Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 May	15 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Kentucky_gubernatorial_election,_2015#Republican_primary. There are two "keep" votes here. One was lodged before his primary loss and is therefore moot. The other makes some claims to his passing GNG but doesn't go much beyond that. On the other hand, the "Redirect" votes make a good policy-based argument in my mind why this should be redirected rather than deleted; so that our readers will get some useful information if they type this search term in. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Heiner

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

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. He was an unelected candidate for Kentucky Governor in 2015. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not voting at this point, but I think Heiner's terms in office in the Louisville Metro Council should be reviewed by all to see if General Notability is met from that. Also, it isn't known yet if he is unelected, since the gubernatorial primaries are on Tuesday, May 19. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a candidate for the governor's job but the election is yet to come. Nevertheless, he received the endorsement of a major local newspaper (see ref in the article) as well as plenty of coverage by reliable sources of his campaign and ideas [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course press coverage is expected for such campaign and that does not translate into the subject passing WP:POLITICIAN. If elected , we may probably consider an article. However you are not suppose to base your conclusion on the campaign but the result of the election. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper endorsements don't count for anything toward notability — they're opinion commentary, not news coverage, and thus serve to prove that the purpose of the Wikipedia article is fundamentally to provide a promotional boost by publicizing the endorsement. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again the third point of WP:POLITICIAN: if the subject is notable in the sense of WP:GNG then all is well. The sources I listed above qualify as multiple non-trivial reliable coverage of Hal Heiner and in particular [6] [7] are two in-depth profiles. Pichpich (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a political candidacy, in a media outlet that has a legal and ethical public service obligation to cover the election campaign in question, falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not satisfy WP:GNG in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, no news media can ever be cited as a reliable source. The references above are not routine coverage (at least, not in the sense of WP:ROUTINE which include announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism, planned coverage of pre-scheduled events and wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs). Note the paradox: you currently disqualify the two profiles above as routine coverage, yet if Heiner becomes governor or meets the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN in some other way, I'm sure you'd have no objection to using these profiles as references. Pichpich (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage of a candidacy were, in and of itself, enough to get a person into Wikipedia, then we would always have to keep every article about every unelected candidate in every election — because there is no such thing as a candidate for whom media coverage does not exist. Heiner is not some kind of special case who's garnering more coverage than other election candidates do, and thus earns some kind of special notability dispensation different from how we handle other unelected candidates — media coverage of all unelected candidates for any political office always exists. But our rule is that we do not consider a politician to be notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article until they've won election to a notable office. I did not say that those sources can never be used as support for any Wikipedia content — if he wins the election, then yes, they will become admissible as sources for the article. Not because the sources themselves will have changed, but because the basic claim of notability that they're supporting will have moved from "unelected candidate = not yet" to "elected governor = required keep". Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me insist: point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states that it is superseded by WP:GNG. If you agree that the two profiles constitute significant coverage of Mr Heiner (and I don't know how you can argue against that) then he's notable per point 3 of the guideline. It's true that marginal candidates for office will only get incidental, routine coverage and those fail to meet the requirements of the guideline. But in this case, we're talking about detailed coverage of Heiner specifically. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate profiles are routine; many candidates receive in-depth profiles while they are candidates but that doesn't make them notable. Find other sources, preferably ones outside the local Louisville area that highlight Heiner's efforts when as a council member. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I think you're missing here is that "this source actively supports a valid claim of notability" and "this source is reliable for simple confirmation of facts about him" are two different things — a source can fall into one of those two classes while failing to satisfy the other. If a person's basic notability (i.e. winning the election and thereby holding a notable office) has already been covered off by other sources, then prior coverage of the candidacy becomes perfectly valid for additional confirmation of any facts that it can verify — but coverage of the candidacy does not, in and of itself, make the person notable enough for an article so long as they're still only a candidate. Such coverage is valid for further confirmation of facts after notability has already been covered off — but it is not able to bring the notability per se, because what it tells us about him at this point doesn't constitute a substantive claim of encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except in rare circumstances on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, campaign coverage is not normally sufficient to get a candidate for office into Wikipedia on the basis of the candidacy itself — media have a public service obligation to cover elections taking place in their coverage area, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot get an unelected candidate into Wikipedia by itself. And that goes double when, for the moment, the person is still merely a candidate in a party primary — even winning the primary and becoming the official candidate in the general election still wouldn't satisfy our inclusion rules in and of itself. For an unelected candidate for office, you must properly source that they already qualified for a Wikipedia article on a different notability criterion before they became a candidate — if you cannot do that, then they must win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. Louisville, further, is not in the narrow range of global cities for which the fact of serving on city council constitutes an automatic "because he exists" keep in and of itself — if you could write and source a phenomenally good and substantive article about his city council work, then he could potentially pass NPOL #3, but a single sentence asserting that he was a city councillor, and offering no further detail about that part of his career beyond the statement itself, does not get him over a Wikipedia inclusion bar either. So, all in all, for the moment we've got nothing. Delete — no prejudice against recreation if (a) he wins the election in November, or (b) somebody can actually get him over WP:GNG for the city council seat. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he has lost the primary. SOXROX (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect per MelanieN. Heiner came in third in today's primary and nobody has made a WP:GNG case for the city council seat. Being from Louisville, I would have tried to make that case myself, but I can't think of anything notable Heiner has done in that role that got press from outside the city, so I don't know where to start. But if someone does find such reliable sources, ping me and I'll reconsider. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, getting coverage for his city council work beyond Louisville alone isn't the only way a city councillor could clear the bar — it is certainly the easiest way to make the case for inclusion airtight, but it's not the only possible path. Even Louisville-only coverage can still satisfy the test, if you're able to add enough of that to support an article that's detailed and substantive enough to make it obvious that he satisfies NPOL #3. Which would obviously take far more than just one article confirming that he was a city councillor (which is why the article isn't already there as written), and many Wikipedians aren't prepared to put that much work into a topic — but it does still as a way to get a city councillor in the door. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can be flexible here within reason. But like I note below, he's the only Louisville council member in the Wikipedia who wasn't President of the council, and the only issue I remember him doing anything notable about was working to improve the city's financial transparency via passage of an ordinance several years ago. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even with primary loss Being a city councilor in a major city like Louisville is enough to pass WP:NOTE. As far as WP:GNG, he has received wide press coverage from reliable sources, both as a gubernatorial candidate and as a councilor. I understand the question and appreciate the discussion but I think we need to keep this article. PrairieKid (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give us some examples of wide press coverage outside of campaign profiles, which are routine, or press coverage of his council work outside of the local Louisville area? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to note that of the Louisville Metro Council members who have their own articles, all have been Council President except Hal Heiner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kentucky gubernatorial election, 2015#Republican primary as is usually done with unsuccessful candidates for office. Otherwise, delete, since he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EWERDIMA

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish its notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no notability even claimed for this project —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches found nothing even close to good and significant. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A recent new project "started by Daniel K. Nanghaka"; article contributed by the WP:SPA User:Nanghaka. Leaving aside WP:COI considerations, Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing, and Google returns user-submitted content. At best this is WP:TOOSOON but does not meet any notability criteria at present. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, either WP:TOOSOON or else it'll never pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable references for the article. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and clearly fails WP:V and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .... Fails GNG with flying colours! –Davey2010^Talk 03:32, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Glasgow

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish his notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now simply because he hasn't received a considerable amount of significant coverage. Highbeam found nothing while thefreelibrary found two links; News search only found this while a browser search was actually useful providing links here (including a fifth page result supporting the Tomorrowland performance) but there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 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 speedy deleted under CSD G7 at request of creator.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hovzter

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish his notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - FYI author has requested deletion —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:45, 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. Discussion focused around whether she was notable before her untimely death, or whether this is a WP:ONEEVENT or WP:MEMORIAL article. Additional sourcing was added during the course of the discussion to demonstrate pre-mortem notability, sufficient to change several people's minds, and it looks to me that the discussion was trending toward a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jacobs

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

fails WP:GNG , WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The accident she died in is notable, she is not. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you misunderstand WP:NOTMEMORIAL which reads: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Jacobs passes WP:BASIC: "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." Much (though not all) coverage of Jacobs was certainly sparked by her death, but the coverage passes WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: This is not the same person as was covered in the referenced previous discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So why is that misleading tag on this AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So noted that 1st AfD nomination was for Ruth Jacobs the actress (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Jacobs), not this Ruth Jacobs, even though this AfD prominently states "2nd nomination" in its AfD's title. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE, if performed, should have turned up substantive coverage of Jacobs in the years before her tragic death. I have added some of this coverage to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jacobs passes WP:GNG because coverage of her is both extensive and detailed. [8] I created the article. I would not have done so if she was being covered merely in passing as part of the event. While it is true that the tragic nature of her death sparked the current coverage, Her accomplishments were being covered before her death.[9] And the intensity of in-depth coverage she is now receiving makes her WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely sad but no evidence she meets WP:GNG. She has a common name, but I wasn't able to find sufficient coverage of her prior to the obituaries. @E.M.Gregory: long-term coverage is required, all articles are from the past 24 hours except for one last month about her being a new hire at the company —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder. I did, before starting the article. Coverage exists over several years. Will add.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: FYI "look harder" isn't the most helpful suggestion in an AfD. Please give us links to the coverage you've found that supports your case, or let us know when the refs are in the article itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: what policy are you citing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:NRV: "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." Let us know when they've been added to the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: what policy are you citing when you assert that long-term coverage is required?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Substantive, pre-Amtrak coverage of Jacobs (re:start-ups) is in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:BASIC: "extensive and detailed" coverage is not always sufficient: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." All the references so far indicates this is a WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL situation. Extensive obituaries are expected for everyone associated with the event. It should be clear they would have met the GNG prior to this event (ie could they have qualified for article have been last week?). WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE would help your case and may still appear. For example, there are victims of 9/11 who have WP biographies because, even though they were known for being killed on 9/11, long-term coverage appeared for various reasons (posthumous awards; things named in their honor, etc). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting interpretation, but not what WP:BASIC actually says. Several of the other victims fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT, a policy with which I am familiar and which I believe does not fit Jacobs. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Which Jacobs has received. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation: that is what WP:BASIC says. Very specifically. Whether or not Jacobs is one-event is what is debatable. I don't see how she qualifies; neither did the nominator of this article. The other stuff you've added, like the Detroit Nation group, is just not that notable. It really does not qualify as a start-up company, as there are no indications it's even a business. There is coverage of the group and other regional groups like it that mention her, but she is not the subject of these articles, and the notability for the group and her company is just not there. But AfDs run a full seven days for a reason, so hopefully you will find something. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just went through this for Dan Fredinburg, concluding with no consensus/keep. That discussion may be relevant here. (I vote keep for this one, too.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT MEMORIAL. References such as obits and memorials should not prove notability when there is nothing notable in the career, except for a fe exceptional papers (we accept the NYT and the Times). Basic policies such as NOT MEMORIAL are more important than the GNG guideline--which specifically says that meeting the GNG is not necessarily reason to have an article. And, needlessto say, even if we did follow precedent, a non-consensus close is no precedent in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. 70.192.71.123 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous edit is by a SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Epic Genius (talk) ± 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) I was notified that sourcing has improved with reliable sources added, and that there have been similar such pages created after the subject died. Thus, I have struck out my delete vote. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, she wasn't notable before her death. 50.248.37.26 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another ONEEVENT deal, huh. If her prior accomplishments were so great as to warrant a Wikipedia article independent of the coverage of her death, there'd already BE a Wikipedia article on her. When was the date the article was created? Mm, right. Yesterday. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Many notable people lack articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is parallel case in which a Tech CEO died young and an article was immediately posted on WP supported by articles written after his death and by an article on his hiring as CEO Dave Goldberg (of a company considerably larger than ApprenNet. I found his page because an article in Forbes this morning compares the two lives. Here: [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nha Trang. 75.80.160.109 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-death gains in notability. As User:Wikimandia predicted, Jacobs has begun to gain notability via institutions created in her memory. Article needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per everyone else. I am not seeing anything that indicates notability, even after her death. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a difference between the Fredinburg case and this. Fredinburg was notable before his death; Jacobs was not. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, with Jacobs, there have not been the kind of sourcing gaps (place of birth, early career) found with Fredinberg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Dan Fredinburg and Rachel Jacobs articles are remarkably similar; sourcing for Fredinburg's notable activities comes overwhelmingly from articles written after his death. AFDs on individuals currently drawing major press attention make sense to WP insiders, but they contribute to a widespread belief that WP editorial choices are wildly capricious.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention insensitive. During that window in which people are Googling an individual who has recently and tragically died—someone receiving tributes and widespread independent media coverage for their life and achievements—they come to Wikipedia and see a big ugly dismissive billboard. It's not a good look for Wikipedia. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vesuvius Dogg is right. Attitude and insensitivity are a huge turn-off to readers, and potential editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing Jacobs notability here; saying that some readers will be offended by seeing an AfD tag is NOT a valid reason for keeping the article and is completely ridiculous. Anyway, Fredinburg was an important executive and inventor with several patents. Jacobs just started some start up. Most coverage on the page refers to the crash itself and is not about Jacobs the individual. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredinburg and Jacobs are both WP:NOTABLE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterize the articles on the page, all of which discuss Jacobs in detail. Every detail of her life form birth to how she got her CEO job is sourced to multiple articles. Hundreds of articles about the crash exist; they are not on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is coverage. WP editors have a justifiable impulse to delete articles in certain categories: articles written by SPAs, articles written by paid editors, articles written by articles created at time of death, articles by wanna be politicians, wannabe famous garage bands, etc. We have to set our feelings aside and apply the only metric we have for notability: the judgement of reliable secondary sources. Sometimes there are objective measures: all Members of Parliament, all Olympic gold Medalists. But more usually we need to rely on the judgement of the press. In this case, we have intense coverage of a person's life and career in multiple major news outlets. This is what constitutes notability as per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search for reliable secondary sources written before Jacobs' death yielded a 2010 interview here with Time magazine and an article in Technically Philly here, illustrating that Jacobs was notable before her death. I have added those to the article. Coverage since Jacobs' death has been substantial and extensive, with features in national publications such as CNN, USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Daily News and Bloomberg. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, edit, expand There seems to be more interest to the public that meets the eye at first glance at this article about Rachel Jacobs. The circumstances of her death and the fact that she hasn't been identified as being among the injured or casualties, at first. Her life seems interesting enough on their own, notwithstanding the tragic and somewhat unclear circumstances of death. This article can be deleted ay any point in time after it has had the chance to be properly written and presented, which it hasn't had yet.Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am usually anti-deletion, she's the CEO of a non-notable company. If the company was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, then I'd feel people in that company may have more notability (if they pass other Wikipedia requirements, of course). Agreeing with the other delete nominations above, though the article has been expanded and may survive this AFD if her notability apart from her tragic death can be expanded upon. Find those sources! Gatemansgc (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's amazing how many companies don't have a Wikipedia page, for example, Ascend Learning here:[11] and Pragma Corporation here:[12] for example. Both ought to have had pages years ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ApprenNet. Sourced exclusively to articles published before the Amtrak derailment. I will continue to source it over the next couple of days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: This is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. The possible deletion of one article leads to the creation of others. Hooray for information! Gatemansgc (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I continue to maintain that it cannot be assumed that an individual killed in a disaster was non-notable merely because the article was prompted by the death. Post-death news coverage can document and validate notability, as I believe that it does in this case. See, for example: Dave Goldberg. article on Tech CEO written in response to tragic, eraly death. The two CEOs were compared this morning in Forbes Here: [13]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early iVoters will not have known that ApprenNet, the company of which Jacobs was CEO is now blue-linked; that her very recent hire was covered by the Philadelphia Inquirer and other news outlets; that interviews with her from 2011 and from 2014 (about her activities promoting Detroit) have been added, and that coverage of her pro-Detroit activities extends back years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change my vote. Additional sources indicate her notability while living, plus lasting legacy, including scholarship fund named in her honor etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:33, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Circuit

