Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WWGB (talk | contribs) at 23:51, 11 May 2015 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triqstar. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 10 May 12 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triqstar

Triqstar (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 dance group, fails WP:ENT, no reliable independent sources to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa bin Khalid Al Hamed

Khalifa bin Khalid Al Hamed (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)

BLP about a 28 year old businessman from Abu Dhabi. Sourced with a linkedin page and the companies webpage. A claim of beeing a member of the royal family is sourced with a picture. Fails WP:BASIC for notability. Ben Ben (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead delete as multiple searches found nothing even close to good. If he's notable later, he can be merged with a related article and maybe eventually a separate article. For now, simply not enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - should been handled with {{db-author}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgem Amamentando

Virgem Amamentando (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)

Wrong site! Intended to create it on ptwiki! José Luiz talk 23:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4K.com

4K.com (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. Other than having had some of its content picked up by news aggregators, this website (which is less than a year old) has no secondary source coverage and no claim to notability. Agtx (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the references are either about 4k technology not the site, or a trivial mention that isn't significant and directly treating the topic. the risk of WP:PROMO with no sign off notability from a search. per WP:GNG I think it misses the notability mark. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cominform.com

Cominform.com (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 company. Secondary sources cited seem to be nothing more than directory entries. No evidence of media coverage. Agtx (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The sources are scanned and uploaded since they are published in German. The are quite independent of the sources if you check well. The company only reserves them for future reference since there are no such sources in English Media. Remember, the firm is 100% German.Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Quite aside from that these "translated" articles are nothing of the sort, we just can't place any credence on so-called articles that exist on the company's own website. I'd like to see direct links to the magazines' websites, please. That being said, I'm bothered that Hilumeoka2000's all-but-sole output so far has been creating these obscure business articles. Is there a COI/paid creator deal going on? Nha Trang Allons! 14:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Nha Trang... Thanks for ur response. But the last part of your response is not too good.. I'm only defending my edit according to rules. It's not a must that I'll win the case. I'll accept the final output in good faith and learn from the experience. I thought the wiki policy talked much about being polite? I'm not encouraged by the last part of your response. I feel sad and disappointed"Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say it @Hilumeoka2000:, but the concern doesn't seem unfounded. Consider [1] and [2]. If there is paid editing going on here, you must comply with WP:COI. That means disclosing that you are getting paid for your contributions, if that is the case. Agtx (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are supposed to be polite. Polite doesn't mean we're not supposed to ask important questions, just because you think it's mean to ask those questions. Nha Trang Allons! 15:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No independent coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete Completely fails WP:GNG in addition to being an article created by an undisclosed paid editor. Hiluemoka displays such a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's rules and policies regarding paid editing as well, refusing to disclose despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Non-notable. BMK (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and promotional. A comment was made about it being a German firm with German sources. I've read all the German sources listed (tho they are on the company website, they could be sourced from the original publication) Some of them are in fact the company's own translations from English language sources. The one from Arbeit und Arbeitsrecht is actually a fairly good article about Human Resources contracts software for the German legal environment. It mentions a number of companies. One of them is Cominform, but the article is not substantially about that product. Cyclex has a mere listing. Midrange Magazine' is about Lotus Notes, not this product. DV als Kernkompetenz, is general and does not mention this product. Personal Magazin is another general article and mentions the product in a single line in a listing. Anyone asking money for writing WP articles should be ashamed to take money for a job like this, using sources they had apparently not read. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part of the Hilumeoka2000 paid-editing fiasco. Paid spam for NN company. I hope Hilumeoka2000 realises he's not doing any favours to these companies by depicting them in this manner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Club Penguin. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puffle

AfDs for this article:
Puffle (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, mostly because I don't what the article is about Fuddle (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect And salt? Original AFD shouldn't have been keep in my view, but I guess those were different days. Nothing appears to have changed since the deletion from the 2nd AFD. -- ferret (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Club Penguin as a useful redirect term. No signs of independent notability for "puffles" to justify having a separate page. – czar 06:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Ramírez (Panamanian pitcher)

Ramón Ramírez (Panamanian pitcher) (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 Joeykai (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a bunch of routine stories about a local athlete. GNG requires a lot more than that. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read them, have you? Nha Trang Allons! 15:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read them. They're the standard type of stories that any decent athlete receives in his home city. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NukeThePukes (great name) and BASE/N. With baseball no longer an Olympic event (BS), the WBC should be sacrosanct. And Bbny, not "any decent athlete" gets coverage of that nature. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any given year, there are over 7,000 players in MLB and MiLB, and this guy was never one of them. He's a local "decent athlete" who pitched one inning for a low-level WBC team, and nothing more. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He also played in two Baseball World Cups and a Pan American Games as I noted above. Spanneraol (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but he's still nothing more than a decent local athlete. He played in four allegedly significant tournaments but didn't impress MLB teams to the point of cracking the ranks of the 7,000 players in MLB and MiLB. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Bbny get so angry and hostile when things don't go his way? Alex (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me, but he's not the first one from the baseball wikiproject who goes into a tizzy at the notion that ANYone other than a Major! League! Ballplayer! could meet notability standards. Me, my Spanish is pretty good, and I'm satisfied that those Panamanian sources are good. Nha Trang Allons! 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see Alex is as good at reading anger as he is at comprehending GNG. Which is, of course, not very good at all. As for Nha Trang, I never said the sources weren't good. I said it was local coverage that didn't meet GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Sabertooth

Captain Sabertooth (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)

Notability tagged for four years, no significant reliable sources exist only a imdb page and a trivial mention. Fails WP:GNG Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination Withdrawn Appartently this is a big deal in Norway! Major props to Tokyogirl, for majorly expanding the article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found this NFI article that says that one of the Captain Sabertooth films sold about 365,902 tickets in one year, which gives off the impression that the films should have coverage in Norwegian. I'll let the Norwegian WP know so that they can help look for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The majority of sourcing out there appears to be Norwegian (which I am not even remotely fluent in), but I was able to find enough with a basic search and Google Translate to prove notability. I've changed the page to reflect on the series as a whole, which appears to be wildly popular. The character has been the focus of stage plays, theatrical films, cartoons, and a television series, along with a book series that one source claims has sold over 9 million copies. It still needs to be fleshed out (preferably by someone familiar with the series), but there's enough to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Everyone who lives in Norway has heard of Kaptein Sabeltann. He's been around since 1989 - at least one generation has grown up with him. There's Kaptein Sabeltann bread in all the stores, there is or has been Kaptein Sabeltann ice cream, there is Kaptein Sabeltann leverpostei. So in Norway he's very notable indeed. I don't know if that necessarily makes him notable on English Wikipedia. Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia has a very long article about him. --Hordaland (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I live in Hordaland :) I don't want to get into a BIG translation project. Maybe you could e-mail me passages of interest?
That picture you found was in an evaluation of "children's" breads. The advice: use them only for special occasions & don't believe anyone who tells you that children don't like rye and other coarse, dark breads with high fiber content. --Hordaland (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is possibly within Norway the most notable fictional character ever. He is a house-hold name and I bet four of five Norwegians could name him. The franchise has spun off all sorts of fast-moving consumer goods, television broadcasts and feature films, as well as a theme park, books, comic books and music. This article states that Formoe has a combined NOK 26 million (~€3 million) in annual revenue from the character. Arsenikk (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - basically per Arsenikk. Very well known character for many years, with films, plays and songs etc. The article is not in good shape, but that's another matter entirely. Manxruler (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full Force

Full Force (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 band, fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X X (band)

X X (band) (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)

Article does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG Ormr2014 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If at all, merge delete as News and browser only found some results, nothing at all significant or notable. Other searches found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John D Morton. Trying to google "X__X", failing, and concluding they're not notable isn't really a conclusive argument (WP:GOOGLEHITS is only half of it; it shows ignorance of how search engines work with non-alphabetic characters as well as of how the band used its name). From a legalistic point of view it meets WP:BAND #6 (Morton and Fier) and it is also subject of a lengthy New York Times article[4] which carries slightly more weight than your typical source (coverage in Blurt[5], Lakewood Observer[6], and the cited by Jon Savage who's a very distinguished writer on punk). On the other hand, a very short-lived band with little in the way of releases might be better combined with the article on its principal member. There's some other online coverage of John D Morton (often referred to as John Morton) and his ventures[7][8][9][10][11][12] in addition to the cited; plus this is a 1970s band so there is likely to be more in newspaper and magazine archives. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently in the process of getting this formerly neglected page back in action. The band has been current and actively playing shows in the past year or so and has a new album announced for vinyl release on Smog Veil Records this year. They are easily more relevant than tons of other bands / pages / etc. on Wiki. Starting as usual, from vinyl collectors to music/art writers continuously getting the word out to more mainstream press happening post- archival release and reunion, their music continues to become more and more known, being highly regarded as the 1st post- electric eels music to be released, on noted punk label Drome. I will continue to make sure that sources are cited, up to standards, etc. as i edit. It should not be merged to Morton's page or anywhere else either as the other players, past and present are all highly relevant in the indie/punk underground music scenes of Ohio and beyond since the 70's to now. Eventually they should each get their own pages: Andrew Klimeyk, (brother of Jamie Klimek / Mirrors, ex- hubby of Charlotte Pressler, member of Red Dark Sweet, Tender Buttons (alongside members of Bush Tetras, and tons of other notable acts) Jim Ellis, published Cle Magazine, played w/ Dave E (electric eels) in Jazz Destroyers and/or Cool Marriage Counselors. Craig Bell is or was a member of these bands: Mirrors / Rocket From The Tombs / Saucers / The Down-Fi / The Gizmos / and more, in addition to running well known punk/wave label Gustav Records after leaving OH for CT. Dave E and Mike Weldon (Mirrors / Psychotronic Video Magazine) also played w/ the group, which i'll make note of in ref to the archival Ektro Records LP that came out and they both appear on. The original two Drome 45s of X_____X also regularly fetch upwards of $100 or more if you'd like to check http://www.popsike.com/php/quicksearch.php?searchtext=drome+full+of+&thumbs=&currsel=&sortord=&x=0&y=0 or http://collectorsfrenzy.com/search?q=full+of+drome&search-button= for a few examples. It's possible that a ton of the info about these bands / artists appears in print from years past and hasn't necessarily hit the young internet yet, but it would be doing Wikipedia a great disservice to delete or merge this band's page out of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Guts (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colapeninsula This particular NYT article reads like a memoir and not a news article and as such holds the same weight as a personal blog post.

As for your assertion that "Trying to google "X__X", failing...shows ignorance of how search engines work" is presumptuous on your part and assumes that's what I did... As a CMO with over 15 years experience doing SEO, web development and marketing, I am well aware of how search engines work. As the saying goes, "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and searches for "No wave bands in 1978", "John D Morton", and so on don't really substantially demonstrate notability for the band. Ormr2014 | Talk 

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times article reads like a personal memoir ("One day in 1980, I reached a milestone in a Jewish boy’s journey into manhood: spending my bar mitzvah money on punk rock records. I was searching the racks at a record store for “Adult Books,” the debut single by the Los Angeles band X, and the only 45 that remotely fit the bill featured a couple of white X’s on the front cover, separated by a dash, above a photo of the bare backside of a woman bound at the ankles."). The article is not a news article, nor does it imply notability. It is nothing more than an editorial of the author's memories and opinions about how "great" the band is. Ormr2014 | Talk 
An article in one of the world's most prestigious newspapers saying that a band is great is surely an indicator of notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph of the article, and a few more words in the following two paragraphs, describe the reporter's personal recollection of the band. The balance of this sixteen-paragraph article is written and presented as New York Times music news reporting, is certainly not a blog entry, and stands as evidence of notability, along with the other sources noted above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston leadership institute

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Omr2014, please, more info. Not all of us are mind readers. Why do you feel that way? Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion is a drastic step. The article now has 19 references including links to feature articles on, and mentions of, the organization contained in such reputable sources as Johns Hopkins University, New York Times subsidiary about.com, Northeastern University Marine Science Center, and three local newspapers from top-ranked Boston area school districts. Moreover, there appears to be a double standard at work. A program in a comparable arena, Internal drive (Idtech) summer program, contain only one reference and four external links. No one is suggesting that article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.103.54 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment immediately above this one. Be consistent. This article has room for improvement. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cathy. What improvements would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.157.204 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it sounds like a promotional brochure. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indeed, the article has 18 references, but they're soft as mush: a horde of blogposts, the subject's own website, local school sites, press releases, casual mentions and the like. What's missing is significant coverage from reliable media sources: while the wickedlocal.com is the home site of Gatehouse Media, which owns most of the small city dailies and weeklies in the region, the citation is to a two-article press release. The Citizen-Herald article is long, but that paper's a local tabloid weekly of the sort not generally held to meet WP:IRS, even if the article wasn't hosted on the subject's website.

    Beyond that, it's written in a blatantly promotional style, and was created and has been edited by several SPAs, some of whom have commented here; I wonder if there's a COI issue at work. Ravenswing 06:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • More inclined to delete and draft - I had been considering whether to comment but after performing some searches, it seems the amount of good sources for this may be less than shown. Searches at News, Books and Scholar found nothing significant and in-depth. The article is neat and sourced but there doesn't appear to be more sources aside from the current ones. SwisterTwister talk 16:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ′′′′′In response to suggestions by Cathy and Ravenswing, sentences that appeared promotional were re-worded and additional information is highly factual. Ravenswing and sistertwister both wanted more references from national and major news sources. References have been added for ABCNews, CBS affiliate WBZ, Nature, Sailing World, American Chemical Society, Chemistry and Engineering News, a Wikipedia article, and Boston Globe. Note at least one link to the organizational website is to enable a Johns Hopkins Imagine Magazine article pdf file to be read. References to local schools are to not only Dana Hall Prep School, but also to MIT, Northeastern University, and Yale which, although local to those from the Boston area, are world-ranked higher education institutions.′′′ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.37.223 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the "sources" in the article are the subject's own website, directories, press releases, listings that do not mention this institution at all, and even other Wikipedia articles. Searches don't yield any coverage in RS. Kraxler (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:BAND #2. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Force MDs

Force MDs (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 band, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC Joseph2302 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep –
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTFO

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

Unnotable band, fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SportChassis

SportChassis (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)

Having searched for SportChassis LLC in Google and Bing, as well as viewed the references, I don't believe this article meets WP:Corp. Ormr2014 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find enough good refferences, but all of the history is based off what is said on the company's history website; SportChassis History. Seqqis (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split content This page is not well-developed enough (and really cannot be) as its own entry. The company exists as a sub-manufacturer of Freightliner Trucks and all its products are variants of the Freightliner Business Class M2. It would be better to integrate this content into both of these articles and delete the SportChassis stub afterwards.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, very similar stuff exists, also I'm pleased with the sources, notability is there. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep due to withdrawan by nominator. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clark County Courier

