Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 28

< 27 November 29 November >

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 speedy delete. as WP:CSD#G7 and WP:CSD#G3. Would have been speedy deleted as pure vandalism anyway. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HeyJoey

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

I created it and I don't want it on here anymore Smk1396 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's a rough consensus to delete, even discounting SwisterTwister's comment which appears to be based on a misunderstanding. It's tempting to say we should give this the benefit of the doubt in an effort to fight systemic bias, but given that this doesn't even meet the requirements of WP:STUB, it doesn't seem worth saving. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi

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

Unreferenced article about an academic institution. One of many similar ones, none of which have significant hits on Google, by suspected former paid editor. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, it should be '"Arya Kanya Inter College" (Kanya is a Sanskrit word for Girl; both together doesn't make sense). Secondly, it seems like a chain of school run by the Arya Samaj in different parts of country - differentiated from one another only by the name of place they are situated at (few search results). These schools provide education up to intermediate level (12th standard).
I'm however not able to find any reliable source for this school in this particular district. All search results pop up "Arya Kanya Degree College" (degree = undergraduate;[1]). Also, list of schools in Hardoi district published by the Government of Uttar Pradesh doesn't mention this particular intermediate college, but degree college ([2]). May be it is upgraded from intermediate to undergraduate college, and has its name changed ('inter' replaced by 'degree'). OR, it was always a Degree college and since it offers also +2 education, is sometimes called, inter college by local population. I'm inclined towards second speculative view. For notability: Inter College has zero hits, and Degree College meets Gng - [3]. Anup [Talk] 04:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as these specific schools are never notable or considered otherwise notable, because it's only a "medium" school. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says a school is Hindi medium, it means the language for imparting education in the school is Hindi. It has nothing to do with anything else. Pratyush (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, Pratyush is correct. If this is the only basis for your !vote, you might want to change it. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Arya Kanya Degree College. Google does not provide results for "Arya Kanya Inter College" (it's correct name) situated in Hardoi district, there are many colleges of this name but no reliable source provide result for the one situated in Hardoi. And as already mentioned by Anup, local people often call the college having Plus Two as Inter College. Since the Arya Kanya Degree College started as a high school [4], move looks like a better option. Pratyush (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As we don't know what information in this article is relevant to the other college (whether they're the same or not) it'd make more sense to delete this and create the other. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've got nothing substantial to lose (1-sentence unreferenced stub with obvious wrong title). Starting afresh only seems reasonable and playing in safe hand. Adding to confusion, creator of this article also created Arya Kanya Degree College, Hardoi - which again we do not know if was an attempt to fix the page title or different institution (zero hits for an Indian school should not be very surprising). One will have to re-write the article from scratch anyway. @Pratyush: ping. Anup [Talk] 16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not completely against the article's deletion. If the same person created Arya Kanya Degree College, Hardoi (I was unaware of it), then probably this Inter College is not the Degree College (assuming the creator created these in good faith). I am removing my vote for now. Pratyush (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Hardoi. I'm assuming it's actually this institution and not the degree college that we're talking about here. It's also listed on the website of the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education, p.13. It's a secondary school, so should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - Source's have been found to verify the school exists which is the new consensus here, I could moan about Necrothesp's comment inregards to "longstanding precedent and consensus" but I shan't, Anyway keep. –Davey2010Talk 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should point out that there's absolutely nothing "new" about the consensus. I've been here for years and it's been the consensus for as long as I can remember, despite editors periodically popping up and claiming it isn't and it hasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there is - Consensus used to be that you could say "Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and it would be kept (I know because I used to do it plenty of times myself and would even close per that) ... now however simply saying that isn't enough and I think you know that otherwise you wouldn't of posted a source :), –Davey2010Talk 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have never cited SCHOOLOUTCOMES in that way (although I know some have). I have always used the form of words I've just used. And I can assure you that the consensus has existed for many years; in fact, since before anyone started citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES and before that redirect existed. I posted the sources to confirm (a) its name (since there was some confusion), (b) its existence, and (c) its status as a secondary school, which we have always required for a school to meet the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced for four and a half years, and there's no indication from a search that the sources required to meet WP:GNG exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage for Indian schools is next to none so there's alot of leniency when it comes to schools especially those in India, Ideally everyone woul prefer these to meet GNG however being realistic it wouldn't ever happen but that's no reason to get rid of it. –Davey2010Talk 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that seems to be how things often turn out in these discussions, Davey2010, but my view is that if there aren't sources, we shouldn't have an article. Wikipedia is based on what reliable, published sources say about topics, after all. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you choose to go against consensus? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to express disagreement with it, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No information i the article to establish notability. And regarding the usual Schooloutcomes comments: that is just a summery created by a very loud group but no law carved in stone, policy or even a guideline. The Banner talk 18:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not loud, just in the majority, as you have consistently refused to understand as it goes against your own views. SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely documents the fact (which even you surely can't argue against) that almost every single secondary school AfD is closed as keep. The loud lot are actually the minority shouting that they're right against the clear wishes of the majority. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice when you finally come with arguments instead of a summery that should not be used as a policy. The Banner talk 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm you wilfully misread what I write. Did I mention using it as a policy? Or did I say it was a summary of a consensus? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it is the way you use it on WP yourself. Acting as if it is a policy carved in stone. The Banner talk 14:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to work out the difference between policy and consensus. A consensus can exist even if a policy doesn't. This is the case here however much you cry that you're right and the rest of us are wrong. However much you believe that, you know very well that the weight of consensus is with me and not with you. How many secondary school articles are deleted at AfD? Exactly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the number of schools nominated for deletion by different editors, your "consensus" is at least a shaky one. The Banner talk 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the consensus point, while historically most secondary school AfDs have closed as keep, it's noticable how there has been an increase in the proportion of no consensus closes recently. Most recent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.E.F. Eden Garden Matriculation School. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename: Necrothesp's comment is convincing, article should be moved to its correct name and kept. Pratyush (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  How about a "no-sources" PROD?  If the article does not have a source in seven days, it gets deleted, and can be undeleted on request.  AfDs such as this one could be avoided.  There would need to be an exemption for the possibility of articles that can be verified without sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced. I'm really sorry to sound like a dickhead but the time it took you to write that comment you could've added the source yourself? –Davey2010Talk 23:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a serious proposal.  To repeat, "AfDs such as this one could be avoided."  One editor places the "No-sources-prod", and within seven days the article either goes away or somebody sources it.  If someone later doesn't like this, they can get the article restored.  If someone sources it, and it still goes to AfD, then "no sources" will not confound the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops sorry I thought you mean just for this article ...., In theory it sounds a great idea however not everyone has access to some of these sources and plus a good 98% of editors would never know this even existed so in the end we could potentially lose thousands if not millions of school articles, I do agree these AFDs are a waste of time but I'd rather these were brought here and sourced instead of having a prod added and subsequently deleted. –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no requirement for a WP article to be sourced, only to be sourceable, it would have to be Prod because unsourceable rather than unsourced, and that is often a matter of judgement and getting someone to work on it.The community needs to see them, to determine if they can be rescued, and AfD is the best way for that DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V is a core content policy that requires that articles be verifiable.  Articles that have no sources must normally be completely re-written, and AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point is that they never be will rewritten when kept. So the argument "AfD is not cleanup" effectively falls through on that point. The Banner talk 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because it fails WP:GNG and not because of some highly controversial unwritten observation. I guess WP:consensus can change, if there was any to begin with, especially if explicit rules are developed by other consensuses which can render such an implicit consensus redundant... --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially a WP:TNT at this point. I am finding it hard to verify whether this is indeed the same school. As there is only 1 sentence of content, I am opposed to changing this article/renaming it. I suggest to delete this and let someone create a new article with reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to String theory#Number of dimensions. (non-admin closure) Yash! 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-dimensional space