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

The article does not establish a claim to notability under the WP:GNG standard for the concept that this collection of roads has this status. The underlying roads may be notable as individual state highways (per years of precedent noted at WP:ROADOUTCOMES), but without the "significant coverage in multiple, independent, third-party sources" to establish the notability of the concept, and notability cannot be inherited (per WP:NOTINHERITED) from the underlying highways. As it is, this article relies solely on a WP:SPS to establish the existence of the concept.

This is a contested PROD that was contested by the article creator who erroneously thinks that he has to be the one who published the source for it to be self-published. Imzadi 1979 → 21:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The sourcing provided does not come anywhere close to meeting WP:RS. Ultimately, there is zero evidence to corroborate the statement that this "unofficial" beltway is "widely known among locals" (as someone who lives in San Antonio, I can say it's not), and thus this violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing and that included News, Books and browser. I live in Texas as well but not San Antonio but I can say this road is not significant or notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reel cinerose

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

Prod that was removed-non notable film company with just short films for youtube. Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this article and it's linked articles. They're all self-referential and not particularly noteworthy. No other articles reference this company or its films. --PureRED (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no notability; pure promotion —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this little company exists, simply producing films and having no coverage is a failure of WP:N. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MichaelQSchmidt. VandVictory (talk) 09:06, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yen endraal natpu

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

Film with questionable notability. The only refs are to Youtube and Facebook as well. Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely non-notable home made short film. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It exists and can be watched on YouTube, but mere existence is not notability. Apparently it's another in the Reel cinerose amateur film farm. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt is made to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for WP:GNG or the notability of films. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 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 (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) by Yunshui. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology (talk • contribs)

Modestas Mankus

Note Moved to Draft:Modestas Mankus in middle of WP:AFD. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable filmmaker who falls under too soon as well. His award is basically a non notable award as well. Wgolf (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Renata (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note After the AFD notice was posted, the author moved it into the draft namespace. I do not think this is the appropriate action to circumvent an AFD. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will consider such behavior disruptive but it seems the page creator is a new user. What do we do in this case? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 'draft' article, and politely explain on their talk page why. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't delete the draft article. AFD is not a contest, and you haven't been cheated of anything here. If the article had been recently created as a draft, it wouldn't get deleted because we don't require draft articles to be of the same standard as mainspace articles. The user did the correct thing, we don't need to do anything further. The user corrected their own problem, and now there is no need to further hassle them. --Jayron 32 13:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no coverage in sources at all, there is a walled garden link to the similarly non-notable Our Culture Records which I think should also be sent to AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mere ~2,000 google hits, of which the top 10 are social media, or this article. Clearly never going to pass the notability requirements, and the move to the draft space should not be used to circumvent this deletion. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32, let the editor work on the artice. If it can be improved great, if not there is always MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request speedy close This isn't an article, its a draft so I don't see how this would qualify here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry J. Powell

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

This article fails basic WP:NOTEBIO, in that there is nothing about this person of note other than he made a false claim and that making such a claim might be a crime. He has not been convicted of any crime. Wikipedia is not to be used as a "Stolen Valor" shaming site as there are already plenty out there. Legitimus (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the argument presented above. No criminal charges were brought, nor was he convicted. --Ventric (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ONEEVENT Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopaedic topic. This is the sort of ephemeral news item that does not merit inclusion, far less a biographical article about somebody who we seem to know nothing else about. ONEEVENT is enough to see the back of this but beyond that it isn't even that much of an event, certainly not one that should have an article. For that reason I don't think it could be recast as an article about the incident just to avoid the problems with it as a biography. Incidents of boastful lying are not in themselves unusual or notable. I myself served in three world wars; Four of them posthumously. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a ONEEVENT biography that also fails WP:PERP. No trace of ongoing RS coverage for this person before or after the 2007 event. Impersonating a war hero is not that unusual a crime. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1949 Messina

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

This asteroid doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. It should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirecting it to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 may be the preferable option. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. Handcuffs unrelated. ― Padenton|✉ 21:57, 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 Speedy delete a7 no assertion of notability, g11 ad. Only source is TechCrunch. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbabel

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

Press release. Blackguard 19:43, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1348 Michel

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think this should be deleted; or (as per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000, which may be the safer option. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Part of a 32-asteroid lightcurve study [14] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 20:14, 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 merge to Olympic winners of the Stadion race. There is a good consensus for merging all articles apart from Phrynon. Some support has been shown for keeping other articles (Dandes of Argos, Philinus of Cos (athlete), Oebotas of Dyme, Eurybus of Athens), and discussions should be held on their talk pages or at Olympic winners of the Stadion race as to whether sufficient sources exist for standalone articles. I've started sections on their talk pages to start this off, please share your opinions and discuss sources there. Sam Walton (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pantacles of Athens

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

Not notable, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I'll be nominating a ton of other articles just like this one, so be patient. Pishcal — ♣ 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest of the articles I'm nominating. All of these articles rely on the same source and are pretty much the exact same thing, and thus I'm nominating all of them for the same reason.

Although I oppose the deletion as a whole, I'd like to add a number of articles, but I'm not familiar to the procedure, so I'm afraid that I didn't get it right. These are the first two:

Maybe you can check if they have been added to the procedure? I don't quite understand why you chose Pantacles as your example, since he was the first incumbent in history to defend his title, which does not appear as a totally secondary feat. So I must tell that I don't understand what makes Anticles of Messenia more relevant than Pantacles of Athens. I therefore find it hard to decide which biography is ok and which not and I think it would be necessary to define some criteria. Pantacles yields six books (without considering that Pantakles might yield more). What would be enough in your eyes?

Actually, I feel a bit mobbed by this deletion request, because you have added only articles created by me, while there is a whole number of very similar articles which were previously created by other users, with nobody ever opposing. Moreover I want to say that it was my intention to add more information on specific athletes where available. I have already done so on previous occasions, expanding even some biographies created by other users, but at the moment I'm not always able to tell which articles will be developed and which not. And I doubt that anybody else could do so without serious study of the subject.--Hyphantes (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I appreciate your response, and I apologize for mobbing you with this request. The reason for this is that I was browsing the new pages and found a lot of these articles relied upon the same source. As for your intention to add more information on specific athletes when available, there's still time, but to be honest I would recommend having more information than less when starting an article. Choosing Pantacles as the inital subject was random, no intentional choice there. I'm not sure of the reliability of the source provided for most of the given articles, and I'm honestly not sure what more information could be added. Many of the subjects have barely anything said about them other than that they won a race, and a quick search didn't reveal any more information. To sum up my points, I'm not entirely certain how much COULD be added to these articles, and as of now I don't believe they stand on their own. Pishcal — ♣ 19:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we already have a list of Olympic winners of the Stadion race, also by Hyphantes. I think redirecting the shortest stubs, the ones offering no additional information, to that list is more reader-friendly than lots of mini-articles (less clicking, less frustration at finding nothing that wasn't already in the overview). A list is also easier to maintain. I'm not sure about the more developed articles, but I think I'd prefer merging those into the list by adding notes to individual athletes below their name ("first runner in history to defend his title four years after his first victory" would seem to fit fine between two entries). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you started this request, Pishcal, but I think you shot too fast on the wrong target. You may check again the first eight or ten from your list, to see what further information can be found. I appreciate QWERTYVS' suggestion, and I agree that there may be frustration. Consider though that these pages are not only accessed from the list, but also from the categories. That may be important especially for minor towns, allowing to add "famous people". Athens and Alexandria don't need that, okay, but Aegium might be proud of Ladas of Aegium (I believe I have already added him there, and I certainly did so for Sicyon). But there is one more argument that explains why you are probably both mistaken and that is chronology. Stadion victors were used by ancient authors to date historic events and that makes them no less important for the Greek historiography than the consuls were for the Romans. I think indeed that they should be added to the years pages together with the consuls and the Athenian archons, but I haven't yet started to do so, because there are still so many missing. I don't think that anybody would oppose a page on a Roman consul, even if he is only a name and a date, and the same should apply to stadion victors.--Hyphantes (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're saying, but if, as you say, ancient authors used stadion victors to date historic events, then certainly there should be citations to support this and these people should be mention somewhere, right? As of right now the majority of the articles I've nominated fail WP:GNG. Pishcal — ♣ 19:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is because you looked up the Alexandrians from the 2nd century AD when the system was largely replaced by ab urbe condita. Diodorus Siculus, who wrote in the 1st century BC and is probably our most important source for dating ancient history, introduces every year not only with the names of the Athenian archon and the Roman consuls (as well as the historians who started or stopped their accounts), but adds also Olympic victors. In the surviving books he relates 56 names between 580 and 304 and so he seems to miss only 14, which may be explained with the missing parts of his work. I don't know how many he relates afterwards, because the source that allowed me to count them ends 300 BC.--Hyphantes (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't entirely understand what you're saying. You clearly have much more knowledge in this subject than I do, but I'm not sure what your argument here is. Either way, I would support Peterkingiron's solution of merging many of the nominated articles into a list article. Pishcal — ♣ 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all back to Olympic winners of the Stadion race and the like. All we know of most of these people is that they won a race; nothing else. Greek dating was by Olympiad. ab urbe condita is the Roman system of dating. A few of the articles seem to contain a little additional information, which should be placed after the names in my merge target(s). We ought to treat Diodorus Siculus, as a reliable source, since we have no one to contradict him, but stubs like these with no hope of expansion are better dealt with in a list article. If that becomes too long it can be split by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are the facts: Olympiad.--Hyphantes (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another two:

Undid those nominations, reason here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While these nominations do seem like an obvious example of WP:POINT, I would not be opposed to nominating those articles as they have the same problems that the articles I've nominated have. Pishcal — ♣ 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pishcal and Qwertyus: FYI I've expanded both these articles to demonstrate the difference between modern vs ancient topics in terms of what we can achieve with the available sourcing. SFB 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we've taken this long enough as a joke. When Pishcal nominated Pantacles for deletion he obviously thought that I was kidding with my 40 articles in 24 hours. I understand why he came to that conclusion, but I was very serious. His first error was that he didn't ask me the reason for these creations, which I would have gladly explained. His second error was that he nominated 40 articles all together without giving any criteria that would allow to discern between articles to keep and those to delete. All this happened because he didn't care to collect the information necessary to understand what was going on. When he started the procedure there were lots of things he didn't know or consider:

... that Pantacles was the first athlete from Athens to win at Olympia.
... that Pantacles was apparently the first to win two running competitions at the same Olympiad.
... that Pantacles was the first athlete in history to defend his title four years later.
... that many others who have been nominated for deletion have similarly interesting specific situations.
... that every article I created has very specific categories in which it appears.
... that many of these articles are (or will be) linked in specific pages, especially those regarding the provenience of the athletes (like Aegium).
... that many of these articles have already been expanded and will see further expansion in the last week.
... that all articles are on winners of the stadion race, which means they won the most important competition at their respective Olympiad.
... that their names were used by Greek historians and chronologers to name each Olympiad and define the respective period of four years, as is very clearly explained here: Olympiad.
... that these articles tend to complete a work started about three years ago by User:Francois-Pier with his excellent list on the Olympic winners of the Archaic period.
... that my work on the articles nominated for cancellation served to correct errors and fill gaps in that list.
... that all these articles are part of a large project on which I've been working for weeks and which is by now about 2/3 of completion.
... that all these articles are invoked in a calendar module Module:Year in other calendars which is now online on Wikipedia, although not yet complete, because I'm still working hard on assembling the data. I suggest that you verify the output in pages like 776 BC, 696 BC or 692 BC.
... that there is still a number of red links in that calendar, which means that more articles need to be created.
... that all the names mentioned above are still recorded after 2000 years which means they have stood the test of time.
... that Wikipedia has thousands of stubs on modern athletes from all nations which have never been nominated for deletion, although the articles give much less information than mine and their names are already forgotten after a decade or two, for example Anthony Ketchum and half of the runners on the table in that page.
... that there is a good reason why these articles are not deleted, because applying such a measure would turn hundreds of tables into a barren red desert.
... that it is quite arrogant from a modern point of view to say that Anthony Ketchum (a.o.) deserves a page on Wikipedia and Pantacles of Athens not, because he is more than 2500 years dead.
... that there are very few contributors on Ancient Greek History active on Wikipedia and that we might need help rather than cancellation requests which will have the only effect to drive people away.