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

WP:N Ormr2014 (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and thanks User:Bp0 for starting the article. It is extremely useful to have newspaper page to link to, a reader following a story citing the Courier can, at a click, discover that this is a real paper, that serves a small town. It's a new page, give the page a chance to grow.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point, Mrschimpf, is that it takes much more than simply being a newspaper to justify notability and the Clark County Courier has not established notability in any way whatsoever. WP:BEFORE|Ormr2014]] (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mrschimpf has a point, when a newspaper has existed for over a century, a WP:BEFORE search is almost certain to turn up sources. Ormr2014, you might want to so a little more searching, and consider withdrawing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory Prior to nominating the article I did searches in general, news and so on and went through several pages of results. All I found were a couple self-published excerpts about the newspaper, some Yellowpages ads, a Facebook profile, a couple local directories and a bunch of totally unrelated stuff. If someone can dig up some valid sources that illustrate notability, I will happily withdraw this nomination. But otherwise, it stands. Ormr2014 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ormr2014 I do take your point about contemporary newspapers, it is entirely possible for someone to start a newspaper (print or web) and have it fold after a few issues or even years without attaining notability. It is, however, impossible for a newspaper to exist in an American town for over a century without RS of its existence. I believe that a listing by the South Dakota Newspaper Association (sdna.com) validates this article sufficiently. As does the fact that a quick search shows that stories in the Courier are used as reliable sources by other Dakota papers. I did, however, add a couple of other sources. Papers this old always turn up in stuffy, old-time histories, Gazeteers, and state legislative registers. I would, btw, be extremely intrigued if anyone actually found a century-old American small town newspaper that could not be sourced. I didn't mean to give you a hard time here. It just seemed like an AFD that didn't really need to happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kangol Kid

Kangol Kid (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 musician, fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Notability has been up for 6 years, seems time to decide. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe, NY Post, and Live Drays are hardly "reputable" sources.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
Say what? Vibe is a respected venue of music journalism, founded by Quincy Jones. I think it qualifies as perfectly respectable. The New York Post dates to 18-oh-frigging-one. It's suitable enough for a reputable source for establishing notability here. The other one is a bit sketchy. But you can't knock the Vibe or the NY Post. People may have political reasons to argue with the post's editorial stance, and it teeters on the sensationalistic side, but it isn't Joe Nobody's Music Blog. It'll do for this purpose. --Jayron32 02:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep –

References

  1. ^ "UTFO's Kangol Kid Sparks Hip Hop Breast Cancer Awareness Movement". BET.com. 4 October 2011.
  2. ^ "Kangol Kid of U.T.F.O. Becomes First Rap Artist to be Honored by the American Cancer Society". Vibe.
  3. ^ "Rapper's 1984 hit song at center of librarian lawsuit". New York Post.
  4. ^ "Learn the Business Behind Hip Hop". News One.
  5. ^ "Hip-Hop Artists to Wait Tables for Breast Cancer Awareness". BET.com. 11 October 2011. (short article)
  • Personally, I'm not sure a merge would work very well. Half of the current Kangol Kid article is about his producing / writing activities separate from UTFO, which would either have to be discarded as unimportant or tacked into UTFO where they aren't entirely relevant. Dragons flight (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point there. Most of the coverage centers around the subject's involvement with UTFO, though.
Of note is that the subject also arguably meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #7, as having been "...one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city", as per (in the Kangol Kid article) "UTFO became one of the most popular rap and breakdance acts in the country on the strength of their breakout single, "Roxanne, Roxanne" and (in the UTFO article) “Roxanne, Roxanne” was ranked number 84 on VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of Hip Hop." North America1000 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, this article has been vastly neglected in terms of providing sources, but there are more than enough sources that can verify this person's notability as per Dragons flight, and North America's sources show. (New York Post not reputable? It is a media pioneer founded in 1801). Oppose merge to UTFO. It is common for a lead musician to be mentioned individually, especially after a band-breakup; other ventures may arise such as charitable work etc. (See: Wyclef Jean; Travie McCoy). Kangol Kid was also featured in an episode documentary of Unsung.[1] List of Unsung episodes#Season 8. I haven't heard a compelling argument other than its lack of sourcing. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IMBD Kangol Kid

Keep - Squeaks by. BMK (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Being Human

The Art of Being Human (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Squeak. The detailed demolishment of sourcing here hasn't been well refuted and I cannot see a consensus based on argument that this person passed GNG. That said, Redirect/merge is a better outcome for marginally non-notable content then delete and that argument best fits community expectations as well as reflecting the groundswell that this subject has some merit. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Raab

AfDs for this article:
Andreas Raab (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 (specifically seeing no WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RSs), WP:NACADEMICS (no evidence of meeting any of these criteria), WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Of current sources (at time of nom), the few that actually relate to him are his dissertation and blog posts, community wiki articles, mailing list messages, and other sites allowing self-published content. Google scholar shows some papers, though very few where he was the lead author on. He shares his name with a few other scientists in other fields so look out for those when you look at google scholar. ― Padenton|✉   20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. Delete. I tagged this in March for notability and for primary, self-published and unreliable sources. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still insist the reliable independent secondary sources simply don't exist to support notability under WP:GNG. However, this Google scholar search shows a total citation count (also used in academia) of 979, which I will accept as do not think is sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC. Msnicki (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm switching back to delete. I've been struggling with this and on reflection, I just honestly do not believe this individual is notable under our definition. Itsmeront has made the discussion so personal that it's been hard for me focus purely on the evidence over my desire to get as far away from this unpleasant person as as fast I can. He's taken both Padenton and me to ANI and he's still insisting he was justified and still complaining that we're the ones who are overzealous, even after it's became clear he was completely wrong on the facts of whether this Raab AfD could possibly have been retaliation. (I tagged it before nominating Nim to AfD and long before I had ever hear of Itsmeront.)
When people raise questions about my decisions or about whether I've been fair, my natural inclination is a lot different today than it would have been in my 20s. Then, I'd have gotten defensive and it would have been hard to admit I was wrong. At 64, I know I'm wrong all the time. It's part of being human. But I also know that if I am wrong, the best thing to do is correct the error as quickly as possible. The only mistakes people really remember are the ones you refuse to admit. So I tend to bend over backwards trying to see it their way. This is also why anyone who looks at my contribution history will see a fair number of !vote changes at AfD when new arguments and new evidence is offered. I try very hard never to hold onto an opinion just because that's what I used to think.
In the case at hand, I tagged the article but did not nominate it, in contrast to nominating Nim an hour later, because I thought it was borderline. The sourcing was completely insufficient. But unlike Nim, for which I could see there were clearly no acceptable sources, it looked like proper sources might exist for this subject. In determining notability, we consider only whether sources exist, not whether they've been cited. So while I didn't find any at the time, it seemed possible, given his accomplishments, that if I kept looking, maybe they were out there. All it take is two good sources, which is not asking a lot. Now I know, pretty much as a matter of plain fact, that multiple reliable independent sources actually about the subject do not exist. They just don't. Interviews do not count, especially from the organization you work with. Just getting your name into one sentence of an article does not count. Blogs and other WP:SPS sources do not count. None of that stuff counts and when you take away all that unhelpful stuff, there is just plain nothing left.
So why the switch and switch back? Well, fundamentally, I felt pressured, even a bit bullied. This whole discussion (actually any discussion involving Itsmeront) has become so unpleasant that I really want out. I enjoy AfDs because we have a crisp set of guidelines that I think are quite cleverly constructed to support our WP:Five Pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: ... Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents. I enjoy dissecting the evidence to see if we've cleared the hurdle. It's usually a fun, intellectual exercise.
But this one has not been that. When things become so personal and I find myself accused of being wrong and carrying out vendettas, it's hard for me now, at 64, not to consider maybe I am wrong. Can I look at the evidence from their point of view? By now I know that if you are wrong, it's really, really helpful to concede as quickly as you can. When MarkBernstein !voted keep, I took that seriously because I respect his opinion and, frankly, I just wanted a reason to change my !vote and get the heck out of here.
I just can't do it. (Sorry, Mark, though I still respect your opinion.) Our guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC suggest considering citation counts in the way a research university might consider them in tenure decisions. Tenure comes with the associate professor title and if you have the PhD to go along with it, I think 1000 citations cumulative would be enough to make associate professor and tenure at most places. But (a) there are LOTS of associate professors for every full professor, (b) we have an "Average Professor Test" that asks that the subject stand out from average and (c) I put those together to conclude that we consider the kinds of citations that would be considered in tenure decision but should insist on more than it takes merely for tenure. I think you could get tenure with 1000 citations spread across a pile of papers. But I don't think a 1000 citations cumulatively is at all remarkable. I still think a significant paper or book is one with over 1000 citations. It just is. And this subject hasn't got one of those and his cumulative citation count just isn't good enough.
The problem here is one that's common in technical fields. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Our work is often much better known than we are. People write about our work. They do not write about us. This is just the way it is. If getting people to write about you is an important life goal, perhaps a career as a porn star or an athlete might be a better choice. Unfortunately, this subject is not a porn star or an athlete and while I'm satisfied his work may be notable, I am convinced he is not.
At this point, I've said everything I'm going to. I am very weary of this debate and very definitely of the way Itsmeront has made something that should be a fun intellectual discussion into something so personal. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Msnicki for your comments. It seems clear that many people believe that Raab was notable, more than his association to famous people. Those famous people themselves thought very highly of Raab and his accomplishments, introducing him in prestigious events, giving him credit, listing him as a primary creator to famous journalists. Raab was not an academic, he was a brilliant programmer, that made a significant contribution to the field of computer science. Arguing his paper count or his citations would have given him a chuckle. He was not a professor, nor did he want to be one. He was hired by one of the greats and spent his life working with others that were equally accomplished spectacular developers. When he went back to Germany to get married and have children he was immediately hired by the SAP global innovation team because, unlike you, they could see his contributions to programming. Croquet is not just a paper. It is a revolutionary idea thought up by one of the inventors of the internet. It was championed by Kay and developed into a working model by Raab and Smith. I mentioned before that I could go into the details about why it has not yet become the significant contribution that it will become in the future, but I'm not sure you are interested in the actual content, as opposed to the numbers. My biggest complaint is the refusal to read the content and understand it, not just in published papers but in expert blogs. Notice that Mark Bernstein also said

Significant contributions to the research literature and to development of a very significant system.

. I could go on and try to make nice and tell you that I'm not 20, and that my attempts to de-escalate this have been met by you basically calling me an idiot. I didn't even respond to that comment of yours, figuring I was wasting my time, but now I think I will at least do that, simply by saying that, I'm glad you at least read the articles you pointed me to on your talk page. Itsmeront (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've said I find you unpleasant but then again, after someone takes you to ANI, I think it's okay to say that. I did not call you an idiot. What I actually said, was You've consistently questioned my good faith based on absolutely nothing except your own baseless paranoia and wildly over-optimistic assessment of your own competence in an AfD. If you ever decide to buy into the guidelines, stop personalizing everything, improve your writing and adherence to simple guidelines requests (like don't edit your comments after they've been responded to without using <s> and <ins> tags) and stopped your infernal filibustering, you might become someone I wouldn't mind encountering. Right now is a different story. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, as I said you basically called me an idiot inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. I'm not complaining, you are welcome to your opinion, it just tells me I'm wasting my time. I will take the suggestion about <s> and <ins>. I used it in the past but wasn't aware of it's importance to editors. Thank you for pointing it out. Itsmeront (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using the search methods provided here ( news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR), brings up a tremendous amount of content about this man, some self-published, some not completely reliable and some I couldn't understand, as it was in German; but there was a substantial amount of content, especially on scholar.google.com, much of which is not self-published, that indicates that Andreas Raab was a bit of a celebrity in his industry.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
All those sources on scholar for which the subject is an author are WP:PRIMARY, making them unhelpful in establishing notability even if they were published in reliable publications. If the subject's papers were widely cited, we might be able to make an argument for notability under WP:ACADEMIC but unfortunately, they are not widely cited. In computer science, a widely-cited paper is generally considered to be one with over 1000 citations but the most-cited paper by this author has only 150 citations. I don't think that's enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's also the third author in that paper. In Computer Science, authors are typically ordered by the size of their contribution, so there's little suggesting that his contribution to that paper was significant. That was the highest citation count I saw. ― Padenton|✉   04:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, but I think that VPRI and its predecessor Squeak Central research groups did not follow the CompSci convention of author order, and in any case, the main Croquet and Squeak papers with four or five authors seem to have had equal contributions. Also Kay et al publish a disproportionately small number of peer-reviewed papers compared to their importance: they seem happy to self-publish, which I think is the only requirement of their NSF funding. Could someone please confirm, or refute, or even better, back this up with a citation? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what order do you think they did use? It wasn't alphabetic on any of those papers that come up on scholar. Do you think it was age or beauty? I think it's most likely they followed the same convention followed everywhere else, in order of contribution. Anyway, the point was that we might have tried to establish notability as an WP:ACADEMIC based on citations but I don't the evidence is there for us to do that. Msnicki (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for VPRI and Squeak Central research groups not using the author order convention for computer science, do you have anywhere I could look at this? The paper I looked at did not seem to indicate Raab had a significant role in the work. ― Padenton|✉   15:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VPRI is the research arm of Kay. They exist still and are doing amazing work in the field of the reinvention of programming. Squeak and Squeak Central started at Disney and was an outgrowth of the invention of Object-Oriented programming invented by Kay. Raab worked for both Disney and for VPRI directly under Kay. In general you will probably find Raab listed after Smith and Kay and Reed listed in that order. Kay is obviously the most notable, but the least involved. He likes to say, "I invent and then move on to other issues". Reed was little involved but consulted frequently in these papers. It was his dissertation that was the original inspiration for Croquet. The work was done primarily by Smith and Raab. The contributions were probably equal when it comes to Smith and Raab but Smith was more notable and he tended to take the lead in business, funding, and articles. This article [[18]] lists Raab second, as I would expect, not sure what article is showing him third. I would expect him to be either second or fourth, but not because of his participation, more a matter of deference to who came to the problem space first. Itsmeront (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of reliable independent secondary sources that have been cited. Andreas Raab was one of the original authors, and a leader of a large community around the Smalltalk Squeak community, started by Alan Kay, the father of Object Oriented Programming and one of the original creators of the personal computer. He was a major contributor to the field of computer graphics, virtual worlds, new methods for computer synchronization (Croquet, or Tea Time). I have updated the article to add additional third party references which should be considered before deleting this article. Notice the number of books that have been added as references where Andreas contributed, was thanked for his work or had his worked reviewed by others. Hew was recently eulogized by the head of SAP global innovation group. I have added notes from a eulogy from David Smith, and also included Andreas' work with Alan Kay on the Reinventing of Programming. All of these are reliable third party sources. Itsmeront (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your claim, There are a lot of reliable independent secondary sources that have been cited, can you kindly identify at least two of them that satisfy our guidelines' definition of reliable, independent and secondary? That excludes anything written by the subject as primary or published by the Squeak project where he worked as not independent and any blogs or other self-published sources as not reliable. I understand that you disagree with our guidelines, and you are entitled to your opinion. So I'm not asking that you agree with our guidelines' definitions nor do I wish to debate them with you. I am merely asking if you can identify any sources you believe satisfy those definitions. I don't believe there are any. Msnicki (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please be advised that AFD is not a place to discuss motives or unrelated opinions. It's simply a place to discuss whether or not you believe the article warrants deletion and why.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
Sorry for the noise I have moved my comments to here Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Itsmeront (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This could be a keep if the material eulogizing this individual is removed. Profiles of people are not meant to be tributes to them, however influential they might be, they are supposed to be encyclopedic entries outlining their work. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz Read! Talk!Thank you for your comments. I have removed the Eulogies. Itsmeront (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think that there is still some room for improvement to have a fully fleshed out article, I think that this page meets the notability standard and the extraneous information, more suitable for a memorial page, has been removed. Liz Read! Talk! 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I've overlooked something that you've spotted. Which of the sources do you rely on as reliable, independent and secondary as required by WP:GNG? I did not find any. Msnicki (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NinjaRobotPirate (talk) [article translated] I saw that article but it's really just a memorial on his death. Andreas was german and was educated in Germany but he spent most of his life in the USA, working with Alan Kay, and David A. Smith. He did return to Germany and met his wife and decided to stay there only about a year or so before his death. When he moved back to Germany he joined the SAP global innovation team. Calling him a German programmer is not quite accurate. He was more a German - Programmer in the USA. Itsmeront (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki (talk) claims: In computer science, a widely-cited paper is generally considered to be one with over 1000 citations