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

Article was made by a blocked user, and it is not notable enough. Spike789 🇺🇸 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article creator User:LittleWhole doesn't appear to be blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - ten is a pretty important, but not in this case, I think.Smmurphy(Talk) 00:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can I do to make this better? Sorry I am kinda new to Wikipedia (although I have a few years experience with Wikia) but I want to know how I can make this better. Do we want this deleted? From my view, simply this: We have pages for 10-polytopes, and all the other dimension pages are all just a round-up of all the data for the pages. I don't really want it deleted, I just want it to be just another round-up dimension page. (Sorry, I kinda am a math nerd, and I just LOVE multi-dimensional stuff.) LittleWhole (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added more information I added some more information to the article (Now it looks like just one of the other dimension pages.) LittleWhole (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the articles on n-dimensional space for n>5 could be titled, "list of mathematical objects which are particular to n dimensional space". For n=9 and n=10, that list is pretty much just n-polytopes, for which there is already a page. So n=9 and n=10 might be removed if there isn't more substance showing why a collection of mathematical objects in n-dimensional space is notable beyond the notability of n-polytopes. For n=10, adding more discussion of 10-dimensional spacetime as used in string theory could pass the bar, I think. For n=9, I am not sure, but something could be added to improve that page as well.Smmurphy(Talk) 01:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In other words, if a subject is notable only for one "sub-subject", then we might be better off with an article about the "sub-subject" than the subject (for instance, an author notable for only one book, then an article about the book might be better than an article about the author and another about the book). For people, this is the notability concern known as one event, and is sort of the problem here. Does that make sense? Smmurphy(Talk) 01:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, n=9 and n=10 aren't done. I'll add them to the stub category immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleWhole (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC) OK, I get what you're saying, but how about those 7-dimension and 8-dimension pages? It really doesn't make sense to me how they got past without deletion, since they are just a repeat of the previous page, however just up a dimension. LittleWhole (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shawn in Montreal: It said it was created by a blocked user, but that may be another article. I may have made a mistake on that one. But we still should delete the article, because I still feel that it is not notable enough. Spike789 🇺🇸 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the nominator's bolded !vote above per WP:AFDFORMAT, which explains why. Basically, it's one per customer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is currently nothing in the article that could not have been written for any other number of dimensions by substituting ten for that number every time it appears. Until there is something *specific to this dimension* to say about 10-dimensional spaces, we should not have a separate article on this topic. See Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): "Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties" [of this specific dimension]? As for the article creator: this was created long ago as a redirect by User:Lanthanum-138, who is indeed a blocked sock. LittleWhole converted it to an article today. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (yes, I used to be Lanthanum-138, but that was a while ago when I was significantly less mature). There's nothing really specific about 9D and 10D the way 7D and 8D have at least something (mostly stemming from the octonions). Double sharp (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, I finally give in. You may delete this page. LittleWhole (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about giving in, if you think you can improve it in the ways suggested. In fact, you are free to put the page in your user space and continue developing it. In the meantime, I don't think a delete is the right outcome, but rather it should revert to a redirect, as David Eppstein pointed out. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Element

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

No indication of notability. The company has, either under its old name "Extreme Element" or its current name "Experience Day", been involved in some Guiness world records and the like, compare for example this, but there is no significant coverage of the company itself in reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I literally found nothing at all and it's clear advertising alone, nothing negotiable with that of course. Policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING...Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman T. Dicklow

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

Becausewhynot Bobrown101 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Because why not" is not a proper reason. However, if you created the page, WP:G7 applies. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moot - it's been speedied.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quazi Sabir

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

The editor who has made this article has made only four articles. One about a company and the rest three are about the founders who are clearly not notable. Account appears promotional and may have some conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not for advertising. The person nor the company he found meet GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an ad WP:PROMOTION. Rameshnta909 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, and JSTOR, including by Bengali script name, found nothing deeper than the passing mentions already cited. Does not meet WP:BASIC. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Raqib

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

The editor who has made this article has made only four articles. One about a company and the rest three are about the founders who are clearly not notable. Account appears promotional and may have some conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not for advertising. The person nor the company he found meet GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Jacques

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

Page reads like advertisement or resume. Wikipedia is not the place for hosting either of these things. Pentupthere (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOAP applies.Rameshnta909 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was only able to find one independent source with significant coverage, and it was a blog. Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Nile

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Article was previously nominated in 2007 for lack of notability and was subsequently deleted; this version of the article was created November 26. Trivialist (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing keeping it from an A7 speedy are claims of appearing in films that won porn awards. No reliable sources in the article. Only RS coverage is an incidental mention or two. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a WP:MILL adult actor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No awards or nominations. No assertion of notability. Just another BLP without nontrivial reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue has been raised before and didn't pass then, even less reason for it to do so now. Furthermore, she is also a model as well as a dancer (her pages has been edited to reflect that) which takes her notability beyond merely WP:PORNBIO. Reliable sources have now been intered in relevant places.Holanthony (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the issues were raised before, the article was deleted. WP:PORNBIO explicitly includes adult models and the article lacks well-sourced claims for passing WP:ENT as a dancer. The sources you added are a passing mention in a book from a predatory publisher, links that don't even mention the subject, and several citations to men's magazines. Significant coverage by independent, reputable sources is still lacking. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now re-structured and partly re-written the article, and included several new RS (among them an article from a scientific journal), which should by far qualify as "independent, reputable sources". She does have other mainstream claims to fame, namely that she was a featured dancer on the Soul Train in the 1990s. She has also appeared in a couple of (non-explicit) video games. Thus, she should meet the notability claim in this capacity, at least for WP:ENT if not for WP:PORNBIO.Holanthony (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that her appearance on the Soul Train is also listed on IMDb, which I have now entered to the bio. She was a recurrent performer on the show and is this notable. For instance here:[5] [6]Holanthony (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Soul Train claim is particularly fishy. It surfaced on IMDB just about the time the AFD began here - note that it's not included in the versions archived earlier this year at the Internet Archive [7] and has essentially no Google hits supporting it. [8] It appears to be based on a misreading of a list circulated via message boards, where the claim is made for the performer immediately preceding this one. (Very NSFW link [9] It's strikingly odd that the claim has apparently never been made by the performer herself or in her publicity material, if it were to be true. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Heather Hunter may have been a dancer on the very same show does not negate the fact that Isis Nile has been featured on the show as well. Fact remains, the appearance in question is sourced by a WP:RS, and as such, it has been vetted by the editors at IMDb by whatever process they use. Your comment regarding that you find it "fishy" is not only WP:OR, it above and beyond falls under this argument and seems to be a blatant case of WP:JDL. Yours is not the role to invalidate reliable sources as per their acceptance by Wikipedia standards, even if you may not like what they say, or if they happen to contradict your world view. Holanthony (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDb is may be a reliable source for filmographies only. Their "process" for biographical information is crowd sourcing. Isis Nile's entry is credited to "A. Nonymous". Whatever reliable information coming from IMDb is generally not considered substantial for notability. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be that as it may, although her appearance on the Soul Train (of which there were multiple) does fall under "filmography" and is in this regard a reliable source. I believe this is fairly undisputed by the Wikipedia community at large. Even so, her appearance on that show is further supported by multiple additional sources, such as a mention on iafd.com (which is also considered RS) and in Petrovich's book. Both of which are sourced in the article. Holanthony (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAFD is composed primarily of user-generated content, and is generally not an RS. Even Wikiproject Pornography concedes that "Biographical information on film database websites are not considered reliable, and should not be used in articles", specifically listing IAFD. No one except you argues that user comments on such websites, which is where the claim regarding Nile appears on IAFD, are anything but grossly noncompliant with BLP requirements. Posting a comment offsite and than citing it yourself in a notability discussion is hardly good faith behaviour.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But now we were discussing the occurrence on IMDb, but I guess you chose to deliberately "misunderstand" that simple point. Holanthony (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, try, PLEASE TRY to read properly (if you are able) before embarrassing yourself further. My "previous" comment was a direct response to Gene93k. Which site does he refer to? I'll give you a hint (in case it's too challenging for you to read five paragraphs up from this one). It starts with an "I" and ends with a "b". Holanthony (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original research policy applies to article content, not discussions. This should be fairly obvious to anyone contemplating the idea. Rebbing 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has since been several edits made and the criteria should now be met for notability.Holanthony (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - GNG or even BASIC hasn't been met and so therefore should be deleted accordingly –Davey2010Talk 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to WP:GNG, the subject needn't be "the main topic of the source material" in order for the coverage to be deemed "significant". Her appearance on the Soul Train were frequent and thus not "trivial". She thus qualifies for notability as per Wiki guidelines. This seems more that this is a matter of WP:JDL. Holanthony (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributing to a show or other work is not the same thing as being covered, significantly or otherwise, by that work. Even if it were, there is no reliable sourcing for the claim that she has appeared on Soul Train. Rebbing 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDb is still considered reliable for filmography by Wikirules. You have a problem with that, I suggest to launch a motion to change the fundamental Wiki principles on RS. Holanthony (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "Wiki rule" declaring IMDb to be a reliable source. The use of IMDb filmography information appears to be uncontroversial, cf. WP:Citing IMDb (essay), and I have no objection to such use. Rebbing 00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Recently it was added that she appeared in mainstream media which is part of WP:PORNBIO as told by @Holanthony:. --Gstree (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you say it was uncredited? It is not listed as such on IMDb. On the contrary, she is credited as a "Dancer", and she has been featured multiple times. I say you vote be given no weight seeing as you see user-conspiracies on every single page discussion were your proposed deletions are challenged. Holanthony (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agreed, and I can't see that appearances on Soul Train can be considered as anything else BUT filmography. Thus IMDb is fully valid. Holanthony (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - IMDb isn't infallible. For less major credits, it's easy to add someone with a credit like "Dancer," and have it slip through. Also, as far as I can tell, Soul Train never credited their dancers onscreen, and no other dancers are listed on the episodes that she's credited for. So even if she did appear in the episodes listed by the IMDb, it's about like being an uncredited extra in a film—you may have appeared in the background of dozens of films, but that isn't enough to qualify you for an article. Trivialist (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, that's a completely different discussion isn't it? Whether or not IMDb fails in its filmography control or not? Still, that discussion only results in speculation wither way, fact remains that she IS listed, and that she IS credited, and that IMDb IS considered RS for filmography as the rules stand today. Furthermore, the appearance on that show is also supported by other sources such as the Perkovich source etc. Holanthony (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no rule declaring that IMDb is a reliable source for filmography or for any other purpose. Rebbing 01:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've already linked to at least one essay far above in this same AfD that pretty much says the opposite of what you've stated directly above. Are there better sources than IMDb for film/TV credits? Sure, but the fact remains that IMDb is used pretty extensively as a reliable source across a wide swath of Wikipedia at this late date. FWIW, there's nothing in this particular Wikipedia article here currently cited to IMDb that makes the subject of this article notable. Guy1890 (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability under any of the applicable guidelines.