Considering these facts, I find it quite extravagant to have a short look, say "Merge" and leave all the work for collaborators who aren't there. Regarding the list on Olympic winners of the Archaic period done by User:Francois-Pier, it appears that it should have been completed with three more pages, but since it was a hell of work, the project was never completed. It's also possible that he abandoned it after receiving "helpful" comments like the above. My work, although different in style, aimed at completing what he did and I also corrected a number of links. With more contributors on ancient Greek history, we could hopefully complete what Francois-Pier intended, but this discussion goes exactly in the opposite direction.

Now that we have cleared that these winners were epoch-defining names who have stood the test of time and are still recorded after 2000 years, I find it even more extravagant to have them cancelled when there are thousands of sports-stubs on modern athletes who never even made it to the Olympic Games. If you take a look at the one listed above, Anthony Ketchum, you'll find a table of running competitors which is 4/5th blue, but full of similar examples from all nations. If you applied the criteria you're proposing here, that table would turn 2/3rd red again. Going through similar lists you could find thousands of articles to cancel.

I know that some people enjoy undoing other people's work, but I hope that you do not belong to this category. I therefore propose that we close this procedure as soon as possible. That would be very kind, because it would allow me to get back to my work on the calendar data. Thanks for your attention.--Hyphantes (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Now that we have cleared that these winners were epoch-defining names who have stood the test of time and are still remembered after 2000 years..."

You've done nothing of the sort, and I'm afraid that nobody is joking here. You keep asserting that these people have incredible historical significance and not once have you provided a reference to support yourself. I did not give individual reasoning for each article because, as you yourself have stated ("I write these articles with copy and paste"), most of these articles are almost the exact same thing, and thus suffer from the same problems. The fact that your articles fill in links on list pages is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be deleted. I feel bad because it's clear that you've spent a lot of time and effort on these articles, but that doesn't change what they are or the problems that they suffer from. If you can improve these pages such that they no longer meet the criteria for deletion or prove to me that in their current state they do not meet those criteria, I would gladly withdraw every single one of my nominations. As it stands, the articles fail WP:GNG and none of your arguments have convinced me that they do not. Pishcal — ♣ 01:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Now that we have cleared that these winners were epoch-defining names who have stood the test of time and are still recorded after 2000 years..."

This is very clearly explained here: Olympiad.

I hope you have found the time to read it, it's not very long.--Hyphantes (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the modern athlete articles then please nominate them separately. No athlete article gets a special inclusion preference from me, but I think I've done a clear job of demonstrating both the potential for expansion of modern topics compared to ancient ones and my willingness to build content rather than delete it. SFB 20:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- These artiles are largely about people of whom we know nothing, but their name, their city and that they won a race. We can never have more than a stub bio for them. Merging them all into a list article (or several) leaving the present articles as redirects deals with that problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all apart from Phrynon of Athens, as it seems that he is the same person as Phrynon, who we have a little more information about. (I'm taking it on trust that he is the same person.) For the rest of them, a list article is probably going to be more helpful than a one-line stub, and we can always expand the redirects into full articles if we find enough information about any of them that they pass WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an excellent idea. I'd invite you both to go ahead and complete the three missing pages from User:Francois-Pier's project. When you are done, we can create the redirects. In the meantime I would like to point out that the entire discussion here is based on the assumption about the future that "we can never have more than a stub bio for them". User:Pishcal must have come to the same conclusion half an hour after the articles were created. Very quick indeed!

But as far as I know the fact that an article is a stub is no sufficient reason for cancellation. That would be quite a disaster for Wikipedia indeed. Then again I think that the stub category is not well defined. Sometimes we have little information on a subject and then it's useless to expand it. All encyclopedias have these articles without dubbing them stubs. Important is that they are well done and collect all the relevant facts.

In his previous comment Peterkingiron talked about "stubs like these with no hope of expansion". I think this has already been belied for many articles in question, most of all for the first. In any case I, who have studied the argument for a while, couldn't tell you which have hope and which not, neither has anybody given an instrument to distinguish the two categories.

I guess you have read Olympiad by now, but still I would like you to comment on 696 BC or 692 BC and all the others down to 4 BC. Who will be able to reprogramme the Greek calendar if we cancel these pages?--Hyphantes (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify something. This entire discussion isn't based on any assumption, or the fact that the articles nominated are currently stubs. This discussion is based on the reasoning that in their current state, these articles do not pass WP:GNG. In addition, I'm not certain about the reliability of the one reference that most of the articles nominated have. (That would be this.) Pishcal — ♣ 17:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much these people are competent of the matter, but maybe we should consider the following little discussion from the Portal Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics:

Please pardon my ignorance; is it wiki policy that any competitor in the Olympics, whatever their performance and result, is by definition notable and worthy of an article? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics by --Hyphantes (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question, and you may have a point there. I don't think we should automatically assume that Ancient Olympians should be treated the same as modern Olympians, but there is certainly room for interpretation. I'll leave notes at some of the relevant WikiProjects in case anyone's interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games. (There was already one at WikiProject Olympics.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - Clearly, WP:NOLYMPICS was never intended to apply to ancient Olympic Games athletes. It is impossible for the overwhelming majority of ancient Olympic athletes to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, because there is not now, and never will be, significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In fact, we don't even know the names of most of the ancient Olympic athletes, and for those whose names do know, that's all we know. No basic biographical data -- no birth date, no birth place, no parents, no non-sports career, no date of death. All notability guidelines, including specific notability guidelines like NSPORTS and NOLYMPICS only impart a presumption of notability, not a guarantee of inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. As GNG specifically states:

"'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . . ."

This is a perfect example where these topics, in the absence of any depth of coverage sufficient to create more than one-sentence stub articles, are best covered as elements of a larger list article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, we don't even know the names of most of the ancient Olympic athletes, and for those whose names do know, that's all we know. No basic biographical data -- no birth date, no birth place, no parents, no non-sports career, no date of death"

Sorry, but this is all wrong. First we are not talking about "most Olympic athletes" but only about winners. We have lots of biographical data on these, sometimes even the exact birth year like for Leonidas of Rhodes or Philinus of Cos (athlete). The second article has also the name of the father and so do many others. We almost always have the birthplace (99%). The birth year can be determined approximately (usually within a range of 10 years, sometimes even much more precisely). Several of these athletes had also a second career like Phrynon of Athens or Pythagoras of Laconia to name but a few from the first 100 years. The only info that is rarely recorded is the date of death. If you want to help please define some criteria as to when the available data is worth an article and when not.--Hyphantes (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphantes, you're not helping your case by hperventilating. Trying to discredit my obvious generalizations by focusing on the limited exceptions is a transparent tactic. In the overwhelming majority of cases, we know the Greek city state they represented, not the birth place. We don't know the parents. By your own admission, we don't know the birth dates for most, but we may know a range of years in which they may have been born. We don't know their non-sporting occupation for the overwhelming majority. Bottom line: what I said above is not "all wrong"; it's an accurate generalization that reflects the extremely limited biographical data we have for these men. The fact that most of these "articles" are one-sentence stubs tells the tale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to be offensive, just put a few things right, because your generalization was really too "general" and certainly not very "accurate". Of course, saying that it's "all wrong" is another generalization, and unfortunately this is the level of discussion here. It will remain that until somebody has the generosity to define some criteria as I'm asking since the very start of this procedure. As long as this is not done I can't take this seriously and propose to adapt the guideline that goes for modern Olympics (which is the only one at the moment available, as far as I can see). After all, here we are talking not about "any competitor in the Olympics, whatever their performance and result", but esclusively about winners of the most important competition who defined an era.

Bottom line: If you knew how citizenship worked in ancient Greece, you'd understand that the effective birth place is of no importance. In fact, we don't know that for 99% of ancient biographies. But in 98% we know the citizenship and so, as a standard in ancient history bios, we put that in place.--Hyphantes (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphantes, the standard "criteria" in this case are going to be those of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Each of those elements is a Wikipedia term of art, and is described/defined in some greater detail at GNG. It would probably be helpful if you familiarized with those elements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very impressive. Still that doesn't help us much in deciding whether and why Phrynon of Athens or Philinus of Cos (athlete) should be considered WP:GNG and Pantacles of Athens not. User:Francois-Pier uses basically four sources to his list, which are all online, except one. A majority of the athletes in his list are cited in all four of them, even many of those who are still red. Many others are cited in two or three sources. Only nine athletes are cited in a single source, and none of them was a winner of the stadion race, which means that they are not in question here. In my own work I have used three of the four sources used by Francois-Pier. Moreover I have found a fifth source which is in German language and very informative. I had just started to work it into my articles when this mess occurred. Francois-Pier never cites Diodorus Siculus, probably hoping that he is covered by the other authors, although his Bibliotheka may offer more additional information on the 56 names related. Another one who hasn't been considered, although he gives a lot of names and additional information with interesting detail on statues, families and later careers, is Pausanias. For the first 120 Olympiads Pausanias has over 220 significant entries covering all kind of stuff ignored by User:Dirtlawyer1: birth date, birth place, parents, non-sports career, date of death, and more. For the following 100 Olympiads numbers will be similar, although certainly lower towards the end.

So this remains to be done, too, for whoever is going to complete the new list (at this point certainly not me). When you're done with that, regarding the single articles you should decide whether 2, 3, 4, or 5 sources should be enough to guarantee WP:GNG. That would probably be of some help for the compilers. Good luck!--Hyphantes (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)--Hyphantes (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pointing to other articles of equal or lesser quality and saying "Those things exist" is not an argument as for how the articles nominated meet WP:GNG. You have not yet proved that the articles nominated have significant coverage in reliable sources, and as User:Dirtlawyer1 has said, I doubt there will ever be enough information for an encyclopedia article. Also, if I understand what you're saying at the end of your comment, then I have to say this: nobody has any responsibility to prove anything or add anything to an article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability. Pishcal — ♣ 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most, but Keep 3 (see below)- Most of the articles are stubs with boiler plate text, so they should be merged into a list. However, a few of the athletes (specificallyPhrynon, Dandes of Argos andOebotas of Dyme) do seem to have enough coverage to write more than a one sentence stub. Per Wikipedia:NOLYMPICS participating in an Olympic game is enough to meet notability requirements and the sources we do have were written during the first few centuries AD , meaning that individuals who had been dead for nearly a millennia were getting coverage in an era before the invention of the printing press. While the articles of some of the athletes I want to keep may be on the short side, I believe that the athletes are notable enough for articles and there is evidence that there is enough coverage to expand their articles further. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) (Note: I originally voted to keep all, but have since changed my argument due to further comments.) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the general notability guidelines: ""'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . . ." Given the paucity of in-depth coverage of these subjects, covering 100 one-sentence topics as elements of a list is common sense. This is what list articles handle best. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Most of these article simply state that such and such person won such and such event in such and such year, and expansion will be difficult since most coverage of these individuals will have long since been lost to the ages. While I believe these people are notable, a list would do a good job concisely covering these individuals without any loss in information, so I'll support a merge to the appropriate sections. However, there were a few individuals who I felt should keep their articles since they contain information that would be lost if they were merged to a list:

Phrynon: as a general, meets WP:SOLDIER. Also, extensive coverage and impact.
Dandes of Argos : Multiple sources and impact in terms of a poem published about him.
Oebotas of Dyme: information in his article about a statue built in his honor and rituals in Achea that centered around him.

Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you have made some excellent points, especially regarding temporary notability. I have to thank you also for your edit on Oebotas which was, as far as I know, the first substantial contribution to the ancient sports section since I have started working on it. If you continue you might discover a lot more interesting athletes.

I was seriously thinking if it had any sense to continue working on Achaean League#List of Strategoi (Generals). When I started, most of them had the following form: Dioedas. I'm thankful that User:Pishcal didn't find them before me, because he would have liked to delete those too, leaving nothing to edit. But now I see that they're protected by WP:SOLDIER and so I think I can create some more of them ;-D

When reason fails it's always good to have a guideline.
— Hyphantes

--Hyphantes (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your comments about me and my actions, could you please strike them? Pishcal — ♣ 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be careful about creating an article for every single ancient general when only enough information is available about them to create a single sentence stub. If you are creating article after article with boilerplate text where the only things that change are the general's name and date of service, then it might be better to compile them into a list. These individuals may be notable, but it would be easier for our readers to see all of this information presented on a single page that sorts the Greek generals by the few known differences between them. Also, this point doesn't apply to Phrynon since he has had decently significant coverage, so its possible to write a more expansive article about him. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all (except for Phrynon and Philinus of Cos) The entire sum of human knowledge about the majority of these people can each be given in one sentence. It is not appropriate to have stand-alone articles on such topics. I appreciate the efforts of Hyphantes, as coverage of these athletes is indeed important, albeit that I differ on the presentation of that information. The fact that the athlete's importance is linked entirely with one event and is shrouded by the passing of history doesn't help. The use of the people to mark epochs is more a convenient and somewhat incidental choice of archaeologists – it doesn't represent the people being the truly definitive humans of the period any more than some Welsh rocks are a defining element of 60 million years of history.