Msnicki (talk) can you please cite Wikipedia editorial policy that backs up your assertion that papers require 1000 citations to be notable. And to be clear here you are not arguing Reliability since Andreas has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources including books and was the author on peer-reviewed published journal articles, is that correct? Itsmeront (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not a policy question. We only have a small number of policies. Everything else is a guideline. (C.f., WP:POLICYLIST) And our guidelines do not specify an exact threshold, they offer only guidance, so I'm offering you my opinion, based on the guidelines. From WP:ACADEMIC#Specific criteria notes:
  • The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
    • To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.
:
  • ... The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure.
We can get some guidance from the yearly citation thresholds it took make it into the top 1% of most cited paper Archive.org's snapshot of the Science Watch thresholds as of 2009. (They've since removed this information from their public website; they want you to pay for it.) They explained their methodology here but basically, what you see there is that for a CS paper to make it into the top 1% at, say, the 5 year mark, takes 39 citations. By the 10 year mark, it should have 70 citations. But this is only to make into the top 1%. There are THOUSANDS of papers published every year and 1% of those is still thousands. As you move up in rarity to the top .1% or top .01%, the citation counts become staggering. For example, Martin Hellman's New Directions paper on public key encryption has over 13,000 citations.
In real life, I'm on the faculty in the EE department at a local university so I also have some first-hand knowledge how academics regard citations. In my informal, completely unscientific experience, 1000 seems to be threshold where academics begin to take notice. But even 1000 is not that big. I have a paper of my own with over 1100 citations and I don't think anyone (certainly not me!) would seriously argue that should make me notable. (If you're concerned to verify the claim, send me email and I'll privately disclose my identity and give you the reference.) 150 citations is just nothing.
Separately, I notice you have been adding more sources. Most seem to be more of the same WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY junk as in the past and I'm not interested and don't have the time to follow a zillion links to check every one of them. But it only takes two good sources to get me to change my !vote to keep. I follow the guidelines. I do not carry out vendettas. If somewhere in that pile you have two that really do meet the guidelines definition of reliable, independent and secondary (not your preferred definition) and they're actually about the subject, please identify them. If you've got two good sources, I promise to change my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, they are very helpful. This means that Raab papers by your numbers make it into the top 1%. Additionally by the numbers it seems that the most relevant articles don't necessary get the most citations. [Google Scholar ECC] I work in cryptography so I thought I'd verify your numbers with something I know something about. Notice that the most relevant articles the original research are only cited a total of 40 times. There are other articles about the work with references much higher as you point out. I would say that in this particular field of synchronization protocol the overall impact of the new protocol is not fully understood yet. I can go into the reasons for this with you if you like. To understand why Croquet is notable, you have to understand what Croquet is. Please note that even President Obama has seen the software. That seems notable.
To answer your question [Squeak: Open Personal Computing and Multimedia] is a book about Squeak not written by Raab, but about his work. He was a major part of that community writing a majority of the software himself. [INFOQ] is a third party publication covering his work on the Squeak VM for Android. [Boston University Croquet workshop demonstrates revolutionary computer software] is a third-party review. [ECOOP 2003 - Object-Oriented Programming: 17th European ..., Volume 17] is a third-party acknowledgment on his work on traits which is a multiple inheritance implementation for Object Oriented programming. Itsmeront (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for wasting my time. I honestly can't tell if you don't understand our guidelines or just choose not to. I looked at each of these sources and not one of them qualifies. If you had read and understood our guidelines (even if you don't agree with them) you should have known that. Not one does more than mention the subject's name. That is the essence of a trivial mention and it is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already given you references in peer-reviewed journals about his work in computer graphics, software for the blind, etoys, tweak, Traits and Croquet which you say is not notable but that I belive qualify under " a number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.". I have shown you a number of books that have referenced him. In this case, I was trying to follow up with additional third-party sources that mention him. We have already provided proof that Andreas was a major part of the Squeak Community, he was hired by Kay, was a the leader of the community and majority creator of the Squeak Software itself. The published book on Squeak shows notability of the subject that he was so intimately connected with. The other references were Third party coverage of him specifically. It seems that what we disagree with is the number of citations. By your own count, the citations on his papers put him in the 1% of published papers. Hopefully, the other keeps and opinions on the necessity of over 1000 citations will be enough to vote you down because you are correct I certainly disagree with you. Itsmeront (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes (Specifically the first one) and further down the page at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics.
As for books:
  1. Books are not automatically reliable sources and only credible and authoritative books give evidence supporting notability. "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
  2. Any source being used to support a notability claim via WP:GNG needs to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. That means books he contributed to, wrote, or thanked, do not count towards his notability through WP:GNG. That being said, it can be used to support a notability claim via WP:Notability (academics), but then he needs to meet different criteria, any of those listed at WP:Notability (academics).
  3. Some of these sources in the article are mis-characterized. For example, "Andreas Raab's work was extensively reviewed in Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres edited by Tracey Bowen, Carl Whithaus" Unless he's mentioned under another name here, the book in question has a single mention of Andreas Raab, in the bibliography for one of the chapters where a paper on Croquet that he was one of the authors for was cited. [19]
Peer-reviewed published journal articles aren't enough by themselves. There needs to be a considerable number of peer-reviewed journal publications, and enough citations on them overall to indicate the person has had a notable impact on their field. To give you an idea, the vast majority of people with PhDs are not notable, even though PhD programs require a novel contribution to their field. A large number of college/university professors fail notability as well, even at research universities. ― Padenton|✉   19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am personally convinced that Raab's life is notable in the world of immersive/3D computing, but much of the evidence is not of a form which often carries much weight at AfD discussions. Two which I do find compelling, in that they provide sufficient facts to write a verifiable bio, are:
  1. the Weekly Squeak interview with Raab. This is independent because it was done at a time when Raab did not have an official role at Squeak. His contributions to Squeak at that time were voluntary, he didn't have a seat on the board, and his full time job was Croquet.
  2. the c't magazine obituary, from reputable German magazine publisher Heise. (machine translation to English )
If the article fails to be kept, there is plenty of new material that can be merged into the articles on Croquet, and to start a new article about Teleplace, not to mention posting a bio on the C2 wiki.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are almost always WP:PRIMARY and do not contribute to notability. This one is no exception. Please see WP:Interviews#Notability for more. It is also not independent. This is the Squeak project interviewing one of their own contributors, even if it's true he didn't have an official role at the time. Sample quote: "You are one of the most active Squeak developer [sic] out there." It's not even a reliable source. The Squeak project does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control as we understand those terms here on WP. Msnicki (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect to my colleagues, the 1000-citation threshold is very difficult to defend. Looking at the ACM Digital Library, most cited paper by Dame Wendy Hall (past president ACM, knighted for her computer science research) appears to have 224 citations. That’s The Semantic Web Revisited, a fairly well-known paper. The most cited work by Andy van Dam has a citation count of 335: that’s the famous Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics. I get similar results in the ACM Digital Library for people like Andreas diSessa (Boxer) an Oliver Selfridge (Pandemonium). A bar that excludes these people is a bar set far, far too high.

In other fields, our standard is significant independent secondary coverage. That standard can be met with a very modest number of citations if those citations are substantial.

Keep: Significant contributions to the research literature and to development of a very significant system. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard at all to defend the 1000 citations number. Our guidelines ask that the number be related to what is typically considered in tenure decisions and also that we're looking for more just the average professor. Universities don't publish specific criteria for tenure. But it's certainly possible to find out what it appears to take and that it's about 1000 citations. For example, "The successful professors’ most cited papers from this period received, on average, over 1000 references. For the non-successful professors, the number was closer to 60."[20] and "academics aspiring to be a Professor should aim to have their work cited 1000 times and or a H-index average for their discipline."[21]. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but again -- look at the examples I gave. Hall's past-president of BCS and ACM, full professor, head of her faculty, FRS, etc etc. Van Dam pretty much founded computer graphics and has had tenure at Brown since their CS department became a department. Leslie Lamport (Turing Prize) has only one paper over 1000 citations in the ACM DL. Ben Shneiderman (dean of HCI) seems not to have a paper with 1000 citations, or even 500 citations, in the ACM DL. We must be applying different standards here -- these are among the most notable computer scientists of all time. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another test that suggests we're on different wavelengths: I've been chiefly involved in ACM Hypertext/SIGWEB, but I've also been program chair for ACM Wikisym and ACM Web Science. These may be odd corners of computer science, but they're not completely esoteric -- especially not as we're all here on the web, writing links, on a wiki! In the 25-year history of ACM Hypertext, I don't think any paper has been cited 1000 times. I'm quite certain nothing in Wikisym has 1000 citations, and very much doubt anything from Web Science has made it that far. We're not just talking excluding the average tenured professor, we're excluding nearly everyone. By comparison, our standard for actors and actresses is quite modest, and our standard for porn stars and athletes is very modest. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Wendy Hall's most-cited paper has 1522 citations, Andries van Dam's book has 2865 citations, Andreas diSessa's top paper has 1488 citations, Oliver Selfridge's top paper has 965 citations (pretty darn close to 1000). I'll stick by the 1000 number as what it takes. 20:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That's why I queried: I'm getting citation counts (as I said) from the ACM Digital Library. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you can now see that none of the people you were worried would be excluded if all we considered was citation counts would in fact be excluded. And that's before we consider whether notability might be established for some of these individuals the old-fashioned way, with multiple reliable independent secondary sources. As for the "low bar" for porn stars and athletes, you're wrong. The bar is the same: multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can show 2 strong RS. I went through most of the sources, and did not find any. Refs 3 2-4, 6, 9-12, 24-25 are from Squeak foundation or similar; 13, 14, 17, 18 do not mention him; 16, 22 are his own writings; 20 is just a mention in an article about someone else; 21 is not a reliable source (blog). I may have missed something, so if there are reliable sources, please point them out. And if found, the article should be reduced to what is available in those sources, with a few factual exceptions. As it is, most of the content of the article should be considered unsourced. LaMona (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona (talk) Thank you for your comments. Can you explain your reasoning for dismissing papers from Squeak Foundation. References like 5 and [Squeak: Open Personal Computing and Multimedia] show clearly the importance of Squeak, and the other references by experts in the field, support the even larger later contributions to the field that Andreas Raab made to Squeak itself. Surely you can accept these expert references as collaborating evidence for his contribution in the field. Ref 13 is clear in the text. Tweak was used extensively in version 1.0 of the Sophie Andreas was the primary author of Tweak. Tweak was the primary platform of Sophie. Ref 14, is the original thesis, that is the basis of Kay, Reed, Smith, Raab work called Croquet. That this is the original source is mentioned many times throughout the books, articles, and references. Ref 17 does clearly mention Raab on the last line. The workshop was to discuss Croquet at Boston University Croquet workshop demonstrates revolutionary computer software. Ref 18 does clearly mention Raab as on of the principle architects of Croquet, it is Reeds thesis that became Croquet, the fact that Reed gives credit to Raab is certainly a valuable reference. Ref 16 is his own writings but published in a peer reviewed journal. Ref 22 demonstrates his close work with Alan Kay and Viewpoints institute (corroborated in other references) in a funded NSF proposal. Ref 20 is a meeting of Boston Museum of Science Computing Revolutionaries event where Alan introduced Andreas Raab of the University of Magdeburg, Germany. Andreas is part of the Open Croquet project which show that both Alan considered his work on Croquet with Reed (one of the original coordinators of the UDP protocol, he do not like to be called the inventor of UDP, but that is what others call him, that is an integral part of the internet), Smith (the creator of the first first-person 3D simulator), and Raab, Revolutionary. Ref 21 is an Expert Blog by a very distinguished scientist in his own right. He is one of the main architects of eToys, and the One Laptop Per Child system for educating third world children. [Etoys for One Laptop Per Child]. I think that it is clear based on your categorization of the references that you missed everything. Itsmeront (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaMona: You wrote "please point them out". As I wrote above, there is c't magazine [22] and Weekly Squeak [23]. The 2nd relies on my opinion (questioned above) that Squeak Foundation or similar is a reliable source (for reporting what Raab said.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Answering both: Even if Squeak foundation were considered a neutral source, listings of wikis, individual emails, newsletters, etc. do not rise to RS level. So the email eulogies aren't considered RS (e.g. [24], and nor are entries in the Squeak wiki -- user-contributed sources, like wikis, blogs, email, etc., are not RS. I wasn't able to determine the editorial policy of the German computer magazine, but the article is not enough on its own to confer notability. I have no doubt that Squeak is an important language, but this isn't an article about Squeak, it's an article about Raab, and the sources that support this have to be about Raab and show the notability of Raab. Mentioning him in articles about other notable people also is not enough for notability. You can state his accomplishments over and over, but you need reliable sources with substantial text about him to complete the article, and I just don't see that. Oddly enough, he isn't even named in the article on Squeak as a developer, and that would be easy to document and uncontroversial. LaMona (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona, thank you for your comments. To me the articles are supporting evidence of accomplishments for someone that worked hard on developing Squeak from the community of Squeak. Raab is mentioned twice on the Squeak article you mentioned in the developers table block, and he was mentioned as the developer of Tweak as an addition to Squeak. Understand that Tweak was not a different program, it was an interface option in Squeak. The two are not different platforms, they are the same platform but different ways to build applications in Squeak. Note that in Ref 2 on the Squeak page listed here as Ref 5, Raab is listed as the main contributor of Squeak for Windows. He is the guy that made Squeak run on Windows. This is evidence that he was hired early on by Kay to make Squeak a viable platform for people to use. There is a ton of information that also connects Raab to Squeak, I can find more if you like. He was a major developer on Squeak, the community credits him with writing more then 1/2 the code, that citation was done by looking at the code itself which is signed, by another expert source Goran Krampe. I'd be happy to share more information about his credentials also. The people that knew about his work that were listed as corroboration are not just bloggers or someone that can add to some site, they are all extremely well respected members of the community, and experts in their fields. There is a lot of information that clearly connects him with Croquet, Tweak, Sophie using Tweak, eToys, interfaces for the blind and computer graphics, which makes him quite notable. If your vote comes down to proving he was a major contributor to Squeak, and the the leader of the community, I can go find that for you. It is certainly true so the truth should win out if you are discussing reliability. Also note that Msnicki comment: in reference to insufficient RS she states

However, this Google scholar search shows a total citation count (also used in academia) of 979, which I will accept as sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC.