    The available coverage falls far short of the significant, independent, and reliable coverage required by GNG and BASIC. Of the BIO additional criteria, ENT and PORNBIO points 1 and 2 are clearly inapplicable. The third PORNBIO criterion—multiple appearances in notable mainstream media—deserves analysis. Setting aside sourcing issues, Ms. Nile's supposed role as an unnamed dancer on Soul Train could be understood as her being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media," thus satisfying PORNBIO. However, read in context with the rest of the BIO guideline, and appreciating the significance indicated by the word "featured," I do not believe such a permissive interpretation is correct. Instead, I read the criterion to require that the pornographic performer have appeared in and been covered personally and significantly ("featured") by multiple mainstream shows: this aligns with the intent of BIO and the purpose of the notability requirement.

    Furthermore, even if PORNBIO were met here, PORNBIO, as with the other BIO additional criteria, is to be used in mine run cases where notability is plausible; it is not to be used to find notability where notability is obviously lacking. See BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); cf. WHYN. Ultimately, the notability requirement isn't about whether or not someone deserves to be included; it's about whether or not it's possible to write a balanced (NPOV), reliable (RS), useful article based on secondary sources (OR, SYNTH). Rebbing 03:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources are mediocre, the coverage is slender rather than significant, and possibly appearing as an uncredited dancer on Soul Train is not a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Procedural close (deleted A7). (non-admin closure)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Fernald

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

Can't find reliable sources here, doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR, nor does she seem to meet WP:GNG. This seems WP:TOOSOON  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought about nominating A7 but thought there might be something there given the acting claims. I'll leave it up to the admin who closes the CSD. (I didn't see your CSD tag as we edited within seconds of each, else would have just left it).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it: Annie, I can only assume, is Annie (2014 film). There's nothing about this person there. I can't find anything about The Beauty and the Beast other than Beauty and the Beast (2017 film). Again, nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions stage acting, so I don't think it refers to films or tv shows. Stage actors can be notable for their stage performances (though i think in this case she is not).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if there haven't been load of stages for both Annie and The Beauty and the Beast, so it's hardly significant. Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite probably yes.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dyler Delegen

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

biography that does not meet WP:BIO or our general notability guidelines for inclusion. There is no in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The only references in the article are self-published. I could not find any reliable sources in Google about this 15 year old boy. Having thousands of followers on social media is an insuficient criteria for establishing notability. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no credible claim of notability. Even the award (no citation) doesn't amount to meeting GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I failed to find sources for the award or his winning of it. No serious claims of notability, and gsearch didn't turn up sources showing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the comments above. I am not finding anything yet either to establish notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as clear WP:NOT material alone, "potential article" be damned. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Moore

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

PROD removed without explanation by an IP with no other edits. Rationale of the PROD stands: never played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the difficulty we have in working with mostly non-English sources about complicated aspects of Islamic theology, consensus here is that this concept does not meet the requirements for a (new) article of its own. There's disagreement about whether to redirect anywhere, but that can be editorially resolved by somebody creating an appropriate redirect.  Sandstein  18:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth in Muhammad

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

I can't find any reliable source about this concept. Google search returns nothing "Truth+in+Muhammad"&oq="Truth+in+Muhammad"&gs_l=serp.3..0i8i30k1l10.3379.3600.0.3856.2.2.0.0.0.0.96.175.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.2.175.97IXxr8hEeQ. Also, the source cited in the article does not mention Muhammad at all.[10] Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was actually about to tag with a notability tag and our edits crossed. Not sure what the Arabic source says, but I can't find English language sources for this term. There might be a better name for it that the creator is not aware of in English because they don't seem to have that great of a grasp of the language in the article. That being said, until sources are shown demonstrating that this concept is notable and isn't WP:OR, the article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I wrote about a theory in Islamic philosophy which is not translated to ebglish by writers , the english source it about trinity .

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the content is sourced it should probably be merged into the article on Muhammad Haqiqa. There does not seem to be enough in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources to meet the requirements for a separate article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current sources I believe notability is not met, but since I have no knowledge on the subject and I do not speak arabic I can't be sure that there aren't other sources, so based on comments bellow I prefer to withdraw my recommendation to delete.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete article is about a philisophical Islamic theory so all its sources it with arabic language , this article should not be deleted.--Bilal philosopher (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Haqiqa. The article is referring, I think, to the Sufi concept of truth, for which the Arabic/Persian/Urdu word is wiktionary:حقيقة/wiktionary:حقیقت (haqeeqat or haqiqa or even hakekat). For alternative languages, the page links to ar:الحقيقة المحمدية, which is a mess, but which is clearly about the same concept. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is the correct use of redirects, as "The Truth in Muhammad" isn't a likely search term for a concept within Sufism, so perhaps it should actually be deleted. In any case, I hope @Bilal philosopher: will be happy to see much of the ideas of this article already at the Haqiqa page.Smmurphy(Talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: yeah al haqiqa almohammadiah is a sufi concept but is defferent from al haqiqa , al haqiqa or tariqa or shriâa are maqam مقام ، but الحقيقة المحمدية is about the nomenon soul of our prophet Muhammad slm , like the divinity of Christ in christianity , dont redirect it ,you can change title to Al-haqiqa Al-Muhammadia .. --Bilal philosopher (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. The title should probably be, "Al-Haqiqa al-Muhammadiyya" or "Al-Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyya". The whole thing, then, is closely related to Nūr (Islam) (in particular, the third paragraph of Nūr_(Islam)#Classical_commentaries). There is also a page for the Alevi concept, Haqq–Muhammad–Ali, also related. But maybe it should have its own page. @Bilal philosopher:, you might have a better article if you use those titles as search terms in google books and expand the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: : haqq-Muhammad-Ali is better , but we cant redirect it on , I'm not sure about the faith of Alevis because it unkown for Alevis themselfs, what the article is about a theory of Ibn Arabi's theories الحقيقة المحمدية ، Al-haqiqa Al-Muhammadia , the Muhammadan reality us better look that look the new sources in article .--Bilal philosopher (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you are saying. I think we agree about the name of the topic you intended to write about. In English, that topic is referred to by an Anglicization of the Arabic, either as "Al-Haqiqa al-Muhammadiyya" or "Al-Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyya". "The Truth in Muhammad" or "The Reality in Muhammad" are not as correct, in my opinion. They are literal translations and occasionally used, but would not be as easily recognized as referring to this concept. The current sources in the article are not very good, and the text of the article is poorly written. Of the sources, Kitab ta'rifat by Al-Jurjani is a primary source and doesn't really work, and the other three are websites, one of which is not about the subject and the other two of which are not reliable. To improve the article, I recommend using sources from books which are published by reputable publishers, see [11] or [12]. I think the foundational source in modern times on the subject seems to be Chodkiewicz 1993, particularly pages 60-73[13].
My current !vote is redirect to Ibn Arabi#The Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya or weak keep and rename "Al-Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyya". Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of progress on the article, I tend to agree that there is nothing to keep.Smmurphy(Talk) 15:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I would call this article a violation of WP:OR, but it doesn't even seem substantial enough to be considered research at all; it's more likely a WP:NOTADVERTISING issue. Of the sources, one is to a Christian apologetics website and thus is irrelevant. Two are to the website of an organization obviously trying to make a name for itself, especially given the arguments by the article's creator here: the website's name is literally "the Muhammadan Reality" and this appears like an attempt to promote their site via Wikipedia. The last source is an unqualified citation of the dictionary Jurjani Definitions with no page number, edition or any information at all, thus there's no way to independently verify the citation. This should be an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In any renaming case, the title should not start with "The" or "Al-" per WP:THE. Also, since this is a concept, "reality" or "haqiqat" should not be capitalised. Personally, I'd !vote for a weak delete per WP:TNT due to the original research. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:NOTSYNTH, WP:ORIGINAL big time. These kinds of attempts at advocating propaganda should not be allowed...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dreams (bed retailer). apparent consensus. Madarchen, please do the merge. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleep Matters Club