If we could interview these people now then surely we could have the sources to write an article on these people, but that isn't the case. I concur with Hyphantes that modern athletes should have the same criteria applied. The specific examples of Spearmon and Ketchum probably aren't the best, though, as these are athletes who have won national titles and international medals for the United States (including some gold) in multiple competitions. Redirects can be left and categorised for the ancient athletes as this will be a useful feature to retain. SFB 20:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does anyone have any specific objections to the three exceptions to the general merge I proposed? These three had more coverage from sources and a demonstrated impact, especially for Phrynon, and I don't think they should be merged/ redirected simply because they were nominated alongside numerous articles where this would be an appropriate outcome. Legitimate encyclopedic content would be lost, and per WP:PRESERVE, we should be keeping, not eliminating, encyclopedic content. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOE, I think Phrynon crosses the finish line to have sufficient sources and content to sustain a viable stub/start article. The other two articles, IMO, are much closer judgment calls and I will defer to those participants who are more knowledgeable in these eras of ancient Greek history. The rest of the one-liners should be merged to the list, with redirects to the list article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phrynon should definitely not be merged as these is more than adequate coverage to justify an article. I also think that Philinus of Cos is sufficient as an athlete with coverage in multiple competitions and years. Not fully convinced about any of the others, whose information could be easily accomodated in a brief "notes" field in a table of winners. SFB 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Spirit of Eagle -- Several people have refered to what I said. I do not think that analogies with the modern Olympic Games is helpful. They are a worldwide competition; the ancient Olympics only operated in the Greek world, an area larger than modern Greece, but still only a small part of the world. My merge proposal would have left most of the winners' articles as redirects to a list, so that they will readily come up on searches. For any person for whom there is further information, keeping a substantive article is appropriate. For the rest, we know nothing but that they on a race in a certain year. Such a short article will probably get tagged as a stub, but it is a stub that cannot be expanded, because there are no other sources whatsoever. One may be able to find a dozen secondary and tertiary sources, but they all depend on a single primary source. Anything beyons what that primary source says is "original research" (in the WP sense of speculation or invention), whether by the WP editor or one of the derivative authors. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed my initial vote to merge all but a small number of the athletes. Some of the athletes do in fact have enough coverage from reliable sources to write more than a single sentence stub article. I personally support keeping the articles that have any significant sourced information beyond boiler plate text because of the impact of Olympic winners on Greek society and because of the specific individual impact listed by the sources, but in the entire list I found only three athletes who had enough non-boilerplate information to justify a keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I would support merging all into a list article, except for the more notable ones. The consensus seems to be that Phrynon is the most notable out of all of these. Pishcal — ♣ 12:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most articles into a list. Phrynon clearly deserves an independent article as a solider. Oebotas of Dyme also crosses the threshold with his statue. However, there's only one sentence about Dandes of Argos's poem. It would be more substantial if we had a copy of this poem, otherwise this poem is merely a footnote that could fit on the list. Elassint ^Hi 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, ― Padenton|✉ 01:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found an online version of Poetae lyrici Graeci, the book in which the poem Simonides of Ceos wrote about Dandes of Argos is published:[15]. Hyphantes, could you find the specific poem you cited in this work? It also looks like the book might provide background information on the poems listed within. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The notability of these subjects is assured per WP:NOLYMPICS. The details of how we organise and display this notable information is not a matter of deletion but our policy WP:NOTPAPER indicates that it is fine to have a separate page for each as there is no significant cost in doing so. Having separate pages facilitates the use of organisational standards such as PERSONDATA while our lists tend to be idiosyncratic and so less helpful to people wanting to navigate or analyse this data in a structured way. If the amount of information about particular athletes is small then this is not a problem because we have no need or requirement to display some fixed quantity of information about a topic - "enough is as good as a feast". Conventional print encyclopedia commonly have small stubby entries for many topics and so it is quite reasonable and respectable that we should do the same. Finally note that the general shift to use of mobile devices should encourage us to break up topics into small pieces rather than having great walls of text in the style of many FAs. Atomising this data fits this trend nicely. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, like all guidelines, WP:NOLYMPICS is subject to interpretation and common sense. Furthermore, like all all notability guidelines, NOLYMPICS, if satisfied, imparts a presumption of notability. As WP:GNG specifically states:

"'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . . ."

Bottom line: we may decide that the best presentation of these subjects is in a list article, even if they satisfy one or more notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, WP:NOTPAPER specifically says "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done ... this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Additionally, I wouldn't say that an article being short and thus easy for mobile readers to access is grounds for inclusion. Pishcal — ♣ 13:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most into well annotated list: as a few people argue here, a couple of the articles have value as independet articles, but there is no sense of having a whole slew of articles that have less than 50 page views a month excluding initial creation (and including bots), when we could encourage people interest in one of the persons to explore the others in the same page, Sadads (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but without prejudice to merging. I agree with Andrew D.'s comment above: "Conventional print encyclopedia commonly have small stubby entries for many topics and so it is quite reasonable and respectable that we should do the same." Placeholder articles are often better if the alternative is a combination of articles and redirects to lists. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 6 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge all - I think these are clearly notable people, and thus should either be kept (in cases where sufficient information can be written for a stand-alone article) or should be merged (when there is not sufficient information for a stand-alone article). WP:N says to use coverage in reliable sources to assess notability because that is a straightforward way to tell if something is likely notable. However, it is not the coverage in sources that makes the subject notable, but rather the interest from the world at large. WP:N also says to use common sense, making it clear that coverage isn't necessary to assess notability when it would be blatantly obvious that the subject is notable. I think it is blatantly obvious that the champions of what were the greatest athletic events of their time would be notable people, and thus in depth coverage of these people is thus not necessary to assess their notability. Because these are notable people, there articles certainly shouldn't be deleted outright. However, the WP:WHYN section of WP:N also makes it clear that significant coverage is required so that we have enough information to write stand-alone articles on notable subjects, and that notable subjects without significant coverage should instead be covered in a larger article or list. Thus any of these people without significant coverage should be merged, and any with significant coverage should be kept, but none of them should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per AndrewD above. As for the arguments relying on the supposedly parochial nature of the ancient Olympics, does that mean that we are going to start deleting articles on champion Australian rules football and Gaelic football players too? -Jpbrenna (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Parochial nature of the ancient Olympics?" @Jpbrenna: Those words, or even words to that effect, do not appear anywhere in this discussion except your comment. The question is not whether the ancient Olympics were important to the history of sport and the evolution of Western culture generally. Clearly they were. And the ancient Olympic Games are indisputably "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, too. Those points are not the issues at hand here. What is hotly contested here is (a) whether all of the listed ancient Olympic athletes are "notable" -- in the Wikipedia sense -- in their own right, based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (and a small handful of those listed may be), and (b) even if they are "notable," given the relative absence of any detailed information about the subject athletes, does it not make more sense for them to be covered as elements of a list article, rather than having perma-stubs for all of them? Even if all of them are determined to be notable in the Wikipedia sense per GNG, that is "not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article." Common sense suggests that these subjects should be covered within a single list article, where they may be discussed as a group, rather in 40 separate one and two-sentence stub articles that have ZERO chance of ever being expanded. More people will read the list than will ever find the individual stubs. If you can't see that, you probably have not looked at all 40 of these stub articles. Moreover, your comment regarding "champion Australian rules football and Gaelic football players" strongly suggests that you do not understand that "notability," as used in these AfD discussions, is based on in-depth coverage in published sources, not some subjectively perceived sense of the subject's importance. Notability is determined by the existence significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing more, nothing less. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words to that effect do in fact appear above: "...I do not think that analogies with the modern Olympic Games is helpful. They are a worldwide competition; the ancient Olympics only operated in the Greek world, an area larger than modern Greece, but still only a small part of the world..." If that is the objection to applying the modern Olympic notability criteria to ancient athletes, then logically it calls into question the notability of modern practitioners of sports that are not played world-wide. Otherwise, we should apply the same standard to ancient Olympians that we apply to modern ones. As for multiple independent, reliable sources, well yes, we do in fact have them for some if one bothers to look. I will stipulate that the majority of of these athletes seem to be attested only by Eusebius of Caesarea's Chronicon, but not all, e.g. Phrynon. Several are the subjects of poetry and had important military and political careers in addition to their Olympic victories. This proposed deletion list ignores that and lumps them all together, as if our only source for them is Eusebius, and they are only notable for their Olympic victories. Not all of these articles have "ZERO" chance for expansion. If you can't see that, then I question whether you yourself have in fact looked at all forty of these articles. --Jpbrenna (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JPB: "If that is the objection to applying the modern Olympic notability criteria to ancient athletes, then logically it calls into question the notability of modern practitioners of sports that are not played world-wide." No, the standard is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources: "significant coverage" does not mean one and two-sentence mentions in one or two history texts. That's the reason the list option is the most sensible way to present this content to our readers, in a single coherent article -- with the exception of three or four athletes who may have sufficient content for viable stub/start articles. As for modern athletes, they are included because most of them are awash in in-depth coverage of their personal and sporting lives, and coverage does not need to be world-wide to be "significant."
JPB: "As for multiple independent, reliable sources, well yes, we do in fact have them for some if one bothers to look." Okay, please list those multiple, independent, reliable sources for each of these 40 article subjects, and please quote the language dealing with each subject athletes if you cannot link to the source online. I maintain that significant coverage does not exist for 35 to 38 of these subject ancient Greek athletes.
JPB: "Several are the subjects of poetry and had important military and political careers in addition to their Olympic victories." I think it was pretty well established that one became a notable military leader, and couple of others may have been referenced in ancient poetry. That does not justify a stand-alone article for the other 35 athletes.
JPB: "This proposed deletion list ignores that and lumps them all together, as if our only source for them is Eusebius, and they are only notable for their Olympic victories." Actually, a collective AfD made perfect sense for these topics because there needs to be a merge (with redirects) of most these subjects, and a list is the logical, well-established way to handle that. Furthermore, there is a fairly obvious consensus demonstrated above to merge, not delete these articles into a single list, while allowing that three or four of them may have sufficient sourcing to fill out a decent "Start"-quality article. So, please identify the three or four you think can be expanded beyond a one- or two-sentence stub.
JPB: "Not all of these articles have 'ZERO' chance for expansion. If you can't see that, then I question whether you yourself have in fact looked at all forty of these articles." I looked at all of them six weeks ago when this discussion started: I stand by my assertion that no more than three or four of these subjects has any chance of being expanded beyond a one- or two-sentence stub. Those exceptions are already discussed above. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break, no. 1

Further comment: I still say merge into one list. In any cases where there is anything else known apart from theri victory in a race, a substantive article should be retained, but with these exceptions, we know nothing of them except that they won one race. ZERO other biography and ZERO sources for furthter research, because there are no other WP:RS on their lives. Comparison with modern sports is a false comparison, but we generally have other sources on their biography. My argument is not that their achievement was NN, but that a stand-alon article ought normally to have one than a single statement (and its background). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only following articles seem to have additional content, but often only very slight:

- Eurybus of Athens
- Phrynon of Athens
- Dandes of Argos
- Epaenetus of Argos -- possibly: there is one extra sentence.
- Cratinus of Megara -- possibly as his brother won the boxing.
- Dionysius Sameumys of Alexandria -- possibly as he won twice.
- Oebotas of Dyme -- had a statue at Olympia

I suspect that this needs to be followed up by a nom for some hundreds more articles to be merged in. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I would agree that there are enough sources and substance for Eurybus, Phrynon and Dandes to have stand-alone articles. Epaenetus, Cratinus, Dionysius and Oebotas should be merged into the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 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.

Since nobody has thought it necessary to post a count before concluding the discussion, I'll do it.

Keep: 5

Merge all: 2

Merge, but keep some:7

Delete: 0

This means that the original deletion request was rejected. I want to thank everybody for this unanimous vote, because it attests that my contributions were valid.

Actually this appeared quite clear from the start as even the originator of the request, Pishcal, has never cast a vote for deletion. His vote is Merge, but keep some.

Thus remains the question why the deletion request was filed at all. I think that Pishcal had every right to question the utility of the pages created. He was also right trying to influence the further development of the project. There is an instrument on Wikipedia to do that. It is called Talk page.

However he decided on another instrument without ever contacting me and this gave a number of people, who had never taken any interest in the argument, the power to interfere. What followed has been called a "mess" by Dirtlawyer1 and I would rather agree with his definition.

More precisely, I'd tend to call the procedure an abuse, since it has been wielded to install a kind of preventive democratic control over how users have to submit their contributions to Wikipedia, which is certainly not the purpose of a deletion request.

According to the spirit of the compromise reached and to judge from the messages posted on the single talk pages, it is now in the competence of the admins to decide which articles on ancient athletes are permitted, how many and why. Thus everything has been burocraticized and as a consequence the whole area of research has been transformed into a minefield. So who would ever touch it again?

This approach hasn't worked in the past and it never will. Probably these power plays are also among the motives for the loss of so many valid editors whose enthusiasm must have vanished for a reason. As long as these stupid games have the better, I'm afraid the future looks bleak. Wikipedia can only survive as a free encyclopedia and today we have lost some of that freedom.

After many words, here is the body count of today's battle:

This user has stopped contributing to Wikipedia.

What I leave on the field is a rudimentary list of Olympic winners, thirty-five marginal articles with a merge tag and an incomplete calendar which is currently displayed on 776 pages and should have been expanded to 400 more.