Just found another reference

Squeak was created by a team that includes Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls, Ted Kaehler, John Maloney, Andreas Raab, Kim Rose, Scott Wallace. The hackers' site is http://www.squeak.org. The children, parents and teachers site is http://www.squeakland.org

[[25]]. As I said there are probably more and I'll look for them if that will help. Itsmeront (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Possibly comparable bios The stub article for programmer Ian Bell was in this state when it survived its AfD discussion in 2010. As you can see, a passing mention in a broadsheet, and a magazine that carried 5 paragraphs of a talk by the programmer (certainly a primary source) might not have passed general notability guidelines, but the consensus was to keep (though consensus can change.) I think that a year or two's work on an influential game is as valuable as 10 to 15 years work on influential open source research. I think the of flexibility with the rules that was shown with the Bell bio might be in order here. While the Raab interview was published on the Squeak wiki, and we don't as a rule consider wikis to be reliable, there is no dispute about the authenticity of the interview. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That is not a reason to keep. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, one final remark. LaMona is absolutely correct re: our WP:BLP guidelines, which also apply to the recently deceased, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. From further down the page at WP:BLPSPS, Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. As LaMona points out, even if the article is kept, most the content would have to go anyway. Msnicki (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as sources of material about a living person Andreas Raab is not living Itsmeront (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased), the material is not contentious, the only argument is about the quality of the source, not of it's accuracy. I have not seen a single argument that the material submitted in support of Raab notability is FALSE, the argument is that it's not properly sourced. This policy does not apply to Raab. Itsmeront (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to: WP:Five Pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: ... Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents. This article does not espouse some unpopular theory or make claims for social change or to support the status quo, it's not political and therefor not a soapbox article. It is unlikely that a deceased person will benefit from an article about them, therefore; it is not advertising, it can not be vanity since Raab is not capable of being vain, it is not political so not espousing anarchy or democracy, this is not an article that display indiscriminate collection of information, nor a listing of content on the web. It doesn't define a word, or is reporting on current events. And this is not a collection a documents. I see nothing in the Five Pillars that prevent the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. Itsmeront (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL ― Padenton|✉   21:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignore all of Raab's accomplishments, his contribution to computer science, in graphics processing and ui development, including his work on UIs for the blind, his leading a community devoted to education and children, his participation in the development of Smalltalk and Object Oriented Technology, his participation in the creation of Croquet, developing a new protocol that will change how systems are synchronized, and his work to get funding for new advancements in the redevelopment of programming then maybe you could call this a memorial. Please note that Liz stated in a much more helpful way how to convert this document. I listened and changed it. She responded with a Keep above and said:

Although I think that there is still some room for improvement to have a fully fleshed out article, I think that this page meets the notability standard and the extraneous information, more suitable for a memorial page, has been removed.

Itsmeront (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all promotional spin, by you, who created an article for his friend 2 days after his death with the clear intention of memorializing him. Forgive me if I don't take you at your word when describing your friend's impact on computer science in such promotional language. ― Padenton|✉   13:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking you to take my word for it. Do you have an argument against anything I have said? Could you try to actually stick to the subject and be specific. I will try to find whatever additional information you are looking for. Itsmeront (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Squeak. He is known for that and it is in sources obituary in German but I can't honestly say anything else he's done has been picked up in high-quality sources we should use for biographies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333, Thank you for your comments. I agree that Raab is mostly known for his work on Squeak / Tweak and Etoys, in the Squeak and Squeakland communities. His work on Croquet is equally notable. Notice it was picked up by [Lisa Rein] Lisa Rein is a co-founder of Creative Commons, a video blogger at On Lisa Rein's Radar, and a singer-songwriter-musician at lisarein.com. She is also a freelance journalist, writing for publications such as OpenP2P.com, XML.com, Wired News, CNET, Web Review, Web Techniques and many others. She now works at the Washington Post. Notice the in-depth coverage of Croquet in her article, also see the Boston University and Boston Museum articles which call Croquet Revolutionary. Itsmeront (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion [WP:CSD#A9|A9]], non-notable song by a non-notable (redlinked) artist. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Time (Anna Rose and The Reasons Song)

The Last Time (Anna Rose and The Reasons Song) (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 song by band that doesn't even have a page. Tinton5 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queunliskanphobia

Queunliskanphobia (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)

Poorly-sourced article about a phobia. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 20:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Corso

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for WP:BIO. Article only has one citation/resource that describes a new business the subject recently opened. If opening a new business categorizes one as notable, Wikipedia would be a rather busy place Sal Calypso (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't find anything that suggests the subject meets notability requirements. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately delete for now - A News search found a few results with a browser search also finding results (mostly local) but nothing that appears significant, notable and in-depth. Highbeam and thefreelibrary also found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 01:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good work SwisterTwister. A lot of editors wouldn't even go as far as to do a search, but rather they would read the scant sources provided and make their decision based on that alone. You found what I found, not much. I must warn future editors planning to do the same. Because Corso's business is funded by Las Vegas' Downtown Project (DTP)[26], we must also be wary of search results that reveal articles written by media companies owned by or partnered with the DTP. DTP has their own media arm now, as they recently partnered with Wendoh Media, who now owns 50% of DTP's music festival[27][28], and also owns DTLV Magazine, Vegas Seven Magazine, Spy on Vegas, and a multitude of other media outlets in Las Vegas that have a direct interest in promoting Corso. Wendoh Media also manages the DTP owned music venue on the same property as Corso's business (The Bunkhouse). Even with the few sources that may be found outside of these "Wendoh owned" magazines, the subject does not pass the notability criteria. And any source with the Wendoh stamp would be a clear violation of WP:IS, as they have a vested interest in the success of Corso and his business. As much as I would love to create or edit another article on a Las Vegas resident, I cannot ignore the subject's failure to meet the proper criteria. Sal Calypso (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ager

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

Subject is not notable. I am the article’s original creator but from the outset others have complained of non-notability and I now agree. At the time I underestimated just how commonplace this type of researcher is amongst Kubrick film fandom, and more notable researchers (eg those in the film Room 237) don’t have Wikipedia articles. Subject is already generously covered at Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The_Shining_(film)#Spatial_layout_of_the_Overlook_Hotel. Silent Key (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1752 van Herk

1752 van Herk (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:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1785 Wurm

1785 Wurm (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:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.U.K.

S.P.U.K. (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 film Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
long title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Weak keep per Croatian reliable source Jutarnji calling the film a cult comedy classic.[30] The sorry stub that was brought to AFD has been expanded somewhat, and now better serves the project and its readers. There is the understandable issue in finding sources for a 1983 pre-internet youth comedy film that was apparently not released outside of Yugoslavia... but the fact that at least one found source tells it it has a cult following, indicates that other non-English sources likely exist. I think this a suitable stub that can be brought to the attention of Croatian-reading Wikipedians. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for insufficient coverage to constitute notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Again WP:ITEXISTS is not sufficient for retention. Croatian sources didn't help. One cited review said it best film je pokušao izvući dobit iz eksploatacijske formule mladost- komika-erotika, no po općem sudu kritike i slabom odjeku publike - posve bezuspješno. (an attempt to exploit the adolescent-erotic-comedy formula that was unsuccessful with both critics and audiences.) Not every film is notable. --Bejnar (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Bejnar, for a non-English Yugoslavian film Croatian coverage counts, and we are allowed to consider the difficulty of pre-internet Croation sources being available online. A source telling us a film was not a critical success is coverage, even if negative... and what later becomes a cult favorite is not based upon financial success. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian coverage would count if it were significant, it isn't. --Bejnar (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Is it you personally believe a 418 word 2899 character article which speaks in part about this film is insignificant? Or is you feel pre-internet coverage never existed? We'll disagree. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with whether the coverage is electronic or not. The article you just cited mentions the film is one sentence, translated: Among domestic films in the program are "Train in the Snow", "Sreća pojedinca - uspjeh kolektiva" [the film in question here], "Moram spavat' anđele", and the season closes with this year's hit film "The Priest's Children" by Vinko Brešan. That is not significant mention, no. --Bejnar (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A topic need not be the main focus of a source, and Croatian searches are difficult. And cogent since I do not live in Croatia, finding online sources for something Croatian AND pre-internet is even more so. But your point does underscore it screening 30 years after initial release and thus meeting OEN prong 2.3 "screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Daniels (activist)

Ross Daniels (activist) (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 subject, not updated in years, shouldn't have been created in the first place. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Was previously nominated for deletion and kept in 2007. The combination of having spent four years as chairman of Amnesty International's International Executive Committee and heading the Queensland Council of Social Services gets him over the bar of notability in my book. The article needs a rewrite to focus on his civil society work rather than his failed election campaign but he's still notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly fails WP:PROFESSOR, certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Last AFD had only one iVote, TheDroversWife voted to keep it then, as now. Assertion that activism is notable is plausible, problem is not only that the page shows no news articles about him, it is that I can't find any. Googling him with keywords Queensland University produces only old election results. Googling him with keywords Amnesty International produces no news hits at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followed link on talk page, thought I was linking through to the prior AFD. Instead it took me to this page. Often useful to look at old AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Daniels (politician). The page has been moved since then. Frickeg (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. you provoked me to look again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • search results' a Proquest search on his name and Amnesty International not limited by date turned up 30 articles (number is inflated because it includes wire service stories that showed up in several newspapers) They mention his name, "Other members of the mission including.... and Ross Daniels of Amnesty International will travel today to the Thai-Burmese border to interview Burmese refugees. They have been denied visas to enter Burma." [31], this one gives his title "The chairman of the Amnesty's International Executive Committee, Australian human rights lecturer Mr Ross Daniels, said yesterday that..." [32] One quotes him Amnesty International "has lost a dedicated campaigner..." when somebody died.[33]. No articles that I found focus on Daniels, or discuss him. A search in google books came up with similar results: a few mentions, no discussion of the man himself. An executive committee chairman of for an NGO certainly could be notable, but the only way to establish that would be for journalists or academics to write articles about him, articles that, as WP:GNG puts it: "addresses the topic directly and in detail". delete E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that having served on the international executive board of a major organization like Amnesty International would be enough notability to qualify him for an article if it could be properly sourced, for the moment this is resting entirely on primary-sourced verification of his existence rather than media coverage. The unsuccessful candidacy counts for nothing toward getting him an article, and the article contains unsourced detail about his personal life (wife's name, personal downtime hobbies, etc.) of the exact type that tends to make me suspect conflict of interest editing by somebody who knows the topic personally. No prejudice against future recreation if a good and properly sourced new article can be written that rests on Amnesty International instead of his failed candidacy, but in its current form this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - If the article can be sourced, quickly, I have no problem with keeping it. However, the claims in the article need sourcing. Right now, the only citations to his service on Amnesty International are his own speech and a dead link. It might need so much work as to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked at the sources again, just to be careful, and every one of them is a primary source; at least one is a dead link. Much of the information is a WP:BLP violation, with claimed but completely unsourceable data. Yet again Wikipedia is on the news as being unreliable; this article is another piece of evidence our critics need to hammer us over the head. I call on anyone who wants to keep this to fix it, now. Bearian (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perla Adea

Perla Adea (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, 1st and 3rd links are simply someones opinion, 2nd link is a blog so thus not a WP:Reliable source, I can't find anything on Google so have to say Delete per GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first http://www.philstar.com article listed above only offers one paragraph on the subject while the second only mentions her briefly. http://starforallseasons.com/television/ only mentions the subject twice: it's not related to her. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Granted, I did find some material on the subject online, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. However, sources do not have to be online, or even in English. If an editor can find books, publications (probably many in the 1960s) or similar content that discuss the subject I would be open to reviewing the additional content and changing my mind. Ping me if that happens. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous Alejo

Marvelous Alejo (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: does not reach threshold for notability as actor. Mostly cruft article. Quis separabit? 05:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding merges can continue on article talk pages, if desired. North America1000 02:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy

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

Lack of notability; specifically, it lacks any significant coverage. Any significant coverage on Collingwood Football Club best and fairest awards is primarily about the Copeland Trophy; any other minor awards presented at that night, including the Joseph Wren, the best clubman, etc., receive no significant coverage in their own right. Aspirex (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Late addition) I am also nominating the following two low-importance Collingwood Football Club awards (one for best first-year player and one for the season's leading player in the one-percenters statistic).

Gavin Brown Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harry Collier Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a late addition to the deletion – as I have only just discovered these articles' existence – but it is clear that these articles have the same notability problems as Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy and can be easily bundled. Aspirex (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a b&f award of a separate league (VFL) to the Copeland Trophy. Also there are separate articles talking only about the Joseph Wren Trophy and its winners. For examples see [34], [35], [36] --SuperJew (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all three of those are primary sources from the Collingwood Football Club website. While this is adequate for verifiability, it is a weak argument in establishing notability. Aspirex (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: two links not from the Collingwood website: [37], [38] --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those are from the VFL website, and therefore also a primary source; and, they fall under the category of routine coverage, which is also a weak argument in establishing notability. Aspirex (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question:: Could you please give examples regarding the Copeland Trophy that do show this notability you speak of? --SuperJew (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: This is a difficult request, as the notability of the Copeland Trophy is established not through a single reference or references which explicitly state "this award is notable", but a wide range of articles over a long period of time which – when viewed together – are reflective of a world which treats the award as notable. A search of the Fairfax archives from the past ten years has hundreds of references to the Copeland Trophy ([39]); many of these were articles and/or puff pieces about notable players in which Copeland Trophy victories are listed/described amongst the career highlights of those players.([40] [41] [42]) The AFL Hall of Fame citations list club senior best and fairests amongst player achievements [43]. It's not uncommon to see a player offhandedly described as "Copeland winner" or "dual Copeland winner" to add colour to a news report. No such case exists for the Wren: that same Age search reveals only four articles in ten years, all of which were routine coverage reports on that year's Collingwood's best and fairest. [44] It's true that if you look hard enough you'll find articles which mention players' Wren Trophies amongst their career highlights; but these are generally players who barely meet notability guidelines in their own right, such as Kyle Martin (whose six game senior career will be all but forgotten in AFL circles by the end of the decade, no offence to the man). For well-known players who did win the Wren, its importance as a career achievement is basically considered zero when the player has achieved anything else of note (e.g. this article about Heath Scotland's retirement doesn't bother to acknowledge his Wren amongst his career achievements [45]; and this article considers Jason Cloke's 76 senior games for Collingwood and his career for Spotswood more worthy of note than his Wren Trophy at Williamstown [46]). Aspirex (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Useful list, but better merged into Collingwood Football Club#Reserves team. Significant coverage doesn't exist to justify own article. Jevansen (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe better merged into Copeland Trophy than Collingwood Football Club#Reserves team. I would have thought it was pretty low value content for the main Collingwood Football Club page. (Note: I still favour outright deletion) Aspirex (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator added two more articles to be considered for deletion on 14 May 2015, listed under the "Late addition" section atop.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two more articles were added to the nomination on 14 May 2015. North America1000 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. But with the little participation, no prejudice to speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chanidapa Pongsilpipat