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

Non notable online magazine promoting Dreams company Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Dreams (bed retailer). No need to get rid of this entirely. Adam9007 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agreed this info belongs on Dreams (bed retailer) page. Not independently significant to merit it's own wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find any independent sources that even mention it, so it doesn't even warrant a mention in the dreams article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi guys. Firstly, sorry if I'm doing this wrong; I'm new here! Despite being the original writer of this article, I do agree that perhaps it would be better for The Sleep Matters Club to go in the main Dreams article. I also wanted to point out that there are many sites who mention The Sleep Matters Club; 3 of which are mentioned in the SMC article. Since Wikipedia defines an independent source as "Any source which the subject does not have any immediate control over", it seems fair to describe The Daily Mail, The Metro and The Huffington Post as independent sources.Madarchen (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are mentioned in the references only because they wrote the articles that is NOT indepth secondary coverage of the magazine though! Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Fuzheado | Talk 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ohio State University attack

2016 Ohio State University attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a few injuries, no deaths (aside from the gunman), suspect identified and killed , does not seem worthy of having a standalone article. If something is to happen to the article, it should be redirected to List of school shootings in the United States Andise1 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest withdrawal. First of all, you're asking this to be redirected in an AfD. Also, there is currently a merge discussion open. I see no valid reason given for this. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this time. Premature; there is no deadline. Investigation has barely started. General Ization Talk 18:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep. Being covered by the major national media as a significant event. If it turns out that it was caused by a bad breakup. We can revisit. But keep at least for now because that AFD makes Wikipedia look stupid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep G0T0 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. --143.105.17.185 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Come on. The attacker hasn't even been identified yet. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and come back in a month or so if it there are still concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Strongly support keeping this article as a significant event. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Not a strong basis for a deletion. 'Few injuries, little known attacker'. Can easily be compared to the Chelsea Bombings in Manhattan. Recommend a keep. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly urge the next editor coming to this page to CLOSE this discussion. We can always revisit after the dust settles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the next editor coming to this page says delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. How can something that happened a few hours ago have possibly attracted coverage in the secondary sources that this encyclopedia is supposed to be based on? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should look at the cited sources for the article to confirm that it did. General Ization Talk 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds of Mass Production

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpbT 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Bhatia

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article makes no claim of notability, simply asserting that "she exists, the end", and no reliable source coverage about her is present to support it. An actor is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; reliable source coverage about her in media must demonstrate that she passes NACTOR for something to make an article become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable minor actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When her only movie itself is not notable enough to merit a page, what is the need for her to have one.PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Barnes

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

Does not seem to meet the criteria WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've linked the subject's Google Scholar profile in the article. There's one paper listed that's obviously not hers - a 1959 article in the Journal of Nuclear Materials. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She is an editor-in-chief of the journal Philosophy Compass[14] (I added the info about that to the article), so possibly passes WP:PROF#C8. The journal is indexed by the WebOfScience and by Scopus, for whatever it's worth, but I don't know how well' established and well-regarded this journal is in the field. 20:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs)
  • Provisional Delete. Early career academic. Only possibility for keep is a technical pass of the WP:PROF#C8 guideline. Probably WP:Too soon as now. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Philosophy Compass is a respected (if unusual) journal, and Barnes has sole-authored papers in top journals (Mind, Nous, etc.) attracting good numbers of citations. Her book has just been published with OUP, and has forthcoming reviews in the Journal of Moral Philosophy and The Australasian Journal of Philosophy; two high-profile and well-established philosophy journals. These won't be the only reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are respected within this field. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Philosophy Compass is a leading journal, and Barnes is a prominent contemporary philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.108 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC) — 137.54.22.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The list of publications and editorship of Philosophy Compass suggests she meets WP:PROF Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most above. It seems this person passes WP:PROF. --Oakshade (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pass of WP:PROF#C8. There may also be a case for WP:AUTHOR (though I admittedly don't know much about reliable philosophy sources). In addition to the reviews that Josh Milburn points out, The Minority Body (2016) has been reviewed in The Philosophers' Magazine and NDPR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added those citations to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Normally, we don't keep associate professors, but she seems to pass the "PROF test" otherwise. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flamur Vehapi

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Only one independent review. No substantial coverage in the media. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not cut it as described by the nominator. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Gynocratic Art Gallery - The GAG

The result was Already deleted by Orangemike per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could find nothing notable on the web about this gallery and does not seem to fulfill the WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Seems like a promotional article. Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some better searches than the ones above:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus turned to a "keep" after the article was cleaned up with decent references attached. Joyous! | Talk 00:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No One Is Alone (song)

No One Is Alone (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song is not the focus of any of the references given here, which discuss their writer and the overall musical production and only seem to mention this particular song in passing. No other independent in-depth discussion was forthcoming. Conversion into a redirect might also be a viable outcome. KDS4444 (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - per nom. Doesn't appear to have any notability outside of the scope of the musical its from. The reception section is short and mostly mundane single word/phrase direct quotes pulled from play reviews - completely lacking in sourcing and substance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-assess Article has been improved since the AFD. If notability wasn't established before, I believe it has been now. Among other things, a cover of the song was nominated for a Grammy Award. Analysis of the song is also present in a variety of sources - and I haven't even scratched the surface.--Coin945 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author has improved the article since nomination with references that clearly indicate this particular song has stand-alone notability beyond its context within the show. Especially a Grammy nomination, plus being quoted by President Obama. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this song is obviously notable. Added appropriate wikiprojects. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Graham (supercentenarian)

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

The subject of this article was once recognized by Guinness (retroactively) as having been verified the oldest person ever to live, although now it seems that was not the case and they have retracted their recognition. Regardless, what is important here is that there is insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N’s criteria for a standalone article; what is here seems to be trivial mentions of this individual's former record.

Due to the contentious history of editing surrounding World’s Oldest People topics, it behooves me to emphasize that there is no policy on Wikipedia claiming that the oldest living person in the world is automatically notable. People will still claim this anyways (because people always come to these discussions to vote keep without reading the nomination), but it is not true; there have been at least five cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was deleted or redirected through discussion/consensus: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. This means that “oldest people” articles are judged on their individual merits and that the only relevant criteria are the general guidelines at WP:N, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Since Graham seems to have been discovered after the fact, it seems unlikely that there was significant contemporary coverage and, regardless, notability is not based on theoretical sources. Moreover, the article itself says “Little is known about Graham's life.” Any material of encyclopedic merit here can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia Canadian Paul

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with the nominator, both about this specific subject failing to meet our notability rules and about the threshold for determining notability of people alleged to have been especially long-lived. Often, in these discussions, longevity enthusiasts assert that a supercentenarian is inherently notable or that any holder of some mythical record or championship for elderliness is inherently notable. While that might be true under their understanding of the meaning of the word "notable" in everyday conversation, it is most assuredly not true as notability is defined in our guidelines. I can find none of the coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources that would cause a subject to be notable under our Wikipedia definition. David in DC (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Aside from the lack of coverage, as usual there's nothing in the article after strip away the discussion of the longevity horserage -- NOPAGE. EEng 04:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable supercentenarian with no coverage in reliable sources. The four references would most likely have her in some table somewhere. This is far from significant coverage. This article will never expand beyond anything that could be in a list of but I'm not seeing a good redirect. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the "oldest person ever recorded" has a lot more to do with records not covering births very well. I have done enough indexing of birth records around the start of the 20th-century in Texas to know that actually recording the given name of the child was not a universal practice in that time and place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. It is the research done in this case that is one of the examples why age validation is necessary, and would therefore serve as evidence that not every claim to supercentenarian research is necessarily true - unfortunately, people seem to have forgotten this over the course of time and seem to take Internet sources over research published in scientific journals. Therefore, a redirect is still an appropriate solution in my view, as this case serves to illustrate the history of age validation. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addition, forgot about this... : Moreover, Martha Graham's case also represents how the world's oldest people are, in fact, notable in themselves, as she was researched over a long period of time - thus showing she was not a one-off event, but was able to capture scientists' interest for several decades. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to provide the sources. I think keeping this article on the basis that sources "might" exist is a very weak argument. She also isn't mentioned in the US supers list either so I'm not really seeing a good reason to merge/redirect. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, please note that the first three votes in this AfD were made by members who always appear in supercentenarian AfDs and always vote in favour of deletion; as a result, the votes they have case do not represent a third-party, non-biased, random member's point of view. Evidence for this would be, for instance, EEng's comment in the AfD regarding Susie Gibson (see [20]), where he said to have been "thrilled to say [he got his] very own starring role as villain" - therefore, these votes seem to come across more as a personal vendetta towards people representing the field of gerontology than votes based on logic. Second, also take into consideration that an AfD is not decided by the number of votes cast, but by the strength of arguments given - an argument such as the ones made by CommanderLinx and Johnpacklambert, which is my third point, is a weak one in this case, as even the Wikipedia community has indicated that old age alone in itself can be a sign of notability. An example of this would be [21], where it was decided that Sarah Knauss' life was notable. As such, old age alone can inspire other people and the media to take note of this and gives these people plenty of media coverage. Therefore, I do feel that a case such as Martha Graham is still notable - the case had been researched in the 1970s (by A. Ross Eckler, Jr.), in the 1980s (by Guinness World Records), and in the 1990s (by Louis Epstein), before finally being debunked in the zeros. Although, unfortunately, this material no longer appears to be online - if it ever was to begin with - this does not mean the sources do not exist; its mere coverage alone has existed for over forty years (showing this is not a case that has simply come and gone), and therefore I feel that a redirect is definitely a respectful and appropriate gesture for this case. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it's amusing that Robert Young's still preoccupied with Wikipedia more than four years after he was banned for sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, self-promotion, edit-warring, POV pushing, COI, personal attacks, violating his topic ban, and any number of other things over the years (I was one of the people who provided evidence of his sockpuppetry), that says nothing about me or my vote here. Knowledgeable editors typically vote delete on longevity bios because so many of them were created by people who didn't (or wouldn't) understand notability. EEng 21:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even the Wikipedia community has indicated that old age alone in itself can be a sign of notability."
    • Looking through the article alerts archive (here) suggests there is no consensus that old age makes you notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barkur Shantharam Shetty