Maybe the users wielding paragraphs and guidelines will take care of the completion of these projects, but from what I've seen I'm not very optimistic. Thanks everybody for watching. Good bye. --Hyphantes (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Prithvi Singh Chauhan

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

Notability of the subject is questionable. The article appears to be simply for promoting/advertising self and owned organization MahenSingha (Talk) 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable at this time and searches found nothing here, here (this one is not surprising) and here with no results at Highbeam and thefreelibrary. Not independently notable, SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 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. Nakon 23:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramazan Shareef

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

Non notable unbroadcasted television show. Possible hoax, as no reliable sources exist about the show. The one reference given is a blog that gives a trivial mention. Delete per WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom, not crystal ball.Wgolf (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG -- sami ^talk 02:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or the other possibility of moving to Pakistan Ramazan for now. Multiple searches found nothing intelligible and significant so the other option is non-English sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 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 Keep. The nomination was withdrawn by the nominator, and the only other user who !voted "Delete" changed his !vote. The sources provided in the discussion are considered to be enough to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMM.com

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

~~Previously deleted (A7) article, written like a spam/ad (WP:ADVERT), about a website/company which does not meet WP:NORG or WP:WEB.~~ nafSadh did say 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per sources provided by Wikimandia (Мандичка). --nafSadh did say 03:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability provided. Article is extremely spammy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep based on the sources given by Мандичка. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets basic requirements with sufficient coverage ([16], [17], [18]), finance articles about its securities trading, and additional coverage based on its robot thing, including an article in English that refers to it as "popular Japanese online retailer DMM.com." Also appears to have notability based on coverage of its online gaming and adult sites, but I didn't look too deeply into that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May need de-spamming, but the article clearly meets the basic notability guidelines as well as WP:NORG. --DAJF (talk) 15:40, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Ming Yang

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for academics or the GNG. Author of handful of seldom-cited papers; the paper mention in the article as his claim to fame was cited only 4 times according to Google Scholar. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find only a handful of poorly cited papers in low-impact journals. Good job for getting a little spurt of press coverage for such a weak paper, but not notable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass any WP:PROF criterion, and the mainstream press attention for the mad cow – Alzheimer's connection is only one thing, and a small thing at that. (The other source in the article, about another piece of research, does not look reliable.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 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) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Georgeff

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 declined on the grounds that the article was not similar to the one deleted in 2013. However, the only thing that has changed since then is that he has played for Torgelower SV Greif in the decidedly not fully pro German fourth division. In any case, he still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, so fails the football-specific notability guideline, and there's no evidence of his receiving enough significant media coverage to pass WP:BIO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:40, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Llorente Moreno

(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 based on a claim that he would soon play for Real Madrid's first team. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:41, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOAR High School

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

This school doesn't appear to be notable. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see that this article was in poor condition at the point of nomination, though subsequent radical surgery by User:Reddogsix has fixed that. Since then I have added a couple of references which I think are sufficient for the normal high school outcome at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to be applicable here. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools); secondary school articles are typically retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a significant and unusual school that integrates college courses into the high school curriculum, allowing students to progress to degree standard. Seems no reason why it cannot be brought into line with WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British-German Association

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

A non notable organization with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All references provided are either trivial mentions or non independent. Searches only bring up coverage of people associated with the organization. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - point taken that references were trivial, unreliable or non-independent. However, I've managed to find some more appropriate references. They are as follows: a televised interview on Bloomberg with the BGA Chairman earlier this week; a Guardian article which quotes the BGA Chairman extensively; a recent article on the German government website solely about the BGA; an article on the Siemens corporate website, solely about the BGA; an article on the Chatham House website about a co-event they did with the BGA; a page on the Royal website about the BGA and the fact that HRH Duke of Kent is an active Patron; and this obituary in The Telegraph about one of the previous Chairmen of the BGA. I believe that the article now fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria - even though it's not the most notable organisation around! Under the specific guidelines for 'non-commercial organisations', Wikipedia gives the criteria as: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale (this is true); and 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization (this is also now true). They also suggest considering longevity of the organisation (the BGA has been around since 1951) and the audience reach of the sources (the Bloomberg broadcast connects with millions of people watching worldwide). Also - worth noting the credibility of some of the speakers and members they've had: cabinet ministers, a former UK PM and a German Chancellor, and CEOs / Chairpeople of FTSE 100 companies. Alastair279 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any organisation with a senior royal patron passes the notability bar. Royal patronage isn't given to every minor club. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the Royals are basically German, I'm not surprised. Le petit fromage (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable, long-standing group. Author of article probably lacked resources to search older news files, where this outfit turns up more often than it does nowadays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IServer

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

Contested PROD, removed with no rationale. Reason was: " I do not consider an "honourable mention" to confirm WP:N. This needs further referencing to confirm that it has notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42" Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing that appears significant and notable (mostly press releases) here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking coverage in multiple independent sources. The two Garner papers can't be accessed, so the depth of coverage is unclear. The only relevant RSN discussion on Gartner suggests that these are reliable, but on their own, the Garner sources are not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up incidental mentions and company PR, but no further significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 00:18, 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 keep. Can I also remind editors that WP:NPA is a mandatory policy. Some of the comments here which appear to attack the competence of an editor based on their nationality are quite unhelpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury City Council election, 2009

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

Salisbury City Council is a parish council, the third and lowest tier of local government in England, and the fourth tier overall (although I'm sure someone will point out that Salisbury City Council is actually the second tier of local government, this is because Wiltshire is a unitary area in which the first and second tier councils have been merged, not because Salisbury City Council is more powerful than a parish council). I cannot see how an election to this level of local government is notable; this article has no references and its only source is the council itself. The article was deleted via prod, but the creator requested it be restored and the AfD process used. Number 5 7 13:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The fact that the "article has no references and its only source is the council itself" should be irrelevant to this discussion.

The issue of notability is a tricky one and one that in my view should not just be determined by what tiers of government exist above it.

Perhaps in the future, there will be a large number of individuals on wikipedia either involved in a Salisbury project or a UK local government project who will be better judges of this article's notability than those of us with no strong connection to either. Until then, I don't really feel it is right for anyone else to turn round to the editor who took the trouble to create the page and say we don't think this is notable enough. Graemp (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now fully referenced to reliable sources. I am sorry I overlooked this when creating it, but at the outset it had external links for verification which later became dead without my being aware of it. As you correctly say, Number 57, this city council is at the second tier of local government. For what it's worth, I disagree with you on the question of "power", but Wikipedia does not (so far as I am aware) have a guideline establishing that certain levels of administration are non-notable, so the acid test here is surely the GNG of WP:N. I don't think it makes any difference to the question of notability, but this city council has some sixty employees, which is more than most of the single-tier municipalities in Europe have. Moonraker (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiltshire Council and Salisbury Journal are significant independent coverage. (By the way, English city and town councils typically have some unitary authority powers delegated to them.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above the council elections has significant reliable sources and coverage, which both serve as main merits to keep this article on Wikipedia. Wiltshire is also a unitary authority, so elections in the county are in fewer numbers than other counties. JAGUAR 21:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to all the claims above about reliable sources, we only actually have a single reference that meets the requirements for WP:N, and that is to a local newspaper; Wiltshire Council is not an independent source as it was that council that actually carried out the election. Number 57 00:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is your opinion. My opinion is that Wiltshire Council carried out the election on behalf of the City Council, and so is more than independent enough to establish notability and to write a neutral and balanced article. Wiltshire Council doesn't have an obvious vested interest in the existence of the city council, and the returning officer, as a county employee, is required by law to be independent of the political concerns of the city council candidates. We are unlikely to find a third source, as there isn't another newspaper in the area, but I contend that these are enough to write a verifiable article. (Don't forget that all election articles rely on the returning officer for the results: 3rd party sources don't include the actual counts in their fact checks.) Government election result articles should never be brought to AfD, but merely merged into the parent article, Salisbury City Council, if you don't think we can maintain a separate article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Election notices at all levels (including those for parliamentary elections) are hosted on local authority web sites, and in this case they are on Wiltshire Council's. If Wiltshire Council is the publisher, then it is a source independent of the subject of the article. However, the actual publisher of every election notice is the Returning Officer, who is a public official appointed under the Representation of the People Act which applies in each case, and I should have thought that he or she is both a reliable source and one independent of the office-holders elected and the authorities or parliaments they are elected to. If not, we are in hot water and might as well send for Mr Mugabe. Moonraker (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course Wiltshire Council is highly likely to be a reliable source, but as they are the body that carried out the election (and employ the returning officer) they are clearly not independent of the subject. Number 5 7 13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I am really struggling with your logic, Number 5 7. A source is either reliable or not, and in this case the sources you are questioning are the official notices relying on a named person who states the information in them, published by the Returning Officer, and not by the person or body who pays him for carrying out his duties. I think you mean it's possible that Wiltshire Council is not independent of the Returning Officer, but that isn't the issue here, which is whether the notices published by the Returning Officer are independent of Salisbury City Council, and I am at a loss to see in what way they aren't. Moonraker (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The article isn't about Salisbury City Council though, it's about an election to Salisbury City Council (and the elections are run by Wiltshire Council). Number 5 7 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Goodness me. As it happens, elections are not run by local authorities, they are run by Returning Officers, who employ temporary staff who mostly come from local authorities, banks, and building societies. You might do better to argue that the Returning Officers' notices are primary sources, and that secondary sources are better, although as a matter of law a Returning Officer's notice is considered so definitive that it can be relied on as evidence in any court, so it would be odd if Wikipedia were to treat it as suffering from some form of conflict of interest. Of course, a huge number of Returning Officers' publications are relied on as sources in Wikipedia articles, Number 5 7, and you would have a lot of work to do in challenging them in all such articles. Are you pursuing this argument anywhere else on Wikipedia, or only here as a debating point? Moonraker (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Elections are run by local authorities (I have been involved in them either as a polling clerk or a counter for the past 5-10 years so have seen for myself). And again, I am not saying they are not reliable sources (what part of "Wiltshire Council is highly likely to be a reliable source" do you not understand?); what I am saying is that they are not independent of the topic of the article. The issue is that there is only one source in this article that meets WP:N, which to me suggests that the topic is not notable. Number 5 7 15:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Might it help either of you reading WP:N; Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article? Graemp (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have misunderstood: I am talking about WP:N applying to the article itself, not to the contents of the page; WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Number 5 7 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Number 5 7, I don't think you understand what a local authority is. As a corporate body it has various ways of taking decisions and acts through employees or contractors. Local authorities do not take decisions about the running of elections, Returning Officers do. As a matter of law they do not act on behalf of anyone and they do not take their orders from anyone except parliament (via the Representation of the People Acts). Apart from that, the Returning Officer for Wiltshire is entirely separate from Salisbury City Council and independent of it, and he is not the subject of the article. May I come back to my question, are you pursuing this argument against relying on these statutory sources for election results anywhere else on Wikipedia? Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that I worked in local government for almost a decade, I'm fully aware of what a local authority is. Rather than keep casting aspersions on my knowledge of this subject without having any idea who I am or what my experience is, it would be appreciated if you could concentrate on the actual discussion.
        
        What I am really having trouble with here is how you cannot understand the basic fact that the organisation (or person if you insist on having it your way) organising the election cannot be considered an independent source in an article about the election. The fact that the returning officer is entirely separate from Salisbury City Council is wholly irrelevant to this argument as this article is about the election, not the council.
        
        And no, I am not pursuing this argument elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I clearly stated above, there is no problem with using these sources; the issue is that if these are the only sources (or if there are very few others), then the subject is unlikely to meet WP:N Number 5 7 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of sourcing is an important one, but not that important for an AfD discussion. I think No.57 brought the issue here primarily because of a question about notability which is clearly an AfD concern. We might have been helped on this matter if someone had flagged up an example of a similar article being created, retained or deleted. Given no previous as guidance, I don't think the article ought to be deleted when there is a clear consensus so far to keep. Graemp (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salisbury City Council. The Council itself may be notable, but the individual election results for an individual election are not. I don't think I have ever seen any local election get separate Wikipedia articles for each of its elections; IMO that kind of coverage should reserved for elections at the state, provincial, or national level. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In seeking to assess the notability of this article, having the perspective of a specialist Wiltshire editor is very useful, as is a perspective from an editor who specialises in UK municipal elections. The perspective of an editor specialising in USA subject matter, is going to be less useful, particularly if they admit to never having seen any individual local election articles. Graemp (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree with that; a Wiltshire-based editor may be biased towards events in their own backyard and believe they are more important than they really are. More importantly, the idea that an American editor is less able to comment on a British election article is the thin edge of a disturbing wedge that we should avoid at all costs. Number 5 7 21:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that an editor with a greater understanding of the subject area is more likely to have a biased view, in fact I would expect the opposite. As for your comment about an American editor, the nationality of the editor should be irrelevant and I don't think it helps for you to accuse another editor of being nationalistic when they wern't. What is important is an editor's area of speciality. Editor MelanieN concluded by saying "coverage should [be] reserved for elections at the state, provincial, or national level." This is not very helpful in an England-related deletion discussion, (which is how this AfD has been tagged) because in England there are neither states nor provinces. Thus MelanieN's declared position for elections in England would seem to be that there should be no separate articles for elections in England below national level. Graemp (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about have an understanding of the subject matter; a "specialist Wiltshire editor" (as you put it) may not understand elections at all, but if they are focussed on all things Wiltshire, they may lose a sense of perspective. This sort of thing often happens with football articles, where an editor specialising in a certain area (eg. non-League or Women's football) may fail to appreciate that in the wider scheme of things, their subject matter is not actually notable.