Chanidapa Pongsilpipat (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)

Actress with questionable notability-all of the pages seem to be fan pages for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not going to be of much use here because I'm not a Thai speaker but the article has somewhat improved now with the sources added by the user above and my English sources found nothing and she has no IMDb page so it's possible much of it is going to be Thai. Although I have to say, she's hasn't had that many movies over the years so I'm not sure how much attention she has gotten in Thailand. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dixon Elementary School

Arthur Dixon Elementary 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)

Primary school without clear notability. Jacona (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School is a rare Level 1 public school on the south side of Chicago and was the focus of a documentary, The Curators of Dixon School (2012), because of the school's unique art focused learning environment. There are lots of reliable secondary sources about both the school and the documentary that can be used to expand this page. Kausticgirl (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The school has one of the largest collections of African art of the Diaspora outside of a museum and uses that artwork as part of its educational curriculum. Since 1998 they have also hosted an annual art fair call the "Cultural Coonection African Marketplace and Bazaar" where students are able to sell their own artwork while also hosting workshops for the public. Given that the school is also academically successful and not a magnet or charter school I vote Keep since academically-successful, art-based public schools in the inner-city are rare.
  1. http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/diasporal-rhythms-south-side-art-collectors-logan-center/Content?oid=11178567
  3. https://arts.uchicago.edu/logan-center/logan-center-exhibitions/archive/diasporal-rhythms-ten-year-love-affair-collecting-art
  5. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/new-film-looks-at-arts-influence-on-dixon-elementary-school-students/#.UThK45LK3SA.facebook
  7. http://thechicagocitizen.com/news/2012/mar/06/cultural-connections-african-marketplace-and/

Jhurlburt (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanjal

Dhanjal (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 any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. My searches turned up only WP mirror sites and a non-reliable source which confirmed it can be a surname. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete. There isn't even any claim of notability. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing aside from results for other things with the name, it's possible sources are offline but I don't see any explanation to keep the article after no improvement since August 2010 and especially after there was a blanking/reverting and although the article had a source at one point with a little information, it has never significantly improved. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Delija

Ante Delija (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)

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. He fails GNG because there's no significant independent coverage of him. The article's only link is to sherdog and my search only found routine sports coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. It could've been closed as no consensus, however the article would benefit from immediate further discussion, as there was little debate in this AfD. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo de Azevedo

AfDs for this article:
Paulo de Azevedo (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)

BLP with notability and reference issues unaddressed. First nom closed no consensus due to lack of attention. —Swpbtalk 21:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Does not seem to meet BLP requirements to stand on its own. Notability is very low-key and should be merged into Sonae Group. Ozzyland 16:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't want to say "merge," because that's "merge and redirect," and one has to ask if this information actually needs to be in the corporate article (the dude's sweetheart, his childhood. . . his LinkedIn page by another name), when what the corporate article would want is merely the indication of a change in future leadership only. As for the individual's name space being preserved as a redirect. . . that assumes that he is going to be searched as a notable person in some other context. I really hate it when we get these corporate publicity pages; having a job is not having notability, even in the era of globalization. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sea Scouts New Zealand. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawke Sea Scout Hall

Hawke Sea Scout Hall (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 building which does not appear to meet reasonable standards of notability. The organisation which owns this building, Hawke Sea Scouts, was merged into Sea Scouts New Zealand in 2008 as insufficiently notable for a standalone article and the merged content was deleted about five years ago by an anon with no one noticing or objecting, possibly because the content was similar to an earlier version of this article created the previous day. That article was prodded by me and subsequently deleted. gadfium 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)-gadfium 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machar Kounyuk United FC

Machar Kounyuk United FC (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 an expert on the notability of sports teams, but this looks like a local, amateur club, and the article was created as a coatrack to support a now-deleted article on its manager. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Assuming the content of the article is accurate and some sources are added, this probably okay. The article claims that the club plays in South Sudan's top division, which is a generally accepted threshold for notability. Of course, the article is unsourced at present, meaning none of its content carries any weight. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the whole thing is a hoax, there is just some puffery going on in a rather clueless attempt to force content on this team and its manager onto Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting here that I have blocked the user who created this, and another admin did a rangeblock on all the IP addresses they were using to add nonsense to this article and a few others. I'm halfway tempted to just IAR delete this right now as I don't feel we can trust anything it says, but as the nominator I guess I probably shouldn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pavle (kickboxer)

Ivan Pavle (kickboxer) (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)

As a kickboxer he fails to meet the criteria at WP:KICK. The sources are routine sports reporting, like fight results, or youtube videos. There's nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, this article is under development, I am gathering resources and references. Thank you. User:Efkey189

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A number of sources have been added to the article, but they're all just routine sports reporting--fight results and announcements. Since GNG is not met, I checked to see if he's notable as a kickboxer, but there's no evidence he meets any of the notability conditions at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to someone having another go from scratch. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Friedl

Jeff Friedl (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)

Lots of references dotted through the article. None are both reliable and in-depth coverage of the subject. Dweller (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he's clearly notable, I'd be happy to close the AfD. Do you have some evidence of notability? --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshaw Mafia Motherfuckers

Crenshaw Mafia Motherfuckers (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 band with only one album and multiple searches found absolutely nothing thus nothing significant or notable. I can't speak for Japanese sources but I doubt any good ones exist. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Texans

Independent Texans (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 organization with no significant news coverage despite multiple searches here, here, here, here and here and nothing at thefreelIbrary. There's not much information and not much worth keeping. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source on the article is the organization's website. My own Google searches also suggest that this organization doesn't pass GNG. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is there no significant coverage, this article seems vaguely promotional.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wakaba Girl

Wakaba Girl (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)

Upcoming anime show that might fall under too soon, no refs to be found or notability. Wgolf (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)withdrawnWgolf (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded the article and included a couple of sources. Between those sources and the fact that the broadcast is pretty imminent, I believe that this scrapes by WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Farix found some sources, more is needed though other than announcements if this is to be kept in the long run. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-looking over the creators history he seems to have a history of just putting stubs like this with no refs or info at all. with that said-I am now going to withdraw this! Thanks! Wgolf (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya Gandhi

Bhavya Gandhi (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 Indian child actor Jim Carter 11:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally and erroneously transcluded to the 2012 Jan 1 log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Obviously, moving this to the show's article is the best option as he has not established independent notability and is best known for one show with one movie aside from that. The awards are also for the show and searches including this show there is not significant and in-depth coverage about him. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. At best this article is redundant to the pre-existing article about the ACA. At worst this is a personal essay riddled with original research. I would e-mail a copy of this to the article's creator but they haven't enabled their e-mail option. I'll leave a message on their talk page about this, but I will not leave a message on their YT channel as they requested on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity

The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL Not to mention being unencyclopaedic. Adam9007 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the epitome of an essay ("The author of this page wishes to inform young adults..."), and it's riddled with OR and speculation. I don't see any salvageable content here. Maralia (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, did the author mess up by creating it in article space or is there really a teacher out there instructing students to create Wikipedia articles for homework? —МандичкаYO 😜 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly speedily as promotion ("The purpose of this page is to inform the young adult population of the United States about the Affordable Care Act (ACA)"). If BloggsCo Stores only want to inform potential customers about their bargains in their forthcoming sale - should they be allowed an article for that purpose? Yes, there are teachers and tutors that seem to set Wikipedia as course work or even weekend homework. That doesn't mean that all things claimed to be school assignments really are supposed to be here. This might be a 'written' assignment posted by an enthusiastic student. It could even be by someone working for the ACA - artspam can come from normally respectable organisations. Whoever it's by, and whyever it's been written, its wherever is somewhere like Facebook (or the teacher's desk). Peridon (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTESSAY. Anything significant should already be in ACA's article. ― Padenton|✉   21:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - There is already an article covering The Affordable Care Act. If young adult obesity is relevant to the already existing article, it should be included there and not the subject of an independent article.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrawellTag Cover-More

TrawellTag Cover-More (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)

Advertising puffery. Sources fail to prove WP:N. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete clear advertising. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Links to awards were listed, but they turn out to all be links to articles about the same award. None of the articles say much about the company. If this is an important award, I would hope that there are more articles in the Indian business press about it, and could change my !vote if such articles are found. I note that the creator and editor of the article has only two edits to his/her name, and therefore if RS are found I would suggest userfy and go through AfC. LaMona (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is delete all of the articles, except for Ismail Morina. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Morina

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arber Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Alban Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Fisnik Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Petrit Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, him too. Not sure how I managed to miss that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ismail Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Nayyar

Priyanka Nayyar (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 article about a living person is created with just only 1 role per of that living person per WP:TOOSOON. I don't know why people create such articles. Regards, KunalForYou☎️📝 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on the incidents board as well as how the heck this happened. Even odder is that this afd is a couple days old. Now if this article should be deleted or not-I have no clue. Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems this is the only role she has had and multiple searches found nothing good. It seems the article originally went to a 2009 show where a Priyanka Udwhani was credited, not this one. For what it's worth, delete the article as there is not a single piece of solid evidence for notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Photographers

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

There are not evidences in media that this organisation exists and notable Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the web site: "APA Editorial Photographers (APA / EP) is a chapter of American Photographic Artists dedicated to improving the business of editorial photography". There are a number of photography societies in WP, but the larger society, APA, is not one of them, otherwise we could redirect. I didn't find any sources, and all of the ones listed here are the society itself and the site of the person who created the page. It was created in 2007 and has a few edits over the years but has not had any RS added. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Editorial photography is important -- very important -- and arguably someone will search that subject with this term. Therefore, a redirect argument could be made. However, what's not sustainable is an argument for this namespace going to a particular professional organization's particular suborganization. It's like all of those articles on "Jones House" (which danged one? the one in Yourtown isn't THE one) or having articles on "First Baptist Church." Worse, though, this organization's suborg doesn't warrant an article even properly lodged, so I don't see a valid argument for a redirect, even, to preserve the history. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the sources are insufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Recreation

Creative Recreation (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)

Most of the sources are press releases, and this article is clearly a case of WP:ADMASQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the publisher of that second source is listed as "Creative Director, Mosaic Experiential Marketing", a PR company [47]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I see only one semi-RS - the LA Times article - although it is only a few paragraphs. I wasn't able to establish bona fides on the of Fashion site. There is a lengthy article there that might show notability, but there are many dozens of fashion sites on the web. The theft is not information about the company that would attest to notability, and should be removed from the article. Other articles are just mentions of the product, not about the company, or are sales sites. It isn't clear to me why so many references are from Philippine business journals for a business based in California, but I assume that the product is manufactured there. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is the significant coverage? Bearian (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to ISIL#Propaganda and social media. MBisanz talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khilafah.is

Khilafah.is (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)

We wouldn't publish a page on an official ISIL website so I don't know why we have a page on a short lived amateur website that sounds like it was constructed or just knocked together by an individual who may have had little direct connection to the group. Wikipedia is not a directory even for defunct contents. GregKaye 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to delete due to a lack of notability. Chillum 20:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of Life

AfDs for this article:
Flower of Life (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)