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

I declined the speedy deletion of this as I don't think G11 applies but I can't find any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Of the four currently in the article, one is primary, one is Blogspot and two are youtube. The article claims he is a politician but I can find nothing to verify he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Looks like some of the poor sources were removed. The only other source I could find was this, which only mentions him in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and Meatsgains. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Fails WP:GNG.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 14:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alenia (artist)

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

Fails to meet the notability guidelines for WP:ARTIST. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find information to establish notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club La Persé

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

This club is in the news as some famous personalities attended this club, but the news reports which discuss this prominently are about a band Club La Persé. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in RS and lacks significant in depth coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Meatsgains. I shovelled out some borderline db-g11 marketing two days after it was created, but the notability issue still hasn't been addressed. Famous people might have been there, but WP:Notability is not inherited, and it only gets passing mentions in articles about them. 20:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabiguru NCTC

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

This college was established in 2015 and is not covered in media or recognized by education department of West Bengal. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG; the only sources that I can find are the official website and a Facebook page; no significant coverage at all Spiderone 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Degree-awarding institution established by the state government.[22] We keep such institutions by longstanding precedent and consensus. Rename to its full name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Colleges are kept when their existence is verifiable (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Pratyush (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Per comment by User:PratyushSinha101.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 08:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark Babies

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

Cross-wiki spamming. No in-depth coverage from any sources. Almost all sources are from their own website or self-publishing Mys_721tx (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Florich Trading Company Ltd. has been a specialized manufacturer of high quality baby and children’s wear for leading brands in Europe, Australia and Middle East since 1985. In 2004, Florich entered into an agreement with Hallmark Cards Inc. in the USA." This is pure and simple Asian market brand licensing using a known brand that does nothing except collect the checks and makes sure the brand isn't associated with something tawdry, and doesn't have a foothold the main Hallmark brand does judging from this entire article being obvious WP:PROMO copy. Nate • (chatter) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parasram Gurjar

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

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:1E (his alleged notability stems from maybe being very old but maybe not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday") and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. There is no Wikipedia policy that grants automatic notability to people of an extreme age (numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits), which makes WP:N the relevant policy. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. While it looks like there is a lot of coverage here, most of the references are clones or near-clones of two reports: 1) a claim that he was the world's oldest person and 2) his obituary a few months later. This means that he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. There's nothing here of encyclopedic merit that could not be covered by the longevity claims article and thus no need for a standalone article. Canadian Paul 14:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or merge to wherever we put highly questionable claims). "According to his family, he was believed to be the oldest man in India..." On this we base articles? EEng 19:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sure there are lots of people who lived long times unverifiably, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Arguably it is too positivist a project for the post-modern world we live in, but the other choice is utter chaos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are only claims here, no actual convincing parts of notability and substance, hence delete as there's simply a "perhaps the oldest" story here; it's best part of something else, not its own article, SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SwisterTwister's comments. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability is clear and the reliable and verifiable sources -- including national newspapers -- backs up that claim. The argument for deletion from the dreaded "utter chaos" is completely worthless BS. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Secondary sources mentioned here are obituaries, not enough to make it notable...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage of this subject is very sparse. In a couple cases, the refs are essentially duplicates - one obit's facts lifted almost verbatim from one source and reprinted in another. Taken together, there simply is not sufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Beyond that, the claim of longevity isn't backed by the reporting. When the best we can say in the encyclopedia is:

    "According to his family, he was believed to be the oldest man in India. He allegedly died at the age of 125..."
    and
    "The Medical Board of Madhya Pradesh has officially certified that Gurjar is more than 90 years old, although it could not certify that his age exceeded 90 years. The family... has written to... India Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad to make arrangements for verification of age of older people. Besides that, they have also written to the Guinness World Records..."

    then WP:NOPAGE applies.

    And while this is a very funny detail: "Shortly before his death, he asked his grandson... to fetch him some water from the Narmada river. After drinking the water, he collapsed and was hurriedly sent to Hamidia Hospital..." it's not really the stuff of an encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Murphy (reporter)

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

Has no citation and does not pass notability guidelines Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She is a high-profile New York City reporter who has won a lot of awards. I am not sure the recent additions to this page have actually improved it, in Wikipedia terms; the page now reads as a more promotional text than it used to. [23] In any case, it's true that this page currently lacks independent sources to substantiate notability, although I have restored and updated a link to her bio page at WPIX. It's often difficult to find sources about reporters (as opposed to reports of their work), but Google searches reveal a number of potential sources of varying strength, such as: National Catholic Reporter [24]; The Irish Echo [25]; Staten Island Advance [26]; NYU's Archives of Irish America [27]; New York Times [28][29]("one of the most experienced and professional of New York television reporters"); Queens Chronicle [30] (just a namedrop, but it calls her "a Queens celebrity"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she was in the Hartford market one over, only her own station bio and the Courant would be reporting on her in any way. Another average New York market reporter whose notability is artificially trebled just for being in a large market that has tabloids which need to fill space with TV news personality goings-on. Also a large WP:RESUME violation. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems more appropriate for a LinkedIn profile rather than a wikipedia article. The fact that is lacks sources indicate it is promotion, original research. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable TV reporter lacking substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to a new sourced article, or a redirect to a mini-bio at KPIX or other appropriate target.  Since article has no sources, it requires a complete rewrite; but the topic is wp:notable.  Since "Fails WP:V" has no WP:DEL-REASON, WP:IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, possibly bordering on keep. There are multiple assertions that various offline works, including several explicitly mentioned, contain sources that demonstrate notability, but which have not been added to the article yet as collating them is hard work that would be wasted if the article is deleted. Given this has been open well over a month I think it's clear that continuing to argue will not change any minds, so I'm closing this as "no consensus" and encourage those wanting to keep this article to improve it and those wanting to delete it to give them sufficient time to do that before considering another nomination. I would also suggest a moratorium on the nomination of other bus route articles to allow time for those who want to work on them to do so, but I realise that this can be no more than a suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 109