I wasn't accusing you of being nationalistic, but your comments do seem to infer that people should stick to things related to their own countries. Number 5 7 11:30, 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) 17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mooseknuckle

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

Non-notable neologism. References are humorously bad and only mention the subject in passing. The second one, Balderdash & Piffle, says that the term "allegedly" describes its subject; of the first five references, the others only use the term once and do not discuss it at all. (I got tired of checking the references after looking at those five.) I think that User:Freidnless lnoner is a vandalism only account engaging in sneaky vandalism as a bad joke, and should probably be stopped before he does too much damage. Sammy1339 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The was a previous deletion discussion about a related term before I created the article, but I can't remember exactly which one. In the arguemnts, the main objection was that there was too little content. One commentator made suggestions. I used the comments on that discussion page to aid me in creating this page. One reason I think this article is important and possibly borderline vital is because our strict gender roles assume only women should have self-consciousness and inhibition about body-image issues. Contrary to this sexist and misandrist assumption, the reality is that this is an issue that affects men too. Plus considering that in this day and, with increasing single-mother households, and statistics that show that teachers in both secondary and primary institutions are primarily staffed by women and that western society is growingly indivodualistic, young men need all the info they can get on the societal peculiarities of clothing, even if it consists of slang, because some men lack male role models. Thats why the third section appears to mirror female objectification instances. There are many magazine outlets that provide columns on this subject thus making it an encyclopedic subject. I do not frequently read such magazines therefore can't add content on it, but on an open collaborative website such as this I am optimistic someone will eventually come along and contribute to this page. Another reason this article is so important is a single look at the "human appearance" category. Almost all the links as well as the links in the subcategories speak about women. Very rarely about men. Therefore if anything, if pages on the male appearance and other pages similar to this are created, it should be either lauded or expanded. Why would you delete articles on topics where wikipedia is severely lacking? The last thing that should be done is that a subject where we are lacking is gutted even more than it already is. Even if we were to assume that nobody cares about the balancing our-gender balance in coverage of "human appearance", the subject of what constitutes a wardrobe malfunction tends to vary in each society and is a topic that receives coverage on other wiki-pages, hence I assume is notable. In my opinion the above nomination was lazily thought out. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Freidnless lnoner is the author of the article. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Checked some of the refs and some are just about bulges, others mention the term once. (Wikipedia does not exist to moderate the gender wars.) LaMona (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has long ago set a precedent where it attempts to shore up articles on content that is minimal. More recently this invovled recruiting female editors, to shire up female related content. It has also included shoring up content related to Africa, due to only a small minority of our editors being African. Why can't we expand the same logic we applied there here? The precedent exists doesn't it? Freidnless lnoner (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, sources that use the term are not the same as sources about the term. Insufficient coverage about the term in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and elevate this from a subject worthy of a dictionary entry to a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Freidnless lnoner's argument to keep the article appears to be in good faith (as opposed to the nominator's suggestion of being a VoA), however it fails to take into consideration that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the proper venue to solve societal gender issues. Under-representation of certain demographics of editors on Wikipedia may be a problem, but that does not relieve us of only publishing content that is notable and verifiable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regards to WP:NAD and more specifically WP:NEO. Most of the sources do not talk about the subject, and I don't think the term is yet in common enough use to merit its own article (distinguishing it from the rest of Category:Sexual slang. I agree with Nick that the article was probably made in good faith, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. ~~As a side note, one of the two articles in the 'See also' section is Sex noise, which is not actually related to the article, but is another article Freidnless lnoner has written.~~ crh23 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previously linked article has now been deleted crh23 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DIC article fails WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:DIC clearly states 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Brad Dyer (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was tagged on this because I was listed as the creator, but all I did was create a redirect to camel toe. --Bobak (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 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) 17:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy Tom

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

Advertising orphan for cat food that seems to fail GNG as it lacks any significant coverage and it uses all kinds of promotional terms such as "As of 2004, it was the number two brand" and "ran a long-term promotion". I looked up the only listed source, and did a search for "Snappy Tom" ( http://www.petproductnews.com/search.aspx?q=Snappy%20Tom ) and all three results that came up say "Safcol Petcare's Snappy Tom Cat Litter" so it's not even cat food which makes this made up. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete in the absence of references to prove the key statement, of being the number 2 brand in the country. If that can be documented, then I would keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No long-term significance for a completely unremarkable product. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My immediate reaction was delete, as it is hard to find genuine coverage on what is just a standard cat food, but I notice the last vote was massively to keep. Have standards changed that much in the last 8 years?Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Summer 2007 probably is the end of the beginning, so yes, that doesn't look crazy there, but would've looked crazy a year later. WP:N was only proposed in the fall of 2006, about when Wikipedia:Non-notability ended up being rejected. I mean, I assume someone who knew how to find sources about the cat food industry could easily whip together something - but that person ain't I. Wily D 09:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 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) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Kumanovo religious attacks

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

Article based on a few primary sources, no other media coverage, or any international sources. A stub article, with one sentence explaining nothing. Literally, nothing that allegedly happened is mentioned in the article. An article not notable enough for Wikipedia, maybe it can be mentioned in another article. Nominating, based on notability guidelines. - Phill24th (talk). 12:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not notable enough for its own article. --Local hero ^talk 14:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, Delete it, there is a page on the subject Kumanovo shootings, --Perdika (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources for this article. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:49, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Romanization of Korean

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

I've declined a speedy for blatant hoax as it isn't 'blatant'. There is dispute about whether or not this is a notable topic, or original research, or hoax, so I am bringing it to AfD. Peridon (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:MADEUP. So far Roe.ese has refused to provide any reliable sources - see Talk:New_Romanization_of_Korean and [19]. We should give him a few more days. If he still won't respond, it's safe to say that that romanization is his original research, and needs to be deleted. Peter238 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jkrdsr (likely Roe.ese's sockpuppet) has just added some citations to the article. The site (lingint.com) is a "romanizator". I wonder if the whole article "New Romanization of Korean" is not just an advertisement for that site. Peter238 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the earliest account is Jkrdsr - back to 2007. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should've said "Roe.ese's sockmaster". Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Its corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia(ko:정형표기법) has been deleted for WP:OR. Bluemersen (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR if we're being nice, WP:MADEUP if we're not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linguistics articles are hard to assess; I was going to vote "weak keep" as marginally meeting WP:GNG, but its deletion from the Korean WP as OR clinches it for me. Miniapolis 23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources turn up. The sourcing in the article is deceptive — the first four out of five footnotes look ok, but they are about other more notable transliteration schemes or Korean language more generally, not about this scheme. The fifth is the only one actually about the subject, it is placed in a way that doesn't actually use it to source anything, and it's an unreliable primary website. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion As I nominated the article as Db-hoax, there Is no academic source supporting this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)
Delete - There are insufficient sources and none to be found. Everything relates to Revised Romanization of Korean. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We now have one more reason to remove this article. We sort of have a proof that that article is indeed an advertisement. We've just learnt that one of Jkrdsr sockpuppets is Linguisticint, who was banned on 5 May for having a surname and user page that was unambiguously an advertisement. And what is the only 'non-deceptive' (but still not reliable) source in 'New Romanization of Korean'? Nothing other than LingInt. It's just another attempt at promoting his website. Peter238 (talk) 16:06, 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) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order 777

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

lacking notability : no significant coverage, no reliability, no sources other than a webpage Baronnet (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only news mention I've found was this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8671075/Violent-videos-of-Oslo-killers-mentor.html. Very insignificant organization. No notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kriser's Natural Pet

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

Non notable and promotional. The refs are either about the boutique pet food industry as a whole, or mere mentions, or PR. The previous AfD was closed no-consensus because nobody commented. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full-article independent coverage in Denver Post, Crains, MainStreet.com (division of The Street), and so on. Major mentions in Bloomberg and Entrepreneur. One of Inc.'s 5000 for the past four years. Meets WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Softlavender's links support notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided, Seems notability's there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several articles, some of them with detailed coverage as mentioned above. But I took the liberty to trim some of the worst promo language. GermanJoe (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scanning down the references I am wondering if folk have simply seen a list of refs and assumed they verify notability or have analysed them in any detail. I am finding regurgitated PR pieces and press releases, and at least one reference that does not even mention the org, I see this as WP:ADMASQ pure and simple. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: We don't just rely on the haphazard references added by the article creator when determining a subject's notability. As I mentioned above, the company has full-article independent coverage in Denver Post, Crains, MainStreet.com (division of The Street), and so on. Major mentions in Bloomberg and Entrepreneur. One of Inc.'s 5000 for the past four years. This is what we are basing our "Keep" votes on. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course you have added those references to the article, haven't you? Much more useful than telling is all about them, Softlavender. One of my pet hates is people who list a load of putative references in a deletion discussion without troubling the article itself with them. Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:AFD – whose purpose is to decide whether the subject meets Wikipedia notability requirements and merits inclusion or deletion – not a request to improve the article. You are free to improve the article; but that is not the focus of an AFD discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Softlavender. The articles in Bloomberg, the Denver Post, the Chicago Tribune and Houston Business Journal aren't PR releases. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 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. A9 Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shokofeha (song)

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

An IP is continuing to remove the speedy deletion template. 115ash^→(☏) 09:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A9: Non notable recording by non-notable artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:46, 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 delete. Consensus is clear that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington mural

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

Does not appear to be a notable piece or art. A search reveals that the only coverage it has received is the reference which is in the article. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is lacking. It looks pretty, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Narutolovehinata5. I believe this mural is notable and has significant news coverage in local DC newspapers and magazines. I am working on adding more of that information -- didn't really get a chance to before you flagged the article. I also have a short video I made of the mural. I am part of a Wikipedia class at American University and doing a project about public art in DC, and increasing the amount of videos on Wikipedia to increase the awareness of DC public art.

That's nice, but unfortunately not everything DC related can be included on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5: Any permanent, commissioned, legal mural in a public space is notable, especially if the piece drew some controversy. Since this article was created just moments ago, please refrain from requesting the article to be deleted until some editors have a chance to further enhance it. User:ianakoz 01:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite which notability guideline says that. Also, there's nothing in our guidelines which prohibits articles from being nominated for deletion moments after creation. It's a good thing the article was nominated for deletion here at AfD, so users have seven days (or possibly more, if this gets relisted) to address the issues raised in the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines say the topic needs to have "significant" coverage. While what is "significant" is not defined, if you search for "George Washington mural" on Google, pages of search results list multiple articles that are about it or mention it. Ianakoz 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did search on Google, and a search revealed mostly false positives. While indeed there was coverage from local media, I don't know... I'm a fan of using local media to establish notability, especially for articles on topics not from America (see WP:SYSTEMIC for the reasons), but for art, it seems that the notability guidelines are quite strict and require broader coverage that this (and arguably, the Marilyn Monroe mural) lack. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is borderline advertisement. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding to the nomination this article which was created by a different user shortly before the creation of this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Solntsa90 can you explain how this article is an advertisement? Who or what is it advertising other than a public work of art that contributes to Washington D.C's vibrancy and uniqueness as a city? These murals are important to Washington D.C's cultural diversity and legacy, and deserve to be remembered because in the future, the stories behind their creation may be forgotten and they may even be removed or painted over (as many other murals have). What is wrong with wanting to preserve the history of a public work of art that countless Washingtonians consider a District landmark? --Emmakknight (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have redirected the second to Marilyn Monroe mural given that the latter article on the same subject is more fleshed out. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill piece of street art. It needs to be notable in its own right to justify an article and this one doesn't seem to meet that criteria. A Google search only found local references, and the fact that it's in Washington D.C. doesn't automatically confer notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neiltonks This piece of public art is not a run-of-the-mill work, and is notable within its own right. It has received coverage from news outlets such as WUSA9 and the Washington City Paper, and to discredit these as merely local organizations is unfair. Please consider doing some more in-depth research yourself and checking out the references in the article. --Emmakknight (talk) 20:14, 5 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, Sandstein 08:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. I looked at cited references; short or mention in passing. Could not find anything else. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage. That the artists are not notable weighs against notability, but the main problem is insufficient RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry to call for deletion of an article which was created in good faith by students. Please tell your professor that before they assign people to write articles, they need to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, particularly the WP:General notability guideline. This individual mural does not meet the inclusion guideline, because it does not have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. But thank you for trying; maybe you can find a way to insert a mention or photo in the article about U Street. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 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.

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7/G11) by Nick-D. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilkhan.com

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. It serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable website. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:08, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnish kumar mittal nabha

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

Delete: No significant coverage, not notable. Also refer to point 3 in WP:NPOL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not even close to GNG... though it's good to know that "Seeing his great victory the politicians congratulated him" —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite speedy worthy, but close. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing significant and notable, new politician with no evidence of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1490 Limpopo

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. In my personal opinion, I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. That way it can be reverted quite easily if further studies help this pass the notability barrier. Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I see four photometry studies and a physical model data point. The light curve seems to be difficult to pin down due to noise, but that in itself is a distinctive feature worth mentioning. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I only see three light-curve studies [20] [21] [22], each of small groups of asteroids. And the physical modeling study is of many asteroids, with this as only one entry in a large table [23]. Still, I think it's enough attention to this specific object to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per opinions offered above. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cal & Co.