Drunvalo Melchizedek invented this neologism to describe a particular design he seems to like. It is not acknowledged to have relevance outside of his ideas. Much of the article is in violation of original research prohibitions and the subject lacks notability. In particular, there do not seem to be independent sources which describe this as being an actual encyclopedic topic. jps (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • NeutralWeak Delete - Hmmmm.... This one is a toughy. A number of books out there cover this topic (granted most are from Melchizedek, but there are a significant number of mentions in other sources). Most of the sources on this topic are "New Age" religious in scope. While they don't really strike me as "high quality" RS, it's hard to completely discount them. This article has been around for quite a while and attracts a number of views. I know that's not a rationale for or against delet\ion, but it suggests we consider this cautiously. NickCT (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if you look into all the books you will find that they are written by acolytes or erstwhile believers in Drunvalo Melchizedek's channeling of Thoth. This means that there is essentially no source that is independent enough on which to establish notability or neutrally write about this fringe theory. jps (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but isn't the requirement for notability simply that a lot of people have written about a thing? I don't think it matters whether those people are acolytes or not. Once a fringe theory gains enough popularity, doesn't it deserve an article (e.g. Alien abduction)? NickCT (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not just a lot of sources. Reliability means that we need to find independent sources otherwise we will never be able to write the neutral article. This is why the notability guideline for fringe theories includes WP:FRIND. Unlike alien abduction, there simply are no independent sources written about this subject. For alien abduction, there are actually a large number of sources written about the subject by non-believers including psychologists, UFO-debunkers and astronomers, sociologists, and even literary critics. jps (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • NickCT No, a lot of people writing about it is not sufficient. It must have received significant coverage in secondary sources. The concept of alien abduction has been well-covered in secondary sources. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Wikimandia and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: - Ok fair enough. Secondary sources are tough to come across admittedly. Shifting position to Weak Delete. Still a bit surprised that this article managed to survive so long, and that it gets so many visitors. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @NickCT: - I'm actually not that surprised it gets good traffic. It's not an outrageous amount (nowhere near top 5,000 I'm guessing) and there's a ton of people into New Age thinking/study who are trying to find the meaning of life and all that. His entire movement is based on the symbol being the center of the universe, and he writes about it being an ancient secret, along the lines of the Da Vinci Code: His book summary on Amazon: "Now we are rising up from that sleep, shaking old, stale beliefs from our minds and glimpsing the golden light of this new dawn streaming through the windows of perception. This book is one of those windows." People eat that up. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - notability is dubious and true subject is unclear; article is full of original research/synthesis. Author leads article with the unreferenced statement, "New Age writers associate the Flower of Life with symbols and decorative motifs from cultures throughout history," followed by all the known places somewhat similar symbols have occurred throughout history, crediting Melchizedek for most of it, and some other similar symbols that Melchizedek calls the "Egg of Life" and "Fruit of Life." Other references are very weak, including "Many New Age websites use this phrase as does the Dallas, Texas architect Stephen B. Chambers." —МандичкаYO 😜 17:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you take a look at the previous AfD, the subject of this article's notability was never established. "Keep. These are pretty" is one person's rationale. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this neologism has gained traction outside of a fringe --nonsense ferret 17:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The search mentioned above returns only (1) some early 20C books on an entirely different subject (2) A Wikipedia digest containing the same article and (3) Melchizedek's own work. Peter Damian (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Some of the information in this article seems valuable and could possibly be merged with another related article. By itself, the article doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:N.   Ormr2014 | Talk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ormr2014 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep any information about the geometrical figure and its history, delete any dubiously sourced material on religion and the like. Pishcal — ♣ 14:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shorten, +1 to Pishcal’s statement before. This is the way the German w:de:Blume des Lebens did survive the deletion discussion. (It was kept on the base that "Blume des Lebens" is found as naming for jewellery etc. also outside of esoterics.) Shorten the introduction to a pure description of the figure, keep the "Occurrences" section", delete the "Sacted Geometry" and "Composition" sections completely. -- Karl432 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did such a shortening, near to the "stubifying" proposed by the following statement by Shii. (If, surprisingly to me, the deletion decision would be to keep the full article in the version active when starting this discussion, my shortening easily can be reverted.) -- Karl432 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify The article as it stands is based on untrustworthy sources and misleading to readers. But I am confident that this subject is notable enough that trustworthy sources can be found, in religious studies publications or similar. Shii (tock) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it behove you to show us these sources so that we can all be confident of this? Nobody can give much weight to an argument that suggests there must be sources because of the warm glow you get in your tummy when you think about the subject. --nonsense ferret 21:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually creeped out by the thing, but I assumed someone must have written about it. I did an extensive check today and it seems I'm wrong, so change my !vote to delete Shii (tock) 02:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I change it again, because of the rewrite that located sources. Weak keep Shii (tock) 10:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, misleading and innacuracies. The flower of life is not completed, and I think it'd be more relevant to put the fact that the actual symbol has been around for thousands of years and used by ancient civilizations and perhaps a clearer notion of what it actually represents to people rather than the fact that the name for it was 'coined' by Drunvalo recently who threw some claims behind it, this and geometric patterns of the like have been used in mathematics, in the creation of ancient architecture and sculptures, throughout nature, sound, etc. Also there's a flower of life design on an ossuary in the ROM from Jerusalem dating back to 100BC-100AD that I've seen, stating the 6-pointed rosettes were commonly depicted on them. From what I've seen online, like X, they date back to over 1000+ BCE. KATRINA 8:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.200.57 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with cleanup which has been somewhat done. This article is good information from RSes, though it has been said that it needs more secondary sources. People have commented here, linking to the important core policies of Wikipedia which describe the criteria of encyclopedic content as is provided by secondary sources. Thanks for doing that, and for having already cleaned it up. This content is good and plentiful and well established, the subject is important and popular, and it needs to be preserved somewhere even if it was merged like with a biography of Drunvalo Melchizedek. WP:NORUSH and optimistic eventualism in this case. Deletionism sucks; deletion is not an answer to fixable issues, and AfD is not a valid (even if sometimes coincidental) basic method of attempting to explore or establish them. The talk page is. Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 05:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing is almost decent now but it still leans dangerously towards WP:OR. How do we know Melchizedek's symbol is a notable thing? Well, we have Schneider 2009, but otherwise it's just a bunch of other random people saying it's interesting, even a TV show. Shii (tock) 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the notability, e.g. enter "Flower of Life" in a Google "shopping" search. You see several offers by different mail-order companies, not all related to esoterics. This proves the use of the term outside of Melchizedek's follower circles (and was an argument for keeping the German article). -- Karl432 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no question that this is a design that appears in multiple places throughout history -- and that shouldn't be surprising since it's something one can easily come up with using a compass or copying a set of circles. As a common design, however, it has not risen to its own notability (c.f. the Swastika, which has appeared throughout history, being a relatively easy design to come up with independently). It's really just another Pattern. Therefore the only remaining possible notability is its meaning in the New Age religious sense, but this seems to have limited adherence and no RS. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a neologism for a well understood geometric pattern that dates back to before my school was founded. That's over a thousand years. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neologisms can be notable in and of themselves. Shii (tock) 00:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for noting that obvious fact, Shii. It illustrates the fact that several people have valid (to varying degrees of relevancy) observations about the general subject, but their conclusions may be drastically inappropriate. That is just one of the votes for deletion which was not even a relevant vote. This article has been subject to gratuitous deletionism, even if just by having initially (wrongly) framed it as a deletion instead of as a simple discussion and call to action, whereas there are so many actual possible valid courses of action. This is like asking the military "which country should we invade next?" — Smuckola(talk) 00:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no deletionism going on here. We're simply following WP policy. This is WP:FRINGE and has not been covered extensively in reliable secondary sources. This is the most-used source and it's completely self-published. I'm not sure why you judge our conclusions to be "drastically inappropriate." The other is a German symbol dictionary that is offline, the other is an incomplete reference to a Sci Fi Channel presentation (What is the date it aired? Where can we see it?) and the final one is from 1904 and as such does not cover the concept of the Flower of Life. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't understand policy. WP:FRINGE doesn't mean we don't describe pseudoscience, it means we demarcate it as such. Shii (tock) 09:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand policy. I especially understand that part right on top where it very specifically states fringe ideas (like this) must meet the test of notability, which is apparently lost on some people who like pretty designs. I've reviewed the sources below, one of which was complete crap. Are you really serious about saying this article meets GNG? —МандичкаYO 😜 09:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article has five sources. First, obviously, Melchizedek, who is a primary source. Second, a self-published website that I cannot see passing as WP:RS. Then there was the reference to the SciFi channel program - I found it on YouTube and it says nothing whatsoever about these symbols or even the Great Osiris Temple, but is entirely about the Sphynx. So that's a total fail. Then there is the mention in the German dictionary of symbols, that is offline, and no page is even cited. We need WP:VERIFIABILITY - is it even discussing the Flower of Life or just the symbols themselves? Additionally this reference is used one time to support the statement that the Flower of Life was not a term previously used. Finally there is the work from 1904 that obviously says nothing whatsoever about the "Flower of Life" concept. So I really would like to know how anyone could possibly claim, based on these references, that this topic meets the WP:GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your assessment of the other sources, but are you saying that an academic source is unverifiable if you can't find a PDF copy on the Internet? Shii (tock) 10:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that it is more than plausible considering the promotionalism from which this article suffers that German dictionary doesn't mention the "Flower of Life" at all since there is no page number nor a quote. Wikipedia:Resource Request might be able to help. jps (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shii no, I tend to WP:AGF whenever it's reasonable, but because of the other sources being essential non-existent, everything relies on this one source. And even then, it is only used to reference one relatively minor fact. (And it may not have even mentioned the term "Flower of Life" - maybe all it said was "this pattern has no name" which was synthesised into "Nobody has ever used the term 'Flower of Life' for this pattern"). I also have to wonder if these sources were taken right out of Melchizedek's book in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. The video was right there on YouTube since 2009, why wasn't it linked? It's just weird to me. But even if it were just a mislabeled episode title from honest error, that reference is only used to support the date of the ancient carvings at the temple, not anything to do with the Flower of Life theory itself. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A pattern rediscovered by every person who picks up a compass doesn't need an article under some fringey "authority"'s name. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that it's notable as a fringe theory and has been picked up in hundreds of New Agey sources, although I was unable to find a secondary source describing those sources. A crucifix is a simple design but it's notable. Shii (tock) 06:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there are no sources written about this from the perspective of how this particular design has become the inspiration symbol of these hundreds of New Age writers, then it is not Wikipedia's place to start an article on the subject. We need those secondary sources to write a Wikipedia article. Eventually, some academics might come and write on the cultural phenomenology (just as they have for the crucifix) and then we can properly write the article. On the other hand, it may happen that the idea never grows beyond this parochial industry. The article is simply running on fumes right now before it is even possible for it to be substantively curated. jps (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Gearon

Ida Gearon (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, any reliable source found was a mere mention about her being Bruce Campbell's wife. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No significant and notable coverage, does not meet WP:GNG. Nakon 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Regency

Dhaka Regency (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)

Created by a single edit user. Looks like an advert . One of the 2 sources is trip advisor. Hardly a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the 2 sources added are hardly indepth, in fact just promotional mentions for the hotel. [48], and [49]. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's definitely not a run-of-the-mill hotel and it's been mentioned many times in the news. I agree it's not always specifically covered, but it's definitely more notable in respect to all the other 10000 hotels in Bangladesh. The number of high-class hotels in Bangladesh are limited, which I why I think it's best to do cover them in wikipedia. Some of the more direct mentions are listed below. Dhaka Regency has also been used for conventions sometimes it seems (second ref).
  1. Sayeda Akter (11 April 2008). "Local chefs come to the fore". The Daily Star. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  2. Sayeda Akter (22 March 2012). "Japan garment buyers keen on Bangladesh". The Daily Star. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  3. Suman Saha (23 December 2014). "Luxury hotels eye better Christmas sales". The Daily Star. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  4. Sujay Mahajan (7 February 2015). ""Guest-draught" at luxury hotels". Prothom Alo. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  5. Kailash Sarkar (29 April 2015). "Police nabs 5 directors of Dhaka Regency Hotel". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
This should be enough to account for notability. Please always remember that the quality or depth of the current article doesn't matter! – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of hotels in Bangladesh#Dhaka as the hotel has not received significant and notable coverage with News, a few Books and several Highbeam but mostly for tour guides, events or "come visit!" and nothing as in-depth as it could be. I was going to say delete but now a redirect would be good and save the article for future use. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SwisterTwister: Sometimes the problem is that reviews that do go into detail are sometimes treated as unreliable sources... but atleast the hotel is much more acknowledged than the others, of which 5 I can name in Cox's Bazaar (which should actually have more articles). – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SwisterTwister: Also, I just realised that a redirect here is equivalent to a delete, hmm! – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This hotel one of the closest to the airport in Dhaka, one of the few upscale ones. It was founded by British-Bangladeshi as an investment and was hailed as a model for dual national Bangladeshi investment. Type Dhaka R in google.com the second suggestion is Dhaka Regency and in google.com.bd the first sugesstion is Dhaka Regency. It regularly holds events that encourage family participation which is rare in Bangladesh. Musleh Ahmed, vice president of the Dhaka Regency hotel, has been honoured as the best NRB investor at the British Bangladeshi Business Award held in Birmingham, UK. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Dhaka R in google.com the second suggestion is Dhaka Regency and in google.com.bd the first sugesstion is Dhaka Regency." is not an argument at all to advcance notability. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex noise

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

This article doesn't seem serious to me, tone is jokey. Could be merged into Sexual intercourse. crh23 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Per nom. Jokey. Non-encyclopedic tone. Unclear notability. Creator has produced a number of somewhat awkward articles of this nature. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Not only is this article not encyclopedic, it is border-line vulgar. Get rid of it!   Ormr2014 | Talk 
  • Delete. I'm all for quirky and unusual articles but this is simply an unencyclopedic and unsalvageable mess. It lumps together under "sex noises" anything from moans, to breathing & grunts associated with physical exercise, to sounds of a surface making contact with another and, the creaking of un-oiled mattress springs. It's full of conjectural original research, with unsupported statements like "some jurisdictions have laws against people being too loud during intercourse". Frequently using loud power tools at 3 in the morning would probably lead to you being told to stop; that wouldn't mean the country has a "power tools law". Any number of actions that involve physical exertion or movement of persons or objects will create many of the sounds the article refers to. It doesn't mean we should awkwardly group them together to try and make articles (e.g. "home improvement noises" or "tennis playing noises" pages that talk of power tools, grunts of exertion, thwacks of a racquet etc). –146.199.151.33 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article is not jokey at all. This is a topic of frequent discussion in various formats, including relationship magazines, forums on topics related to discreetness, as well as cultural message boards. Since it is a notable topic it deserves inclusion. A look at google merely confimrs my point that this topic is notable. For example sex noise gets 667 returns on g books while sex moans gets 256 returns. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles which primarily deal with the aesthetics of sex. So I found it strange that this encyclopedia focuses only on the visual perception of sex. The article may seem dodgy, only because it is incomplete. It is still being worked but editors don't have all the free time in the world. Another reason this article is important is due to a common trait among men that a woman who makes sounds during sex is more attractive and alluring than women who are silent. Therefore sex sounds form an additional possible role in sexual performance. Thus I would class it as on the same category as pheromones, and physical attractiveness, bith if which by the way have separate articles. All are traits that heighten sexual excitement. Also remember that the above arguments are listed under arguments to avoid in the WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC section. I acknowledge it is currently lacking, but please give it time to improve. Plus considering that unintelligible sounds during human sex has often been linked to being a tool for discerning level of gratification. As for the notion that it is original research, almost every other sentence has a reference backing the points up. This subject content is important, but I also suggest the possibility of making a page move, such as maybe to sex moans if there is no other compromise. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Female copulatory vocalizations. I'm not sure which is my first choice between keep and merge. Therefore I will simply vote in both directions. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments above would only fall under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC if they stopped at "unencyclopedic" as the reason for deleting. Because they actually explain what makes your article "unencyclopedic", the argument is not a circular argument.
Note - For the record, Freidnless lnoner is the author of this article.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
I just noticed we have another article on this Female copulatory vocalizations, so a merge or redirect may be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Female copulatory vocalizations has now also been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female copulatory vocalizations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That AFD has been withdrawn now crh23 (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has a number of credible sources. Article has been improved. Tone not a valid reason for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My vote was to keep but on closer examination I have switched to delete. The sources really are not substantial enough to support this article. Moreover the article isn't worth supporting in its current state. It reads like a joke and is intentionally difficult. I do feel the topic of this article is worthy however and should it be deleted/redirected I will be recreating it with content of more substance. It fails wp:note and wp:v in its current form and probably isn't salvageable as is. I have copied the content from mainspace to work on it. Thank you Trout 71 17:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is WP:OR which cobbles together a narrative from random sources that only mention the specific subjects they are cited for in passing. For example the first reference, A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature, p. 626, discusses usage of the term groan in Early Modern English and briefly mentions a sexual connotation among other things. The seventh source, Talk to Me First: Everything You Need to Know to Become Your Kids' "Go-To" Person about Sex, has a list of vulgar items one is supposed to repeat five times to build the confidence to say them with a serious face to one's children, and one of them is "queef," which apparently is why this passage is cited. The fact that the titles of these books were not named in full gives me the impression that the article was an intentional joke. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (but may be moved to draft space on request). The relevant policy that was cited in the nomination is WP:SYNTH which is in place to prevent combining different sources to deduce a conclusion that none of them have. Such practice is considered a form of original research. I have looked through the presented arguments and cannot see this being truly answered. For lists with clearly defined inclusion criteria, combining several sources to assemble a full list is accepted, but "controversial" is, as many have mentioned, a vague criterion which also brings up concerns with its ability to withstand WP:NPOV challenges on a topic like this one.

Starship.paint did point out that some sources have made connections between some of the entries on the list, but using sources that connect three or four entries at a time is not the same as having support for presenting a full list in this manner. Other users have pointed out that the underlying premise for the list, the killings during the past few years of African Americans in a manner perceived to be racially motivated and often by police, is a real and covered topic and have suggested that this topic be covered at Black Lives Matter.