London Buses route 109 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very much a non-notable bus route. Nordic Nightfury 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its one of Croydon's oldest bus routes. I've seen plenty of books available with this route included in it, but haven't bought them myself and right now I don't have the time to dig through my book collection as Im too busy with college. Surely 11Expo or Andrew Davidson may have some books or web sources mentioning this route. Another fact that makes it notable is that it was the first route in London that was allocated with the next generation Enviro400 MMC. Class455 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick browse shows that the route goes back at least 64 years to 1952 when the notorious Derek Bentley used it. The article just needs more work to develop this long history. Andrew D. (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I find some good coverage in the Routemaster Omnibus. This explains the history of the route, which was formed from tram routes 16 and 18 in 1951, and provides some good colour – one of the 109s ended up in service at Kitty Hawk and Niagara Falls. Andrew D. (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage is actually in there? Last time you found 'good coverage' on a bus route, it turned out to simply be a picture of a bus on that route Forgive me that based on previous experience of your assertions, I don't want to take your word that there is 'good coverage' Jeni (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni! Never judge the depth of coverage in sources provided by the Colonel just from the limited view you can see online. Always assume he has the physical book, which might have much more detailed coverage that you can see by any convenience link to google books. I recall one time back in 2010 when the Colonel and I attended a London meetup with Sue Gardener , to see what could be done about deletionists. Then as now bus routes were a common target – the Colonel had brought a whole stack of books on buses from his private library, so all could see the detailed coverage that London bus routes receive. Huh, thinking back to 2010, I remember in those days you were one of the best defenders of these articles. And not just the articles, you were also one of the most effective defenders of ARS heroes like Ikip when they used to get witch hunted on ANI. Maybe we didn't show our appreciation enough at the time, but some of us in the ARS used to call you our Penelope Pitstop due to your similar charm and as you both liked to adorn yourselves with pink. Heart breaking to find something seems to have turned you again buses, and made you determined to destroy what you once sought to protect and preserve. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be evidence of a cabal organised offline. Also more personal attack than relevant to the issue in hand.Charles (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors attending a Wikimedia meetup is hardly evidence of a "cabal". WP:AGF. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than two of us and the cabal is open to even more members. Come along to the next meeting. You can even go there by bus and the London Transport Museum is nearby. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited from incidents that happened to be on a route, a criminal using a bus, the eventual fate of a bus. Only secondary coverage specifically about the route matters.Charles (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oh dear, the serial 'keepers' are here! There is absolutely nothing noteworthy about this route. My right shoe has more notability than this route. Jeni (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh dear, the serial deleter is here! ;)" You don't understand that more sources are available out there that can establish notability. We also need to come to a uniform consensus across the board about individual bus routes rather than just nominating them for deletion. Either we work together and improve the articles by finding sources or hinder the project by deleting them all.After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Class455 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Consensus is that each subject (route) has to stand or fall on its own secondary coverage. See WP:NOTINHERITED.Charles (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of the few routes that is worthy of inclusion, has a history dating back many years. Support User Andrew Davidson's rationale Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Assertions that there must be significant secondary sources out there somewhere can be made for pretty much any subject. When somebody does the research and actually finds them they can recreate the article, nicely written as prose and full of encycyclodic interest. If it is kept now it will just sit there for years in much its present state, an embarrassment to Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This route was created in 1951 and there is substantive history (see this revision pre-pruning), and generally speaking bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent and not often changed. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in the revision of the article I have linked to. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. It is highly hypocritical of Jeni to state that the serial "keepers" are here- since the end of February 2016 she has commented on the deletion of 57 bus routes and voted to delete 56 of them- so really, don't call the kettle black, it's not a good look. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was pruned did not have any sources!Charles (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, Charles, hence why it is not the current revision. However, the editor who added the text must have got the information from somewhere, hence posting that diff on this AfD is relevant to show that the bus route in question has got substantive history. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A venerable bus route with a storied history. Examing the coverage in sources mentioned above and in the article, WP:GNG is easilly met. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it.Charles (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable bus route, fails gng. –Davey2010Talk 21:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is easy to find sources; one simply has to look. I browsed for a few seconds and found another one – The Colours of London Buses. Andrew D. (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a passing mention which does not establish notability.Charles (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of bus routes in London I do not see the significant coverage required and neither any claim of significance. Most cities do not have individual bus routes and London is no different. For a bus route to be notable, there needs to be significant coverage about the route explaining why it is notable or if it has had any notable effects on history and culture of the region. I do not see that here. Also, notability cannot be inherited from some events/descriptions which are passing mentions or at best tangentially related to the bus route (such as this). Unless someone out there actually writes about it and we have secondary coverage, this article should be redirected. (Note: I prefer a redirect instead of a delete here because the article has existed for a long time. I would also like to preserve the history. In case someone finds significant coverage in secondary sources, it can be restored. But the article as of now and the sources at this AfD are not good enough). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 13:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - If the article is to be kept, it needs to be restored to the pre-pruned version which then needs to be properly sourced. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete all or none -- We need consistency. Most London bus routes numbered below 200 have articles. We have in the past deleted great swathes of bus route articles, but I think we left these London ones as having significant duration and stability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does the numbering system have to do with whether the subject meets WP:GNG?Charles (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: _all_ London bus routes (indeed any bus route world-wide which has a history) is notable in and of itself. WP isn't an index of what is now but also of what has been, and the route articles show what has happened to them over time. The simple list of current routes provides zero information over what Google or the route operators provide. This is an encyclopaedia, it should behave like it. --AlisonW (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except this bus route isn't notable, Never was and never will be, Exactly we're an encyclopedia and we should act like one- Not host every single non notable article. –Davey2010Talk 20:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for consistency we've deleted others also and there's simply nothing amounting to genuine substance for its own article; with this said, it's best simply part of a list. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, consistency indicates that we should keep the article as with other London bus routes – see category:Bus routes in London, which is well-populated with numerous other pages. London bus routes are typically historic, notable, covered by Wikipedia and kept at AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are more often deleted.Charles (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each article should be assessed on its own merits as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistency; they can swing either way a lot of the time depending on who takes part. There is not even a guideline, which I find to be a shame, as consistency is needed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG spectacularly. Article currently has 4 references, one to Go-ahead London (not independant of the article subject and not useable for claims of notability), two from Transport for London (not independant of the article subject and not useable for claims of notability) and one from a highly specialised book about Bus colours in the 1970's where it rates a small mention as part of a much larger subject. In no way does this fulfil the GNG's criteria of "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has not kept up with the discussion above in which additional substantial sources such as the Routemaster Omnibus have been identified. I am waiting for this discussion to be closed before improving the actual article because it is obviously wasteful to do such work while it is threatened by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless 'Routemaster Omnibus' is an entire book about Route 109 (which it isnt, it is about the Bus) it still fails GNG as it does not indicate significant coverage. Secondly an AFD is weighed on the article as it is written, not on hypothetical articles as yet unwritten. If you have better sources include them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's nonsense. Most of the articles on Wikipedia don't have books written about them. Notability is just a guideline and it suggests significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." We have plenty of such material for this route and so we're good. As for AFD, we don't require immediate improvement as, per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats nonsense is you have yet to actually present some sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG despite being asked more than once now. Could you now please do so or refrain from badgering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have presented multiple sources which satisfy WP:SIGCOV. "Only in death" does not seem to have ever written an article on Wikipedia while I have created hundreds myself. From this experience, I have a good understanding of what's required and this topic has got what it takes. It is far from perfect right now but it is our policy that it doesn't need to be. It's not a high priority like BLP or medical topics and so it will just have to wait its turn. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally I would keep articles on all bus routes, but there is not consensus for that view. But on the information presented, this particular one is notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what evidence would that be? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is typical of AfDs on London bus routes that we are assured that there are lots of secondary sources out there, but nothing significant is ever actually produced.Charles (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources have already been produced. And here's another – Motor Omnibus Routes in London. As its title indicates, this is specifically about such topics. It's a multi-volume work and the volume I'm looking at right now is volume 7A – 1 December 1924 to 31 December, 1926. Even though it only covers two years, it's a book of 184 pages. And it includes the route in question during those years. Combing through such works to add citations is hard work and nobody is paying us to do this. Right now there are more important priorities such as the BBC 100 Women event or London parks or missing towns in Greece and so on. And that's just on Wikipedia; never mind commitments of family, friends, work, &c. It is quite clear that AFD is not cleanup – we are not here as an article improvement service for deletionists who do nothing to help. It is also clear that there's no deadline and that pages might be imperfect in the meantime. There's not a significant problem here that needs fixing right now. That's all. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a passing mention in what is effectively a trivia directory listing bus routes where the subject is not the focus of the book and is side by side with hundreds of other bus routes. Still fails GNG. Please provide a source that indicates the topic of Route 109 has received significant coverage as per the GNG's requirements. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not a passing mention; it's the focus of the work. No, it's not a directory; it's a work of historical research written long after the time it covers. No, it's not trivial and there are museums, societies and many publications about this field. We have independent reliable sources for the topic and that's what the WP:GNG advises. We're good. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single route is obviously not the focus of a multi-volume work on numerous bus routes. Who published Motor Omnibus Routes in London? Is it self-published? Does it have a bibliography of sources or is it just one enthusiasts unverifiable ramblings?Charles (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can this discussion be closed now? It's been dragging on and dragging on for a month now and no clear consensus has been reached yet!! Class455 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I expect two consensuses will come along any moment. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thomas Hanke

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

Non-notable model. I haven't been able to find a single mention in independent reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Augusto Amaral Terra

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

No indication that the subject meets WP:PROF or the GNG, which is unsurprising since he only received his doctorate last year. Joe Roe (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that winning the West Churchman Memorial Prize in 2014 is enough to meet criteria 2 at WP:PROF 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.. That said, the article needs expanding. -- HighKing++ 17:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any more information on that award? I'm skeptical that an award first given out two years ago could really be considered "highly prestigious". Note that the detailed WP:PROF#C2 gives examples like the Nobel or Pullitzer, so we're not really considering the "£50 book token at a conference" tier here. Joe Roe (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a language issue but Gnews reveals zero results for "West Churchman Memorial Prize," which suggests this recently created award does not enjoy the status required by WP:PROF. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tiny GS cites. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Not listed as one of the top 25% of economists in Brazil [31] so unlikely to pass WP:PROF#C1, and what appears to be a best-paper award isn't enough by itself for #C2. Beyond those possibilities, no other notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. only 1 of the 4 other recipients of the prize have articles. That's not proof of non-notability , but it does show that the prize does not make one conspicuously notable DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gammadyne Mailer

