish tech partners, press releases, corporate listings. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and draft/userfy if anyone wants it - My searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this, this and this with News saying this was acquired by Solteq and Higbeam saying it was an IBM partner. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Carl Axel Soderberg

Carl Axel Soderberg (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)

Regional directors of government agencies are not inherently notable. Has not received significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

KEEP--Mr. Soderberg's claim to notability is not simply based on having been the first Puerto Rican regional director of EPA but on a 45-year career that spans 8 of Puerto Rico's 10 elected governors in which he became Puerto Rico's most consistent and effective steward of the environment as well as a hemispheric figure warning about global warming and climate change. He is also on of Puerto Rico's top living German-ancestry public figures, perhaps second only to former Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz.Pr4ever (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Being a regional director of the EPA does not make someone notable. EPA policy is largely centrally created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete He has won awards but I don't believe the awards have been "well-known" or "significant". He does not appear to have made contributions of great historical importance in his field. He has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. He seems like he did a good job, but that's unfortunately not criteria for notability. 217IP (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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