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

Advertorially-pitched article about a local radio program airing on a single radio station in a single media market, relying entirely on primary sources (station's own website) with not a shred of reliable source coverage and no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMEDIA. In most cases, to earn an article on Wikipedia a radio program needs to have some form of (at least quasi) national distribution, such as airing on a national network or in syndication — absent that you have to source it far, far better than has even been attempted here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sheer promotion —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches at News, Books, browser, Highbeam and thefreelibrary all found nothing and not even local coverage. I would've suggested moving to CIMX but delete is probably better. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 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) 07:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 06:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company might be notable but the article doesn't establish notability. Further, the tone is somewhat promotional suggesting a COI. --Non-Dropframe _talk 06:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's quite a few news hits, but it's mainly about VC funding, announcement of new CEO, typical stuff from PR etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They Don't Love You No More

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

The song failed to chart on any MAIN charts anywhere and barely charted on component charts (2-3 weeks). On top of this, it's likely to be scrapped due to Hold You Down being more recent and successful. Also, he just dropped a new single that's a whole year newer and leads into the album release.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it received enough coverage ([24], [25] including accusations of plagiarism for cover [26], and it's featuring notable people such as Jay Z. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article meets the notability criteria and there's enough content in the article. --Eurofan88 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's notable. --Croxx036 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh)

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

Non-notable individual. Zackmann08 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please read AfD wikipedia policies, unsubstantiated, unexplained comments here like you gave aren't useful/counted. This forum is for a dialogue discussion, if you wish to nominate for AfD then be prepared to explain, substantiate for a dialogue discussion with editors who may disagree with you. I await the required explanation of this AfD, also it's not a vote of confidence that after months on the articles talk page & failed speedy deletion attempts you haven't once tried discussing your thoughts on the article's talk page. So why?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of third-party coverage from various reputable news sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG. Only article where he was the subject was standard announcement that the city had hired a new chief —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you for the detailed explanation. However if that standard applies then there are ~~hundreds of~~ articles on wikipedia where the only article(s) are "standard announcements" of "new" albums, "new" shows, "new" premiers etc. I understand the valid desire for more and detailed sources but just because a subject doesn't have the well-paid publicity agents & pr firms of a Sony film or reality tv star doesn't mean its not a notable subject for an encyclopedia, reliable sources are a must but let's not allow Wikipedia to simply be a conduit of pr firms buying google hits & SEO and thus oh look it has RSs concerning that the subject is indeed notable for being notable and thus notable. Big-city, long serving Fire Chiefs and say corporate proxy services are very notable to our everyday lives, much more so then "encyclopedia" articles on for instance a Canadian kid named Justin with a multi-million publicity budget etc. There are very serious people in the world that know topics of who runs major city fire crews and who to call if you are conducting a vote on a hostile corporate takeover who really would question why encyclopedias devote so much time and resources to manufactured famous-for-being-famous items. In summary I look at quality of RSs over number/topic, too often RSs are simply bought like a jug of milk by those seeking notability, as an encyclopedia we can't let that be a deciding factor but just one of many.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marketdiamond: If you come across any article where the only source is a basic announcement, please submit it to AfD (assuming your search turns up nothing else to support the article); if you don't want to do that much work, tag for lack of notability. As you said, there are hundreds and we need people's help to catch them. FYI subjects are evaluated based on notability criteria, not fame, popularity or media mentions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I let your "only source" comment slide before because I get your greater idea, I'd contest that Jones is the subject of most of the 4 sources. I'd rather come across any article & improve it for the good of the encyclopedia while working with editors in a constructive fashion on the article's talk page similar to how you have been kind enough to elaborate & answer here, we do need people's help to improve what I see as notable articles. I'd prefer not to tag or AfD articles where MadAve/Hollywood Blvd. publicists have bought themselves an army of easily impressionable minds that...well you get my greater idea here. I stand on my above analysis, I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger despite them passing consensus wikipedia notability but you're right there is a distinct dearth of sources that don't page one splash announce for that type. This is an overall impression so I won't take us off topic, I look forward to further discussion of explained substantiated factors related to Jones.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also [27] 8:56 to 9:32, I retracted it 36 min prior out of respect for the project, but somedays I do honestly wonder lately.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about with that diff - it just shows the addition of my comment, nor do I know what you're talking about by letting my "only source" comment slide. Jones is the subject of the article about his appointment; the second article is about the mayor "shaking up" the staff by promoting/demoting multiple people; third ref is not even an article but a news brief of five sentences about him and someone else; and the fourth one is a graduation announcement. These do not satisfy WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage. Public officials/city employees such as fire chiefs, police chiefs, mayors, city council members, county sheriff, judges, and postmaster etc. are not considered inherently notable, which means that having this job is not seen as a special indicator of significance. "I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger" sounds like a pretty solid policy; thanks for sharing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should've been 2 [28][29], it was struck prior & I haven't proposed policy here, but it would be nice.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a big-city, long-serving fire chief should be notable for an encyclopedia, the better the fire chief is the more the fire chief won't be in the news, for comparison there was a police chief in Pittsburgh that has tons of national RSs because he went to prison, so I caution on ways notability is measured, I can understand some thinking more RSs should be found.

Also, I repeat my concerns[30] if this AfD is even valid, given the zero talk page interaction and prior attempts by the nominating editor that were quickly dismissed with explanations of reasons by multiple editors [31] and [32]. After months I still await any explanation with reasons (none at talk page[33], AfD, etc.) by the nominating editor. To me that is fundamental in any AfD, an explanation of why this was proposed after being dismissed with reasons given multiple times by multiple editors, AfD policy requires it so I question this entire thread.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What coverage exists in reliable sources is both local and routine ("he was hired", "he was promoted", etc..etc... Fire Chiefs of cities, even large ones, are not presumed notable based on their status, tenure, or how much one likes him; it has to be sufficiently proven that the individual satisfies WP:N. This person does not. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair disclosure: I wandered in from the ArbCom request The claims put forth of passing GNG are weak at best. The leader of a 630 person fire "district" does not inspire confidence. Reading the GNG we have...

Significant coverage: Fail as the article is barely a stub

Reliable: Neutral, the assertions made are verifyable, but do not contribute to the notability of the Bio.

Sources: The sources mention the subject in passing or very briefly, not what we need for WP:RS.

Independent of the subject: Sources are also effectively police blotter/Press releases so not contributing to the cause

Presumed: Calling the question of the Biography's notability tosses the Presumed clause as this more in-depth discussion clearly indicates that independent editors do not see the justification for inclusion.

For these reasons, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that Deletion (with no objection to converting it to a draftspace article to be passed out via a established procedure/ruberic such as Articles for Creation). Anything else shows a personal interest or bias in wanting to keep the content. Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur: "Anything else shows a personal interest or bias in wanting to keep the content." I don't understand this, am I being accused of violations? I wouldn't think except you prefaced with "Anything else", which would exclude "Anything else" other than a check in my name (directly or indirectly). Asking sincerely, I've been unsubstantiatedly accused the last week so you can understand how the preface makes it sound like there is no other reason but potential policy vio "personal interest or bias" for my above vote.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering people who vote against your view in a AFD doesn't encourage them to support your view. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local officials at this level (heads of urban executive departments, city council people, et al.) invariably fail notability requirements unless they have a national profile. BMK (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'delete There was an investigation on (unsupported) charges of favoring bids by a former employer re: firetruck purchases [34], [35], [36] He was cleared of all charges. And some hiring disputes [37] but really nothing that profiles or focuses on him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Noto

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. concern was that the article Fails WP:BIO [as the] player plays for amateur team. This remains as true today as it was eight years ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG (actually found him in a recent article - but it was hardly positive) —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. It obviously fails the notability guidelines and that one source is not enough for notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:35, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lussey

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Berdnikov

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

~~BLP with questionable notability-it appears the Russian article was deleted already. Wgolf (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)~~Withdrawn[reply]

Keep - Honoured Artist of Russia indicates someone of national merit; I'm not sure why the Russian one was deleted unless it was a copyright violation. I found many articles about his work and his exhibitions, beyond calendar announcements: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure why either-but I thought it might not be a notable guy in Russia then...Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability concluded.--Zoupan 20:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn-Okay thanks-I wasn't sure to leave this alone or not-but seeing the Russian article was deleted made me think that this guy wasn't notable enough or something. Now maybe someone fluent in Russian can find out why but that's another story. Wgolf (talk) 22:04, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson-McQueen

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

Although the article is sourced, this funeral home is ultimately not notable. Agtx (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's had pretty notable coverage for being the first or among the first to use a new process of disposing of bodies. Others who follow probably won't get all the publicity this one did. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:58, 8 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) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (surprisingly) - subject of articles in RS from 2009-2011, plus other mentions in national press... —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:48, 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 merge to Restaurant. Davewild (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chef's table

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

No evidence of notability. Only a dictionary term. Unlikely to ever be more than a paragraph about this subject. Could be merged to the article on restaurant. Dmol (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Restaurant. Lots of mentions in books, but significant coverage is lacking. Merging is a functional WP:ATD, and this content would enhance the restaurant article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 30 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Restaurant. Not much prospect of expansion, but fits in there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OC&C Strategy Consultants

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

No indications of notability from reliable independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:44, 8 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) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches here, here, here and [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&q=OC%26C+Strategy+Consultants&Search=Search&By=0, none of these results seem to make this company notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OptionRally

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "The referencing is seriously lacking. This appears to be WP:ADMASQ. with pseudo-references to generic things, directories or PR pieces. The routes for this are deletion, improvement where it stands, or return to draft space to be worked on. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. References that do not comply with this need to be replaced."

I analysed the references in this version (or thereabouts) as follows:

http://www.cysec.gov.cy/en-GB/entities/investment-firms/cypriot/37625/ directory entry, not significant coverage. Fail
http://www.binaryoptions.com/optionrally-review/ review so independent. Is it WP:RS? I have no idea. WP:BURDEN means you need to be sure. Borderline
http://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/analysis/optionrally-unveils-new-ladder-platform-simplifies-trading/ Press release or PR piece. primary source. Fail
http://leaprate.com/2013/11/optionrally-becomes-latest-cysec-licensed-binary-options-broker/ Press or PR, Fail
http://www.cysec.gov.cy/en-gb/public-info/announcements/ no idea. Where is OptionRally on this page? Fail
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmRegulator.do?sid=334347 directory entry. Fail
http://www.binaryoptions.com/ladder/ no mention of the org? Fail
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/technology/spotoption-launches-mobile-trading-platform-for-binary-options/ Joint Press/PR piece with another org. Fail

One of those references has since been replaced with a reference that doesn't even mention the org. What we have here is WP:BOMBARD. Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds the article does not have nominal notability. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of responding to User:Timtrent's concerns on the OptionRally talk page. I would appreciate if more of a discussion could be cultivated around this page's deletion. I'm invested in learning how to create strong articles, but I need constructive criticism, not just calls for deletion. User:Timtrent has taken his time in clearly explaning his reasons, but I would appreciate hearing from other users.

@Don4of4: Why do you say this does not even meet nominal notability? Mayapalm (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The contributing editor has asked on the article's talk page that this discussion be extended for a further period (ie relisted)). I am placing this request here on their behalf and am doing so in a neutral manner. Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for an extended 7 days, as I believe tomorrow is the last day. Thank you. Mayapalm (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As, indeed, they have now done in person. Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting per contributing editor's request Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 29 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, Nakon 03:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above notability concerns. --Non-Dropframe _talk 06:06, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity fraud

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Warm Worm (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is men's rights activism disguised as a legal information, violating WP:PROMOTION. Paternity fraud is not a legal concept, and the term occurs almost exclusively within MRA literature. Because of this, though the article has a large number of sources, they are almost all child support cases involving intentionally misrepresented paternity or news articles about those cases. None of the sources address the general topic of "paternity fraud," which, for a purported law article, violates WP:NOR. A version of this article meeting WP:NPOV already exists as misattributed paternity. The collection of minor cases—that, as far as I can tell, do not actually mention the concept of "paternity fraud"—with legal citations mask the fact that intentionally misattributed paternity does not itself meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, and there is no neutral reason for it to have an article of its own. – Warm Worm (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News search shows plenty of uses of this term, including in headlines and as a legal term - see here. Also, there is an old and lengthy discussion about merging Paternity Fraud and another article at Talk:Misattributed paternity. If the article is biased then it should be flagged and rewritten. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are news sources on particular cases, which is why the article so heavily relies on them, but I cannot find any reputable legal sources discussing the overarching topic, and without that I don't see how the article can avoid WP:NOR. Presenting this a distinct and notable kind of fraud is itself biased, and so I do not see how the article can be rewritten with a NPOV. Warm Worm (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Worm: Wikipedia does not require "legal sources discussing the overarching topic" for something to meet WP:GNG. There is more than enough coverage of the topic in reliable sources, in addition to specific cases such as this ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court, which refers to "paternity fraud" repeatedly, and, incidentally cites the articles "The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud" (Family Law Quarterly) and "When Daddy Doesn't Want to Be Daddy Anymore: An Argument Against Paternity Fraud Claims" (Yale Journal Law & Feminism). So there are your reputable legal sources discussing the overarching topic. You also have this description in the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, when it concured that this was a legitimate fraud and the case may proceed; in this ruling: "“Paternity fraud,” also known as “misrepresentation of biological fatherhood” or “misrepresentation of paternity,” “occurs when a mother makes a representation to a man that the child is genetically his own even though she is aware that he is not, or may not be, the father." Misattributed paternity is a more generic term that I can see covering everything from babies switched at birth, royal lineage, sociological impacts; basically things not related to criminal charges and case law. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia: WP:GNG requires secondary sources, and for a legal concept those should be legal sources. This is not an unreasonably high bar: if a putatively legal concept doesn't appear in any law textbooks and encyclopedias, why should it appear in Wikipedia? Both of the articles you mention specifically acknowledge that it is not a standard legal term: Henry says "In typical discussions, however, the phrase 'paternity fraud' is rarely used in deference to the preferred phrase 'paternity disestablishment,'" but he prefers "paternity fraud" for rhetorical reasons; Jacobs calls it "Part of the American vernacular." Warm Worm (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Iowa decision, it's worth noting, was that paternity fraud falls within "traditional concepts of common law fraud ," i.e. that some cases of lying about paternity are instances of ordinary fraud, which is really the opposite of finding that "paternity fraud" is a distinctive legal concept. We have non-legal articles for common ways of committing fraud like credit card fraud and internet fraud, but with only a handful of cases, paternity fraud would seemingly fall far below that standard. Warm Worm (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Worm: "WP:GNG requires secondary sources, and for a legal concept those should be legal sources." Nowhere does it say that a "legal concept" requires legal sources; though there is coverage in legal sources. Your belief that a legal concept should appear in "law textbooks and encyclopedias" for it to meet GNG is not required either. Whether or not you or anyone else feels it has met the burden of being a "standard legal term" is totally not relevant, nor is there anywhere that says that is required. There are content-specific notability guidelines for subjects such as academics, events, sports, etc, but none for law that would establish that as a guideline; if you feel strongly there should be one for law, you might propose that at WikiProject Law. Whether the better title is "paternity fraud," "paternity disestablishment" etc is also not relevant toward GNG; that goes to WP:COMMONNAME. Nominator is reminded to please review and follow WP:BEFORE prior to suggesting an AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My vote would've been to merge the topic with misattributed paternity, since it appears to be a type of misattributed paternity, however I'm not sure how you would handle cases where there has already been a discussion to merge the topics and it was voted down. The fact that people voted to keep the article separate suggests (doesn't prove, but suggests), that they also believe paternity fraud is notable enough to stand on its own. I do agree with you that I'd like to see more sources that directly discuss paternity fraud as a topic rather than a giant list of examples. I'd like to see if someone can do something with the article before deleting it. Bali88 (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Additionally, clicking the "scholar" link at the top is very helpful in this case. Brings back many more journal citations about paternity fraud. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia: Take a look at some of those articles.