I have considered the option of merging, but I have decided against it since problems with WP:OR would still remain. However, I recognize that some of the content could be of use in the Black Lives Matter or similar article provided that the entries can be sourced to demonstrate relevancy to that topic. Feel free to ask me or any other administrator to restore the page to draft space if you want to work with it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The table has been revised to link each entry up to Black Lives Matter. The page is now a redirect and the editing history is restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s

List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created purely to prevent the deletion of Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans. Article is an example of a non-notable interestection. Article combines multiple events to infer notability not explicitly stated in any of the sources and is thus WP:SYNTH. And for an "other stuff" argument, we don't have any of List of controversial killings of.... articles. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete This article is 100% politics and wikipedia is not a news service or a platform for political grandstanding. Should we also list all the gun murders of Blacks from Black? And then from Blacks on Whites, and then Whites on Blacks? Where does it end? It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to promote moral rationals or decisions, or to be drawn into such discusions. The purpose of Wikipedia is present articles of significant facts. As such, and article on the history of Police Brutality, might be a justified, if it included authentic research from ancient times to the resent. And article of "contreversal deaths since 2010" is just pure opinion and has no historical context, or research whatsoever. It is just spit out there like gum on the sidewalk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a crime and it does not render my vote invalid. Likewise, Article created purely to prevent the deletion of Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans is not a valid deletion criteria. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the murder rate in the USA overall is about 5 murders for 100,000 people per year. List of countries by intentional homicide rate. There are around 40 million African Americans. So I would expect about 800 to die of murder in a typical year, and also about 800 to commit murder. I'm guessing there is about one police officer per 1,000 people, maybe more. So about 300,000 officers. So 15 murders by police officers in a year would be normal, also 15 officers to die of murder. Not sure how much of this kind of background should be included in article, or how to do it. Borock (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borock: - Are you new here? We have policies on original research. You may want to take a look. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to engage in conjecture: see United Nations stats presented in List of countries by intentional homicide rate and Race and crime in the United States, and the official FBI crime stats for the United States: [54]. There is no reason to guess; the data already exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think NickCT's point was that putting that data into this article would be OR. Borock (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borock: - That was my point indeed. If you're going to put stats or numbers in an article, you should have a source for those stats or numbers. The exception being if you're doing simple calculations. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Historically, there have been "controversial" and "non controversial" killings of practically every ethnic, political and religious group. The creation of an article entitled List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s not only implies greater importance of the killings of this ethnic group over those of other ethnic groups, but it asserts that these killings were indeed "controversial", which I'm not convinced the article actually proves. Furthermore, nothing in this article is substantial or notable in and of itself and the act of weaving these incidents together does not constitute any greater significance or notability than each incident presented alone. &nbsp Ormr2014 | Talk 
greater importance of the killings of this ethnic group over those of other ethnic groups - the reliable sources are connecting the killings of African-Americans together. See my vote above for some examples. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Starship.paint The only thing these sources indicate is that the killings occurred. Any connection between them is implied and despite similarities in some of the cases, implied connection is nothing more than speculation. Not all perpetrators were White, nor were they all police officers (there was even an unsolved murder in the list), making the only common denominator in every case the race of the victim. If the only real litmus test for this article is the race of the victim and the murder making the 6 O'clock news, would it thus follow that we should also have lists for "controversial killings" of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews, and so on? And what about all the other African Americans murdered that made the news? Should they not also be in the list? And what specifically is so special about the year 2010? Aren't there plenty of African Americans being killed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015? Look at the news today! What a list that would make!
I appreciate the author's desire to contribute to the encyclopedia, but you can't just take a bunch of unrelated murder victims and weave together a tapestry article where the only common thread is the race of the victims and call it encyclopedic because it's not.The fact is, none of these cases are notable and the hypothesis of this article is anything but encyclopedic.   Ormr2014 | Talk 
  • @Ormr2014: - how can anyone take your vote seriously, if you haven't even read the article? Yes, there are African Americans being killed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The list is about killings in 2010s, not only 2010. Obviously, you only read this AfD. Come forth with sources linking multiple killings of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews - then we can talk. You can claim that none of these cases are notable, but why do all of them have Wikipedia articles then? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: Once again, you are assuming. Before I comment or vote on any of the AFD articles, I read them.
As for your statement about coming forth with "sources linking multiple killings of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews", etc, it would be a moot point because those articles would likewise not warrant inclusion here. Furthermore, these sources do not "link" the killings of this particular article together in more than a speculative way. You can imply they are linked all you want, but you have not, nor has this article, demonstrated any connection whatsoever, other than the victim's race.
Other inconsistencies include the year (some were in 2010, some in 2011, some in 2012, etc.); the location (the killings are scattered across the country); the perpetrators (some were police officers, others were "neighborhood watch", "software developer", and "unknown"); even the circumstances of each varies greatly. What exactly makes these killings "connected"? Please explain because thus far, you have made no effort to do so. Are you alleging a conspiracy of sorts? The only way to possibly justify your list is to demonstrate they are indeed connected, which you have not and despite your assertion to the contrary, none of your references make this connection either. Ormr2014 | Talk 
  • Come on now. You claim to have read the article, yet you somehow missed out on all the deaths from 2011 to 2015 (all but one of the whole article), thinking that the article was only about deaths in 2010. Of course articles on other groups like Jews do not warrant inclusion because nobody has started citing sources.
  • San Francisco Bay View: Seemingly every week another unarmed Black man is in the news, having been killed by a police officer or vigilante who made another fatally false assumption. Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Rekia Boyd, Freddie Gray – the list goes on.
  • Complex magazine: They look to remember and raise awareness of the deaths of black children that were caused by the police, including Aiyana Jones, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Trayvon Martin.
  • Forbes: Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Ezell Ford, John Crawford and Michael Brown, who met their deaths at the hands of police officers ... “We mourn the loss of life and the absence of justice for Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride and Jordan Davis, killed by private citizens ...
  • Marin Indepdendent Journal: Garza said that after Martin’s death, the violent deaths of unarmed black people began to gain more attention. She quickly rattled off a list: 43-year-old Eric Garner, 25-year-old Ezell Ford, 19-year-old Renisha McBride, 17-year-old Jordan Davis, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
  • Salon: It seems that our culture has never been more aware of racist police violence, and yet we are asked to treat each new incident as an isolated case rather than a harrowing pattern. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - Your first source is a Black Nationalist website, your second source a blog post, the third source does not substantiate your view that all these instances are connected, Marinj News is a news blogging site where most of the posts are freelance "news journalists" and hardly constitutes as an authoritative source (plus it does not draw a connection either), and the last source you listed is also a blog post.
That you still have not demonstrated, or attempted to explain how the killings in your list are connected seems to indicate that you simply don't have a reason. For example, you could say something like: "I believe these killings are connected because (reason 1., reason 2., reason 3., and so on)..." Yet you have not and we are expected to simply take your word on this?
I'm done debating this article. I've said my piece and will allow others to discuss the merits of the article... Ormr2014 | Talk 
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the cases that can can be sourced to have influenced the Black Lives Matter movement into the movement's article and then delete what's left over. This article is too broad in scope to exist as a stand-alone article, has no clear guidelines for inclusion, and has no definition as to what is "controversial." -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it could be merged with the Black Lives Matter article, there are a lot of sources discussing this general topic. Rtedb (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a notable topic in African-American history and has inspired protests, riots, and a social movement. Historical context is lacking and better sources may be needed. But this is not uncommon for new articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's reliably sourced in the article into Black Lives Matter- the scope for this article is entirely too vague (define controversial, for example) and lacking in a central thread whereas the Black Lives Matter article isn't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This list is as perfect or imperfect as any other. The topic itself is notable, having received extensive news coverage. "Controversial", in the manner it is being used here, is not a POV issue (and if it were, simply renaming it would be in order; not wholesale deletion of the article -- this would be throwing the cart out with the horse). In this instance, controversy is clearly defined as that which is cited by reputable news organizations worldwide... these instances are objectively controversial, because of the widespread divided and polar stances different entities have taken on them, sometimes resulting in conflict and uprising. Furthermore, I see this article at virtually zero risk of becoming unwieldy/unmaintainable, and in fact it encompasses a very well-defined, limited scope. The commonality between the included items is self-explanatory. Finally, the nominator's argument that this is "overlistification" completely misses the point of the essay on overlistification. The essay implies that only lists which baselessly employ qualifiers such as race, ethnicity, etc., are meritless (listing examples of broad, unfounded combinations such as "Libertarian celebrities", "Hindu sportspeople"); in this case, the fact that these victims are African-American is a defining characteristic of the subject's notability. --OrbitHawk (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. OrbitHawk The title of this list makes certain assumptions that none of the media publicity substantiates.
  1. It implies that all of these killings are somehow related or connected, yet none of the facts validate this assumption.
  2. It implies that all these killings are "controversial", but that too hasn't been substantiated as killings, by their very nature, will always receive some sort of media coverage.

Bottom Line: This article should not be part of Wikipedia, period... Ormr2014 | Talk  16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. The truth is, just about every police shooting is considered "controversial" in that the officer is put on administrative leave and the incident is investigated (and this isnt all just by officers). I know there is a serious question about whether the investigative process is flawed (it is, of course), but for the purposes of this article, "controversial" is too unclear of an inclusion criteria. list of controversial... is normally about subjects like art, not about human lives. every death at the hands of another person can be seen and reported as controversial. because of this vagueness, and the lack of reliable sources showing that ALL of these are UNIQUELY controversial, as a group, this should be deleted as original research and severe POV pushing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to List of cases of police brutality in the United States, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States (which should really be "lists"), Black Lives Matter, and/or other more specific venues - This is a hard one. Many of the events/people have been covered together, yes, but I think the title and scope of this list are too poorly defined to be encyclopedic and insufficiently distinct from the other articles I suggested merging to (and likely a few others that I didn't think of). "Controversial" is a very messy term. The lead explains the inclusion criteria as "individuals whose deaths were perceived as unjust or unexplained, receiving significant local, national, or international attention". Combining "unjust" and "unexplained" seems tenuous, and doesn't exactly line up with simply "controversial" (except to the extent that "unexplained" suggests suspicion of injustice). The fact of the matter is this list is almost entirely incidents involving law enforcement, and there are already articles covering that. All that said, I do see that there are topics here that are not yet sufficiently covered on Wikipedia -- I just don't think this is the right format. So let's find the specificities and organize according to them instead. Maybe there's room for a List of stand your ground law killings; a spin-off of race and crime in the United States at the intersection of hierarchy of death, missing white woman syndrome, and institutional racism that covers sub-par law enforcement efforts on behalf of African American or non-white victims; or maybe there's a better way to write an article (vs. a list) about Institutional racism and activism in the 2010s rather than defer to Black Lives Matter? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article African-American history, falls within the scope of that subject. Not all deaths were caused by law enforcement, and African-American on African-American murder is also controversial, and statistically more likely. This article can be seen as a WP:POVFORK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The only thing these killings have in common is the victim was black. Every killing can be classified as controversial if you ask the right audience. ― Padenton|✉   01:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list just lumps victims together based on their ethnicity; "controversial" in the title is subjective; and categories exist. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it would be better for the article to be prose-focused rather than list-focused, it's clear that these recent high-profile killings have been discussed together by sources. There's a "there" there. I'd support merging Black Lives Matter here rather than the other way around - the protest movement is a part of the larger discussion around race relations and police violence in the United States, rather than these issues being a subset of discussion of the protest movement. The deletion arguments saying that "we don't really know what was controversial and what wasn't" are weak; it's glaringly obvious from the sources that these were (sometimes very highly) controversial deaths, and any individual cases that are borderline can be discussed on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As original research, but also as lacking clear definitions. What is the definition of controversy/controversial? A valid list requires clear definitions. A list of police-related killings of African Americas could probably be put together. And an article on the attention now being paid to these incidents can be created, probably beginning as a section on an existing page. But the list as it stands should be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I can see the author has done a ton of work on this, and I understand his point, which is the problem. It's an agenda-oriented list. As part of an article, with a lot of work to define 'controversial' and 'perceived as unjust' I think it could work. But as a standalone list it's an agenda-oriented list WP:OLIST @Starship.paint: maybe move this article to Draft space to save your work while you explore other articles it could be moved into? valereee (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per: E.M.Gregory, individual elements might belong in other articles but present lack of connecting definition and subjective nature of 'controversial' makes keeping inapt. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vadim

Vanessa Vadim (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 finding a lot of references on her. I am but there are just mere mentions about her being Jane Fonda's daughter or about her arrest in 1989 but you can't make an article out of that. So fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numan Niazai

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

Article has been repeatedly created and speedily deleted, and still does not assert the significance of the subject. Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef G. Lenders

Jozef G. Lenders (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)

BLP article about a media person that tries to hide the fact that it fails the basic criteria for notability with an overwhelming amount of blown up, repeatedly mentioned sources for trivial biographical informations. Ben Ben (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having trouble finding any English language coverage from RS's. Article's creator seems to be producing a number of BLPs of questionable notability. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - The subject produced multiple recognized movies and the movie has its own wikipedia page as well. The subject has been awarded with multiple awards and they are not repetition, if you watch carefully they are for different movies. He has received multiple awards from same organization doesn't mean he is not notable. The article surely needs better referencing, I am working on it. The subject also has IMDB profile which clearly shows the awards he has won. Lord Subro (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jozef meets three points in the creative professional category of Wikipedia notability People page. In that 2.3 he meets point 1 and in point 3, he has written and made featur-lenght film as well. Also his stories are in websites like gutenberg. Also his film were shown in exhibition as well. Lord Subro (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Formated Ben Ben (talk)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, fails WP:NFOOTY, and sufficient coverage for WP:GNG has not been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Santangelo

Dean Santangelo (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 claimed in an earlier PROD that not one of the sources in the article backs up the facts in the article. It has been proved that one (possibly two) of the sources does back up the facts, but the rest are so vague that most of the article should be deleted just for being unsourced. The rest does nothing to suggest that this individual is notable, since he hasn't made a single competitive appearance for a fully professional club. His only appearances have been for non-league sides Bromley and Didcot, which don't play at a high enough level. – PeeJay 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 10:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: as per WP:NFOOTY, he plays at a fully professional team (FC Lugano, which hops on and off the Swiss first professional league tier) and has enough coverage (such as the Daily Mail), ergo my AfC accept. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has he actually played for FC Lugano though? The club website suggests that he hasn't. Furthermore, FC Lugano doesn't play in a professional league, and I'm not actually sure the club itself is fully professional either. They haven't played in Switzerland's only fully professional league since 2002. – PeeJay 12:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights

Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights (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:NBOOK. The one cited review is more a political opinion than a book review (the book seems to be mentioned more in passing). The other ref shows no obvious connection at all to the book. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Pretty borderline. But there are a few refs out there. I've added a couple. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (Creator) With more sources now clearly meets WP:BKCRIT. The NZ Herald article sited by nominator is clearly a review.AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - NickCT added some good faith cites, but they are really stretching the definition of notabilty. The NZ Herald review just regurgitates the book's opinions while never actually saying anything about the book itself other than that Rose wrote it. I find it difficult to even label it a review. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unequivocally passes WP:NBOOK. Disagreeing with the content or structure of a review isn't a valid reason to discount it for WP:NBOOK purposes; the important part is that the book has received coverage from multiple reputable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone wants to dig up more sources, go for it, because I can't find any. As of now, this is a clear failure of WP:BKCRIT. The only source that actually covers the book is the New Zealand Herald article. Even if we ignore the problems stated by VMS Mosaic, that's only one source, while BKCRIT says "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The Guardian article is written by the author and the WNYC link is a radio show where the author was a guest. I can't find any mention of it at the Amnesty USA page. ― Padenton|✉   06:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to David Rose (journalist): fails WP:GNG:
    • [55] - written by the author, see notice on the bottom.
    • [56]] - only coverage; but I think this is written by the author, because the title suggests that David Rose (the author) wrote it.
    • The other two sources are mostly on the author himself, and not the actual book.