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

Not an obviously notable piece of software. The article doesn't really tell me much other than it can automate email. The CNet source seems to just be a product information page (I confess I didn't follow it all the way through due to getting hit with adverts en-route). A search for other sources turns up cursory mentions of the product and little else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and contains references to self published sources. There also may be a conflict of interest with the article and there does not seem to be reliable sources to support the existence of this article. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISI Army On Duty

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

From a fairly extensive Google search, it clearly doesn't meet notability criteria as outlined at WP:MOVIE. Mike1901 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prayukti

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

Insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of this new periodical. Joe Roe (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 10:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teltow and Magdeburg Wars

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

google books has not one cite on this KDS4444 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to the DE wiki which has a fully-referenced article for your consideration... Quityergreeting (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is achieved for building wikipedia by nominating an entry for deletion two hours after it has been started. You simply discourage desperately needed contributions. There's abundant good quality material on the subject already in German wikipedia, which is what you might expect for events that took place in what became Germany. Not a bad place to start for building an entry in English wikpedia, though plenty more accessible sourcing turns up on-line with a bit of intelligent googling. Wikipedia has eye-watering ambitions for building its scope. Sadly, as you may think it, not all history has the sheer decency to happen and be written up in God's own language. That's not really a sufficient reason to pretend it didn't happen or, if it did happen, didn't matter. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of the sources from the de wiki have now been added, which is surely grounds for this AfD discussion to be closed. Quityergreeting (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to find Googlebook references going back to at least 1954, so it is unlikely a hoax. Agathoclea (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A well written article with sources. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - should not have been nominated. WP:BEFORE reminds editors to look for interlanguage links - the German version of the article is well-referenced and you could easily have done a search for the German term used as article title. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic family traditions

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

WP:NOTESSAY - Unencyclopedic spattering of topics, most of which have their own articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of these are Catholic traditions, rather than particular to Hispanics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uncited essay and possibly original research. The page name is vaguely POV. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ... something. (Mexican culture, perhaps) Or Weak delete. The article itself is terrible and completely unsourced poorly sourced, but I can see a place for the redirect, as the title is plausible search term. Montanabw(talk) 08:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not completely unsourced. It contains statements such as "The belief that Hispanics are more family oriented than Anglos has been a consistent theme in the social science literature for decades." which is cited to a respectable literature review. This demonstrates both the notability and the potential of the topic. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing and improvement per our editing policy which states "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a good point. If a WP:HEY can improve it, I am willing to reconsider my position. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This looks like a synopsis of one academic article i.e. ESSAY. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please join me by copy-editing this stub. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a preachy essay ("Like how it's stated above Hispanics are always practicing their faith and going to mass every Sunday is just another tradition they have. Going to church with your family strengthens the family as one and also increases your knowledge on your faith by listening to the Holy Gospel being said by the priest/ father."). Every culture has family traditions - nothing in this article (cooking favorite foods, going to religious services together, rites of passage etc) is exclusively notable to Hispanic families, and it's not all-inclusive - it appears to be specifically about Mexican families (references to Tamales, Mariachi music, Dia de los Muertos, etc). Hispanic Jews are not going to go to mass and take communion. My Argentinian friend never made tamales with her family. Culture of Mexico seems to cover this already. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to User:Andrew Davidson and User:Bearian. Unfortunately, no amount of editing can fix the topic of an article, nor is it likely to improve the article more than a redirect to Hispanic and Latino_Americans#Cultural influence, Hispanic, or, as pointed out above, a more specific and thus more correct article like Culture of Mexico.
At the base of it, the effort is wasted when it could be otherwise used to improve the established articles covering essentially the same topic. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with the consensus. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I'm not entirely sure whether this is a personal essay or original research or both or something in between, in any of those cases, it doesn't belong. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:OR...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete agreement with Montanabw Dweebing (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Dweebing[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong–Israel relations

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

fails WP:GNG. whilst relations exist they are not extensive. A 1 off visit by an Israeli politician, one agreement and a donation by a hong kong billionaire LibStar (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All diplomatic and commercial relations between Israel and other countries is significant. Much more can be added to improve the article if anyone takes the time. There are plenty of reliable sources for the information that is already there. No reason whatsoever to delete. --Geewhiz (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now have a look at the material I have added and think again about whether this topic is insignificant. There have been several diplomatic visits (not one) and the economic ties are growing, including a new direct flight between the countries. According to a Hong Kong official, Israelis make up the largest share of tourists from the Middle East. There are plenty of articles on wiki that should be deleted, but not this one.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are arguing bilateral relations are inherently notable. This is certainly not true. The relations are extremely limited. What is required is significant coverage. These are reasons for deletion. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree that all, or nearly all, diplomatic relations between countries are notable. Even if the the relations are limited (and, ignoring the fact that they could become notable, as per WP:TOOSOON), they are still relations between two sovereign powers. Big players, in this case. I know Hong Kong isn't really sovereign, but you know what I mean. This is especially notable, as there are a lot of countries that do not recognize Isreal, so I think any country that does is important to include. This is not just any bilateral and such relations...it is relations with a country that does not have that many to begin with. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
again bilateral relations are not inherently notable. Secondly you have provided no argument to establish how WP:N is met. Merely WP:ITSNOTABLE. "Big players"?? This article is about their relationship which is limited at best. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that notability is inherent, in that they are bilateral relations. I think all diplomatic relations are important, regardless of where and between which nations. For example, I think History of [[country name]] for any country would be notable, even if the country itself is not notable or the history isn't particularly special. Maybe I'm wrong about diplomatic relations, but I don't really see how that is any different. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have external sources. Even if it's not extensive coverage, it's still coverage enough. If the sources are correct, then "Israel is Hong Kong's largest visitor source market in the Middle East" -- which, to me, seems notable enough. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
again there is no inherent notability. I would say over 100 bilateral Articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I'll change my tune. I thought they were all inherently notable. However, I am still concerned that Israel is the largest visitor source from the Middle East for Hong Kong. I do think that is notable. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka Fujimori

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

notability questionable, no inline citations, single source in French, deals in "alleged" and is a pen name of an unidentified author, written like an autobio Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eddie Chuculate. Consensus to merge to the article of the book's author. Joyous! | Talk 01:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Madonna

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

Utterly obscure book by unknown author. User:Dellafrench created an article for this book and the author in a possible conflict of interest but definitely a promotion effort. Has been flagged for clean up since 2010 Yuchitown (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to the author article, Eddie Chuculate, for whom I think there are sufficient sources to substantiate notability[32]; at present I don't see the need for a separate article for the book. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. One less spam article. Yuchitown (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[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. Joyous! | Talk 01:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Tan Hoang

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

fails WP:BIO. article is poorly sourced and gnews yields only 1 or 2 sources. There are also very few articles that link to this. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass any of the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is certainly no consensus to delete this article. There remains the question of whether to keep it as a standalone article, or to merge/redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. There is a strong suggestion to merge (edited to add the statement of a suggestion to merge at the request of User:Dane2007, see discussion), so I cordially invite all interested parties to the discussion page of the article in question. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie or Bust

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

Deletion or merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:NEO and WP:COAT primarily. Concerned with some of the sources (Inquistir and Washington Times) and WP:UNDUE weight given. This was previously merged but did have some data added so it gets a second crack at AfD. -- Dane2007 talk 05:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep So I've worked on this article a bit since it was deleted and I believe it now passes WP:GNG. Lots of events happened since August 1 and the Bernie or Bust movement's strength lingered on well into election day. The article itself is widely sourced and has been continuously discussed in the media, especially after Clinton's loss. In retrospect, this is one of the more important movements during the election cycle that became a game-changing factor in the race for the White House. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements made since it was restored. When this was a redirect, the content was very quickly lost in the main article — now it has the appropriate focus again. Bradv 13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect and merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Despite claims above, the article does not persuade that this movement attained notability. It was a moment, and that moment is better covered within the campaign article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore redirect. The first AfD in August was the right call. The notability for article inclusion just isn't there now any more than it was in August.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 19:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Physics