"Discrepant paternity, or what father's rights discourse calls paternity fraud, has become a rallying point for segments of the fathers' rights movement..." ("Who's the father? Rethinking the moral ‘crime’ of ‘paternity fraud,’" Women's Studies International Forum)

"Along with discovery of misattributed paternity, and providing the rationale for its perpetuation, has been the construction of the crime of paternity fraud as a neo-legal entity. The broader discourse of 'paternity fraud' has become the dominant way of understanding the need for paternity testing and a facilitative medium forunifying men disaffected by the Family Court and Child Support systems. " ("Paternity Secrets: Why Women Don’t Tell," Journal of Family Studies)

"Some men have sought financial redress for misattributed paternity arguing that it amounts to ‘paternity fraud’" ("Paternity testing: a poor test of fatherhood," Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law)

"They used the rhetoric of men’s rights activists to express their feelings about their situations in the broad terms of the discourse of 'paternity fraud'" ("Paternity Testing and the Biological Determination of Fatherhood," Journal of Family Studies)

"Men across the country calling themselves victims of 'paternity fraud' have banded together to create public awareness about the issue, and to effect legislative change." ("Disestablishment of Paternity and the Future of Child Support Obligations," Family Law Quarterly)

"On the whole, men’s rights activists demonstrate themselves to be the site of the creation and perpetuation of a powerful discourse embodied in the notion of 'paternity fraud'. "Power, Discourse, and 'Paternity Fraud' (International Journal of the Humanities)

This is not what the literature looks like for established legal concepts. Warm Worm (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Warm Worm: There is simply no requirement for coverage of a concept to "look" a certain way, which is, of course, wholly subjective. Please review WP:GNG: the requirement is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which this subject meets. The mere existence of the article does not set any kind of legal precedent, nor does its existence prove or disprove whether the subject is "valid" as a concept; it simply summarizes a subject based on what has already been recorded in reliable, secondary sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Warm Worm:, I suspect you may have made a case for keeping the article, but restructuring it. If enough sources reference Paternity Fraud as rhetoric used by MRA's, that makes the concept notable. There are plenty such topics covered by wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of deception as to paternity does indeed satisfy GNG. Topics as broad as this one always do. This expression does appear in 'legal' sources, such as the Law Quarterly Review ("Paternity Fraud" (2007) 123 LQR 337). As an aside: The best legal sources are those which are primary authority, not textbooks, as evidenced by the rule of law forbidding the citation of textbooks in court, with certain exceptions, something tantamount to officially classifying textbooks as unreliable. James500 (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Westlaw shows 98 law review articles on the exact term, plus it is covered in Am. Jur. 2d, in C.J.S., in Restatement (2d) of Torts, in A.L.R., in a bunch of state practice series, and so on. Lexis shows about the same. GBooks shows about 1K hits, which I assume would indicate that at least some of the books would be reliable (like Family Law: The Essentials, 3rd ed., by William Statsky). GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important legal concept. Minor4th 14:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important legal concept. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 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 merge to Antonio Deinde Fernandez. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abimbola Fernandez

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

Individual of highly dubious notability. Not notable as a singer. Career is limited to minor backing vocals for Cobra Starship ([47] allmusic does not even credit her), an unsuccessful project in Madame Luxe, and part of a publicity stunt in Pink Grenade. Not notable as a daughter, notability is not inherited. Not notable as a model, just another working model. That just leaves coverage. Many of the sources are about her reported parents and do not even mention her and are there to puff up this bio. The Punch article is by her, not independent. The news.com.au is just a reprint of the New York Post article. That leaves the New York Post and Daily Mail Online promotional puff pieces. Both sensationalist publications that should be treated with skepticism. The latter is also largely a reprint of the former, so that's really just one article, which is essentially one event. The article is are largely based on PR material from SMH Records so is liable to be filled with deception. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very minor singer who comes no where close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her father is almost certainly notable even though he doesn't have an article. I don't think I know enough about Nigerian/Yoruban culture, royalty, etc, to create one but here are some sources on him[48][49][50][51][52][53]. She does have coverage in Daily Mail, New York Post, Mirror[54], Nigerian Herald[55], and brief stories on lots of music blogs, but there's very little that's of use, and a lot is about her father or where she's singing on somebody else's record. Someone write Antonio Deinde Fernandez and mention her there. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: I wrote the article about her father today and I mention her there. What do you think? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge ~~per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Subject of the article obviously meet WP:BASIC~~. I found The Punch News, Mobile News, The Nation Newspaper,Africa Top Success, The Mirror, Pan African Markets, YNaija,Rhodies World, Daily Records, Bellanaija, Daily Entertainment News, US Africa News, Hype Magazine, Encomium Magazine, Nigeria headlines, Brim times, to mention few. Lolz! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you list as Nigeria Headlines is actually from The Nation [56] and is a meaningless trivial piece. There's nothing on the Encomium link. The Punch article as mentioned above is by her, not independent. Brimtime is just a blog that says the New York Post article exists. Hype is another rehash of the New York Post article. Daily Entertainment news (your daily dose of gossip) is another rehash of the New York Post article. Rhodies World is the same stuff as in the New York Post. Daily Records is another rehash of the New York Post article. Bella Naija is just her talking about herself. The Mirror is another rehash of the New York Post article. Pan African Markets is another rehash of the New York Post article. YNaija is the same stuff as in the New York Post. Mobile News is another rehash of the New York Post article. Africa Top Success is the same stuff as in the New York Post. It all still comes back to one PR driven puff piece. Essentially a publicity event that did not garner continued coverage so is not an appropriate topic for an article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles cannot be deleted on the basis of the fact that one or more of its reliable sources discussed the same topic in as much as the sources are reliable sources. You mentioned that, she talked about herself in the "Punch Newspaper" and "bella Naija", right? If I may ask you, is she one of the editorial team? Is she the owner of the punch Newspaper? Did she published it herself? Is the Punch Newspaper and bella Naija not reliable sources? Is New York Post not a reliable source? Is " Daily Entertainment news" not a reliable source? Is the "Mirror" not a reliable source? Is " Pan African Markets " not a reliable source? Is "Rhodies World" not a Reliable Source? Is YNaija not a reliable source? You cannot be serious! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice misdirection there, pretending I've said something i never did. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly cannot delete this one. The worst that can happen is to merge it with her father's article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:19, 14 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see, all of the news stories are from January/February 2014 and are derivatives of the NY Post article. As such, they are considered the same source. So the depth of coverage is not there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly cannot delete this one. The worst that can happen is to merge it with her father's article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. The current sources either for Abimbola Fernandez or Bim Fernandez do not constitute significant, independent coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her father's article, Antonio Deinde Fernandez. I think he is clearly notable; she is probably not quite there yet. But a merge/redirect will retain the article history for possible recreation if she becomes more notable later. BTW, Wikic¤l¤gy, I see that you also created an article about her mother, but she does not appear to be independently notable and I have proposed redirecting/merging that article to the article about Antonio. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proposal, MelanieN. I have no objection to your proposer and I'm fully in support of it and this should be Merge too. I will leave a comment at Aduke Fernandez's talk page. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:28, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books of the Art

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

Incompletely published trilogy of books with no schedule for completion, so there's a little bit of crystal ballin' here. But the trilogy seems to be non-notable. The books themselves only appear notable because of a famous author. Mikeblas (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~redirect~~ There is some coverage (here:[57], and here: [58], but I think this can best be redirected to pages of the separate titles The Great and Secret Show and Everville, both of which need attention. As does the Clive Barker page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the problem here is that it's pretty common for us to have pages on series and trilogies. If the books have notability enough to merit individual pages then it's not out of the question for Wikipedia to have a page that details the series in more depth. This is one case where notability is inherited since the books were written with the idea that they were part of a series. Of course neither the books nor the trilogy would inherit notability simply because they were written by Barker, but the books are independently noteworthy. The articles most certainly need cleanup, though- I will say that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We typically keep pages for series of books where the books have independent notability or at least enough notability to where coverage for both books would merit at least one article (typically the series page). Even though the trilogy is incomplete, Barker has confirmed that this is a trilogy so it's not entirely crystal balling to say that it's a trilogy. It's unfinished, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the trilogy as a whole is non-notable. I've found some mentions of the trilogy in various sources like this one to where the series is discussed and that, paired with reviews of the books in the trilogy so far would provide notability for the series. Basically, just because there are only two books in the series doesn't mean that a series page is unwarranted. The page needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something to also take into consideration is that this is referred to in a LOT of different ways. Some refer to the books as the "Books of the Art". Others refer to it as "The Art Trilogy" and others just refer to them as "The Art". This makes searching very, very difficult, which any incoming editors will need to be aware of. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to put in the article is the series' connection with other books. It shouldn't run into fan trivia, but these books are all pretty much connected to one another, something else that individual series' pages can help with as opposed to just a bibliography section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 9 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is about something that does not exist. There are only two of these books, the second of which came out 21 years ago, and there is no proof there will ever be a third book. The first two books each have their own articles, and this article is just a rehash of those. So what is the point of this article, except to list "untitled third book." —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist- Barker and others have referred to this as a trilogy from the day the first book was published and is still referred to as a trilogy years later. Just because the third book has not yet been published doesn't mean that this isn't a trilogy or that Barker may not ever complete it. It only makes it an incomplete trilogy. Also, it's pretty standard to have a page for a series even if the books are independently notable or the series is only comprised of a few books. Saying that this trilogy doesn't merit an article because there's only a few books would set a pretty bad standard for a lot of series that are only comprised of a few works. I'm going to tag E.M.Gregory to see what he thinks of the current state of the article, which is very different from its original incarnation. Also, where would we add the information about the third book? To one article? Both articles? That seems a little unnecessary when the books have been defined as part of a trilogy from release and the series has received coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could remember the exact AfD, but I remember taking part in an AfD for a series where people tried to say that coverage for the individual books did not show notability for the series, however the AfD ended with the series page being kept because it was accepted that since the books were clearly established as part of the series (which was a trilogy, if I recall correctly) the coverage did count towards notability for the series. I think that DGG was part of that AfD, so I'm going to ping him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also sources like this one that do talk about the books as a trilogy and compare it to Lord of the Rings. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worldcat hold shows library holdings of 2163 for v. 1, 1800 for v,2. [59] This is enough to show likely notability; even in the overcrowded field of fantastic fiction for adolescents, these are very respectable figures. Libraries buy on the combination of reviews and demand, and this kind of library count represents significant importance, Of course notability of individual books implies notability for the series--the real question is the other way round,whether we should make one entry for the series, for for the separate books also. I usually go for the series, unless the books become famous. WP is written for the readers, and people interested in one are likely to be interested in the others. Merge the others into this probably, rather than delete this. What is true is that there is really no need for article on both. the individual book and the series. WP:N says that factors such as the GNG do not prevent making comprehensive articles asan editorial decision. , instead of dragging out into a separate article everything that could possibly be justified by GNG. If this were the authors only significant works, we could consider merging into the article on the author, which is often a good default position. But he has other important books -- Abarat , for example has over 2400 library holdings. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I bow to User:Tokyogirl79 and User:DGG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79 and DGG. Really people, why on earth are we trying to deny this is a trilogy when the author says it is? Jeez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 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 Speedied (A10) by Jimfbleak. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Redirected to Environmental justice as not everyone's a brilliant speller. –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enviromental justice

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

This appears to be WP:Soapbox DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a correctly spelled "environmental justice" article. Sandcherry (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A10 --Non-Dropframe _talk 05:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Environmental justice. —teb728 t c 06:41, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinian network

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

This article lacks WP:notability DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Google scholar lists three publications on this topic but they're all very recent and all by the same people. There's not yet any evidence that people outside this group consider this reformulation to be of any significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON maybe, but I do not expect this to become notable. Seems like a textbook example of fringe legitimate science, where one researcher thinks they are the new Newton but their colleagues just think of their research as an amusing gimmick. Tigraan (talk) 10:29, 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.