- Esquivalience t 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Scandal in Belgravia (book)

A Scandal in Belgravia (book) (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:NBOOK. Found only trivial reviews including the one ref. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - won the Nero Award 1992 (WP:NBOOK #2). Eustachiusz (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I've expanded the article a bit. Given this was published in 1991/2, pre-Internet era, much of the sources are going to be offline. The nom found only trivial reviews because, unfortunately, those that happen to be readily available via Google also happen to be less substantial ones. An advanced search (author plus title) on a US regional newspapers archive [57] returns several results that Google doesn't; it's paywalled so I can't view fulltexts, but the opening paragraphs indicate reviews of some substance. When an emitus professor of English cites it as the best of the decade a quarter of a century after publication and it's won the Nero Award - all covered in the article, it's hard not to see it as notable. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Nero Award is considered a 'major' literary award, then I withdraw the nomination. However, I can find nothing indicating that it qualifies as a 'major' award. I could not find it in the List of literary awards in which I would expect to find all 'major' awards. VMS Mosaic (talk)
    • Since the List of literary awards opens: "This list is not intended to be complete, and is instead a list of those literary awards with Wikipedia articles", it is (alas!) clearly useless for the present purpose. Here is a link to a newspaper article which describes the Nero Award as second [among US mystery fiction awards] only to the Edgar Award. Eustachiusz (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: (Creator). Article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. A curious, almost vexatious nomination. Clearly meets WP:BKCRIT. Furthermore 'trivial' is clarified at WP:NBOOK as '"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable' Publishers Weekly is not trivial. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are multiple reviews for this. That it won a Nero Award doesn't hurt, although I'd say that this is the type of award that would contribute towards notability but wouldn't really be considered something that would cause an article to be kept on that basis alone. I'm not overwhelmingly familiar with it as I would be with the Stoker Awards, but I do know that they're well thought of. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:NBOOK and multiple reviews. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 13:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sollie McSonkid

Sollie McSonkid (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 person if he exists; apparently plays basketball for Vaal University, which is not listed as a team participating in the Basketball National League. No g-hits at all apart from this page and a defunct twitter page. Previous similar pages created by same user (Sollie ephraim, Sollie O'shaughnessy, Austin Mikael, Solly Mkhabela, Willie Shremurdd) all speedy deleted for lack of notability. CSD-A7 declined on this page due to assertion of notability.  GILO   A&E⇑ 08:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek singla

Abhishek singla (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)

Many unsubstantiated assertions in article, not backed up with any reliable independent sources, fails WP:CREATIVE, appears to be vanity article, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous promotional article for an individual who does not meet GNG or CREATIVE. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Article creator who wrote this AUTOBIO has been indef banned for being a spam/advertising only account [[58]]. Cowlibob (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Samaddar

AfDs for this article:
Kashi Samaddar (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 NEWS. Trivial accomplishment, WP is not Guiness. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojaraj Vamanjoor

Bhojaraj Vamanjoor (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)

Minor acting roles, subject fails criteria at WP:NACTOR, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Eggestein

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmymantra Media

Filmymantra Media (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)

No encyclopediac claim of notability (fixable by adding one), but currently only self-promotion by COI editor (he disputed my {{notability}} tag without addressing the problem). But the website itself seems non-notable tabloid-like (non-fixable problem for WP article by WP:WEB). DMacks (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chakradhar Swami

Chakradhar Swami (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)

First of all, this article is not very easy to understand and searches to the best of my ability found nothing good. It appears both Marathi and Polish Wikis have what appear to be references but I'm not a speaker of either language so I'm not sure how good those sources are or if they're relevant at all. My concerns are the understandability and no apparent sources to support this, at least at English Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have identified additional sources on this personage. I also have a sense there are even more sources in Maratha and maybe Hindi, but have no knowledge of either language. A google search showed echos of such sources. We need much more work, especially on the movment that he is said to have founded. This movement still exists today, or at least existed past the founding of the current government in India in the 1940s. The article being hard to understand is not reason for deletion, but inprovement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs careful rewriting. This looks like the case of someone who is obviously notable by any reasonable reckoning, but where it may be very difficult to disentangle legend from history. He seems to be generally recognised as the effective founder of the Mahanubhava sect, with one of its sacred texts, Leela Charitra (or, apparently more usually these days, Lilacharitra), being largely a purported account of his life and thought - and one of the founding classics of Marathi literature. One problem that this gives is that most accounts of Chakradhar are either in relation to Lilacharitra as literature or to Mahanubhav thought (which seems to have been in many ways revolutionary, promoting both caste and gender equality) and, where they give accounts of his life, may not be fully separating out historical and legendary elements (this, for instance). By the way, "Swami" is an honorific and not always used - it may be easier to find sources without it(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). PWilkinson (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Xuna

John Xuna (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)

Vanity piece, written and edited by the candidate himself. He does not appear to have received coverage from independent reliable sources, so he fails WP:BIO. He is an unsuccessful candidate for office so fails WP:POLITICIAN. He has written self-published material and taught school, but he does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this, but it seems to me there are quite a few ignorant and arrogant editors out there. Do whatever you have to do, but you are wrong!

1) I DID NOT CREATE THIS PAGE "JOHN XUNA", someone else did, many years ago, honestly I do not know who. Although I had to make changes to it, three years ago, because it was not accurate.

2) "Vanity piece" ... you do not know what you are talking about? If you have an issue with my books because of being the author Atheist, say so. "The Ignorance of Faith" (Amazon, Barnes and Noble).

3) "Unsuccessful candidate for office?", I am the CURRENT Democratic candidate for CD18 FL (please visit www.JXuna.com), and I have been a past candidate for CD22 FL (GE 2002)(please visit www.Xuna.com). "Unsuccessful" is shortsighted and hurtful. What a bunch of arrogant and disrespectful editors, it seems. You will be reported for your lack of tact.

4) The "science beacons" are online, and the web links are given for you to check any you wish.

5) The corrections I made a couple of days ago, I would appreciate if you email those to me, regardless of accepted the revision or not. After those corrections the page was quite precise and correct. Please send it to Xuna@MSN.com.

6) "Ridiculous article" ... based on what criteria?

7) The pioneering books in "peak oil" can be corroborated with the evidence presented in www.OilDepletion.com and www.PetrolSOS.com. If you care to check.

You don't get to cite your own self-published websites about the books as proof that you're notable for writing them. Notability on Wikipedia is conferred by reliable, independent sources writing about you, not by simply being able to cite your own self-published content about yourself as proof that you exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8) The copyrights on ZUET (Zeroing in Underground Energy Technologies www.ZUET.com) are there on the web, as well as pictures from my lectures at Harvard and M.I.T.

9) First Atheist to run "openly for the US Congress", please go to the link of article from award-winning Bob Norman that was offered. In the part that you did not accept (edited yesterday, I believe), I provided information about ever Atheists who sat in a chair of Congress (3 of them), indicating they disclose being non-believers after leaving office, or after having been elected, and not while campaigning for office. That information is public knowledge, even appears in your Wikipedia, but you can check it in the US House and Senate websites. If elected, I would be the first atheist who openly campaigned as such. If you do not like it because you are religious, that's your problem, not mine.

10) If I knew how to properly edit and improve that page (although the changes I did yesterday seemed to have improved the professionalism of that page) I would have done that long time ago. It is embarrassing the comments that you have displayed on the top of that page, since -at least- 5 years ago.

11) I am not editor, and my vernacular is Spanish. Yet, I am one of the $upporter$ to Wikipedia, because I have used it a lot, and it is an excellent service. Yet, as I can see, there is some childish arrogance going wild there. Grow up kids! :O(

John Xuna (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not seeing any coverage. @John Xuna: - If you want to article preserved, you might want to take 10 minutes to read over Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians, then come back and make your argument based on those policies. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:- fails WP:POLITICIAN. @John Xuna:, sorry for any condescending tone in the nominator's rationale but kindly wait until you becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will write about you here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:John Xuna, I'm sorry if you were offended by my nomination. But please read the links WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO to find out what Wikipedia requires for a person to have an article here. You should also read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, since Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves (though it is not forbidden). The article was originally written by a User:Kxuna, a single-purpose account whose only edits were related to you, so you can see why I thought there was a connection to you. In any case, that's not the reason I have nominated it for deletion; the problem is that a subject has to meet certain criteria to have an article in this international encyclopedia. Being a NOMINEE for public office does not qualify you; if you are ELECTED then of course you will have an article. The information about atheists who "sat in a chair of Congress" is not relevant, since at this point you are not in Congress. I'm sure your books and activism have a following, but simply being an author or an activist is not enough for an article here; we have to see writing ABOUT you or your books or your activism by independent, third-party, reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. As for your recent additions which were deleted (not by me), you can see them by clicking on the "history" button at the top of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a thoughtfully written explanation MelanieN. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to ask User:John Xuna about the statement "I am one of the $upporter$ to Wikipedia". This comes across like you are implying that you should have an article because you donate money to Wikipedia. Donating money to Wikipedia does not mean that you get a page. You may not have meant for this statement to come across, but the thing is that the vast majority of people who bring up donations in a deletion discussion do so because they are either directly or indirectly stating that this means that they merit a page and that if the page is deleted, they will stop donating to Wikipedia. You cannot buy an article and any statements about donations in a deletion discussion will come across very, very badly. I would also recommend that you not call other uses "childish" because this assumes bad faith on their behalf and can be seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack, another thing that is a very poor idea to state in an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete subject is not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-winning candidate for office does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the candidacy itself — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold a notable office, then the only other path to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (e.g. holding a different notable office, or having preexisting notability in a different field of endeavour.) But no other credible claim of notability has been demonstrated here, and the sourcing (which is almost all primary) isn't even approaching the suburbs of the volume it would take to earn the "notable because coverage" loophole. It's certainly possible that he might qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the scientific work instead of the candidacy — but as written, that hasn't been demonstrated or sourced. Delete; no prejudice against recreation if a good version can be written and sourced that rests on the energy policy work instead of the failed candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, I also moved the ref to the accident section of the railway article--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Braysdown railway accident

Braysdown railway accident (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 for events; no injuries/fatalities; only mention of this incident is standard report. Could be merged to Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetAdmin

GetAdmin (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)

No clear notability or potential for expansion, nor any references. No claim at all of significance. MopSeeker (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, short page about an 18 years old NT4 vulnerability. Two references and two external links, which could be converted into references if desired. I checked the insecure.org link and it looked good (=interesting enough) from my POV. Definitely not a case for "keep and expand". –Be..anyone (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no indication it meets WP:GNG; search found only a few results in viruses indexes, and nothing showing it had any short- or long-term impact. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely to ever be expanded, not likely to ever have any use again. Seems more appropriate for exploitapedia. While it does not appear to fit any specific notability guideline, to me a notable exploit would need to have a significant impact, which I see no evidence of this doing. ― Padenton|✉   20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davood Roostaei

Davood Roostaei (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 find very little coverage of this artist, who doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG. I took a look at WP:NARTIST, which lets artists qualify if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Since the article says he invented a style called cryptorealism, I looked that up--and came up almost empty. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clear now, with only the nominator still supporting deletion Davewild (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charitha Herath

Charitha Herath (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 individual - fails WP:BIO. The individual, Charitha Herath, was a minor government official and a non-notable academic. Essentially this article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because a person exists does not necessarily make them notable. Essentially the individual should meet WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC, in this case we have a minor bureaucrat/minor academic that does not appear to have achieved anything significant or notable. None of the references cited by User:Wikicology seem to establish anything otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot be serious! Notability is not the same as achievement. Wikipedia often keep articles on the basis of notability and not achievement. Subject of an article need not meet every criteria. These one clearly meet WP:GNG and the sources provided is not only an evidence of existence but notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicology if you consider that your references establish the subject's notability then why haven't you included then in the article to demonstrate how. Dan arndt (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources exist as references for multiple reasons and they are primarily used to validate claims on Wikipedia. I really don't have the time to expand the article so why the need to add citations? For example, if am interested in written on his criticism, I may find Global tamil News helpful and therefore add it to the article. That's how things work here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so whilst you consider the individual is notable you don't believe that the article should include those referenced sources that you believe establish its notability. The references in the article clearly do not establish notability merely that he is a minor bureaucrat for a junior government agency and a non-notable academic. Dan arndt (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done he clearly meets WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). North America1000 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Colvin

Brody Colvin (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 minor league player, no non-routine coverage out there to pass GNG. Wizardman 01:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pribanic

Aaron Pribanic (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 minor league player, no non-routine coverage out there to pass GNG. Wizardman 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer and Michele Steffin

Jennifer and Michele Steffin (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 biography about non-notable child actresses. Their only roles were playing babies on TV shows. Random86 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob and Zachary Handy

Jacob and Zachary Handy (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 biography about non-notable child actors. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Random86 (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If we go purely by the numbers, this would be no-consensus. However the "Keep" votes are just bare assertions that this person is notable, while the "Delete" ones actually go into policy. I note the comment there that there may be sources in Urdu, but we can't keep a BLP around on the off chance there might be unlocatable sources. If such sources are discovered the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wasi Shah

Syed Wasi Shah (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 the rule, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not establish the notability. None of the cited sources are reliable. The creator of the article removed the proposed deletion tag without telling the reasons that why he is removing the tag. Justice007 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if go into details, there are also various similar names! Justice007 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing coverage of this person in RS. It would be nice if the editor removing the PROD had offered an explanation for doing so. NickCT (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the biography is notable enough. Though this poet is in covered by any reliable references yet he has done alot of work in his field. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While "Syed" sometimes seems to be used as a personal name in Pakistan, it also gets used as an honorific, and in this case one definitely gets better results by omitting it - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The GNews results I get seem to be passing mentions but strongly suggest a level of recognition within Pakistan that implies definite Wikipedia notability - the trouble is that, as the subject writes in Urdu, most of the reliable sources are almost certainly also in Urdu. Unless an Urdu-speaker can get hold of these, though, or someone can come up with at least one English-language reliable source more substantial than the ones I have seen, this may be an unavoidable case of WP:BIAS - though I would urge leaving this AfD open for at least another week to try to avoid this. PWilkinson (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umais Bin Sajjad, how do you support the subject that has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. I have checked English and Urdu sources before nominating for deletion, I did not find. If anyone can?. Justice007 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shapur Mozaffarian

Shapur Mozaffarian (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 author of this article is supposedly the person himself or related. Also, with some notability, article is still looks promotional. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesin Apparel

Yesin Apparel (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:CORP & WP:GNG - Can't find anything on Google or Korean Google and there website's dead, I'm not even sure if the company's trading today.... –Davey2010Talk 00:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and notable aside from a few links like blogs (a few from December so maybe the company is still going). SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_11&oldid=661919546"