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

Cites no independent, reliable sources, and none were found in searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and Proquest. Without reliable third-party sources about the topic, there should be no article. Fails WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthy enterprise but notability not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - No independent reference. Not notable. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though Google search engine may not find many third party links, the organization is already recognized by several academic networks, such as ResearchGate[1] and Academia.edu[2]. It is newly born and growing organization. It's Division of Experimentation has published its first scholarly article on arXiv:1611.01951. -- Ashiqul Islam Dip (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC+6)— Ashiqul Islam Dip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I can understand why you, as the author of the article, would want to keep it. "Newly born", however, is almost synonymous with "not notable". I congratulate Ashiqul Islam Dip et al., from the Community of Physics, on getting a paper published on arXiv. But you may not grasp the meaning of "notability" on Wikipedia. Things written by people associated with Community of Physics cannot establish the notability of the organization, only arms-length reliable sources can do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It has arranged several outreach programmes for undergraduate level students like Workshop on Classical Electromagnetism [3] [4], Workshop on Classical Mechanics:From Newton to Lagrange[5]. It is a promising organization of physics enthusiasts which is getting started,hence it has few external links. KARL RODD (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)— KARL RODD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Welcome to Wikipedia! A common misconception among novice editors is that notability is based on what an organization has accomplished. It isn't. The gauge of notability is whether people independent of the organization have considered it noteworthy enough that they have written and published in-depth works about it, without incentive or influence from those connected to the group. Postings on eventerbee.com and wherevent.com are self-promotion by the organization, they are not independent.
    • "Promising" and "getting started" strongly indicate that the group is not notable and thus not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. That could change in a few years if, for example, someone writes a book about the organization or Campus Star does a feature on it. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One verifiable news about a workshop of the organization from an online news portal, Campus2Career24.com[6] --Raoshon Aktar Banu (talk) 20:18, 02 December 2016 (UTC)— Raoshon Aktar Banu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - No independent coverage or reliable references, just promotional article about not notable topic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage by secondary sources aside from the occasional WP:FART mentioned by the keep votes just mentioning an event going on. Researchgate, etc. do not establish notability as these are generally indiscriminate listings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too Cool for School

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

This does not seem like an appropriate entry for an encyclopedia. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to List_of_Class_of_3000_episodes_and_songs#Season_2, which is hatted from the current article. Not ideal, but as it stands, this seems to fail WP:DICDEF. ansh666 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:TNT. Probably a valid and notable neologism, but this is simply not an encyclopedia article, it's an essay. John from Idegon (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable topic and also an inaccurate article. Most people who so describe themselves (or are so described by their admirers) aren't "considered child prodigies" at all; they're ignorant idiots who think they're somehow better than those who study hard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Boy Espinosa

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

Notability is not established. CaroleHenson (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable assistant coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sirik metal

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

I can't find any evidence that there is any such music genre. Adam9007 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no grounds for existence. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the literature about this. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete almost certainly a hoax, no sources to prove its existence. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday device

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

Non-notable Neologism. Term seems to be too general to be included in Wikipedia. Not sure this is used in the context of the definition in general use. reddogsix (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notmuch

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

Insignificant program lacking coverage in independent reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 00:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is that? -- HighKing++ 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LWN.net is that source. zazpot (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From what I can see in the article, there's three references from LWN.net, a passing mention in a thesis, a blog and a list of "best Linux shell apps". The last three fail the criteria set out in WP:CORPDEPTH. The LWN.net site describes itself as the premier news and information source for the free software community but is arguably a blog since the website states they spend an unbelievable amount of time wandering the net in search of interesting developments to cover for our users. We also depend heavily on tips from our users; see the next section on how to send in something you have seen. -- HighKing++ 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling LWN.net a blog on that basis is essentially a dismissal of journalistic technique, which traditionally depends enormously on shoe leather and tips.[7] Substitute "Wandering the neighbourhood in search of interesting developments to cover for our users" in place of the above, and it's clear that LWN.net is simply applying the same, traditional techniques to its non-traditional domain of coverage. With that objection to LWN.net as a source out of the way, the subject meets WP:GNG. zazpot (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting what they have on their website. You use the term "journalistic technique" but LWN has no jouralists employed and they request contributions from others (as per user-contributions) for pay. I agree though that the word "blog" is probably not appropriate but equally I cannot agree that this website meets the criteria in WP:RS. Finally - lets say that the website is acceptable - as per WP:CORPDEPTH the topic is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources but that a single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. This is still a single source and more is required. -- HighKing++ 14:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, both of your objections about LWN.net are groundless:
  • "LWN has no jouralists employed". False: four staff members are listed here.
  • "they request contributions from others (as per user-contributions) for pay" LWN.net accepts free-lance contributions, but they only do so under editorial oversight. They do not just publish any random submissions. This is concordant with a fair number of other reputable mainstream or specialist periodicals.[8][9][10][11][12]
As for whether WP:GNG is satisfied if LWN.net is a WP:RS, clearly it is. The subject has received significant coverage in at least one WP:RS and passing coverage in others. That suffices. WP:GNG does not require significant coverage in multiple WP:RSs. zazpot (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards agreeing with you that LWN meets WP:RS, thank you for the rebuttals. But both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH look for sources and not just one. -- HighKing++ 12:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for considering LWN as a WP:RS. That's good to hear. As for sources, I'll address WP:GNG's relevant remarks. It says:
  • "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The use of "usually" rather than "always" makes me think it would be fair for me to ask you to regard the LWN article by freelance LWN writer (and mdadm developer, incidentally) Neil Brown as being distinct, for notability purposes, from the ones by LWN staffer Jonathan Corbet. If you felt charitable enough to do this, and you've come to accept LWN as a WP:RS then great: we've got multiple, in-depth, reliable sources, and WP:GNG is met.
  • Alternatively: "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Certainly, the LWN pieces are credible and provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Additionally, I understand them to be neutral insofar as there is no WP:COI between the authors of the pieces on the one hand, and the developers of Notmuch on the other. That being so, the coverage in LWN alone is arguably enough to meet WP:GNG. zazpot (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I agree that LWN.net is reliable, I'm not convinced of either the multiple or the sufficient detail prongs. More coverage from independent sources is needed. I'm not sure what message the above links to rules for submissions to various unrelated sites is supposed to convey about such coverage from independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn: "I'm not sure what message the above links to rules for submissions to various unrelated sites is supposed to convey about such coverage from independent sources." Those links should make sense if you follow the threaded discussion above between me and HighKing. Please let me know if you're still puzzled. Please could you also consider supporting merge instead of delete? zazpot (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to rephrase: I did, in fact, get the narrow point you were making about LWN.net. I don't think it affects the larger point of whether or not there is actual multiple, independent sources that cover this program. I would question the suitability of Linux mailbox search tools as an article subject solely on WP:NOTCATALOG grounds (but that's hardly a definitive position). Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
grepmail meets WP:GNG, as far as I can tell; likewise Mairix. That being so, an article on mailbox search tools featuring those and Notmuch would meet WP:GNG too, and would appear to be entirely in the spirit of the WP:FAILN recommendation quoted below. I don't see that WP:NOTCATALOG applies to articles meeting WP:GNG, especially if they address an actual topic, rather than simply containing a list or table. After all, if Wikipedia can legitimately have an entry on operating systems or integrated development environments, why not on mailbox search utilities, as long as the topic meets WP:GNG? If you think I am mistaken, do please let me know how so. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and, I planned to comment sooner, I'll note that everything here is like a business listing and therefore WP:NOT applies, especially since there's then no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, in what way is it like a business listing? Please could you also consider supporting merge instead of delete? zazpot (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

  • Merge. If others feel that WP:FAILN applies, then as a preferable alternative to deletion or userfication, I propose merging the Notmuch article, together with my draft Mairix and grepmail articles, into an article about mailbox search utilities, which is a fairly distinct category of software tools. This would be in accordance with the guidance given at WP:FAILN: "consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context". zazpot (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Community_of_Physics
  2. ^ https://communityofphysics.academia.edu/
  3. ^ http://eventerbee.com/event/1st-workshop-on-classical-electromagnetism,1739190799701357
  4. ^ http://www.wherevent.com/detail/Community-of-Physics-1st-Workshop-on-Classical-Electromagnetism#description
  5. ^ http://www.wherevent.com/detail/Community-of-Physics-1st-Workshop-on-Classical-Mechanics-From-Newton-to-Lagrange
  6. ^ http://www.campus2career24.com/archives/12191
  7. ^ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22shoe+leather%22+%22tips%22+%22journalism
  8. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/info/contributing-to-the-guardian-and-observer
  9. ^ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/writing-for-times-higher-education/418274.article
  10. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/faq/#37
  11. ^ http://mg.co.za/page/contact-us/
  12. ^ http://www.latimes.com/la-trw-guidelines-story-story.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Bolton (civil servant)

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

This article is a mishmash. AFAICS it is a mixture of falsehoods and possibly-true snippets about a man who appears to fail WP:BIO.

The references used do not mention this man, and some of the facts asserted in this article are demonstrably false. For example:

  • The article says "Bolton was also a Conservative politician and MP from 1931-1945 and 1950-1959". But no MP with the surname Bolton was elected at the general elections of 1931, 1931, 1935, 1951, or 1955.
  • The article says he was "a life peer from 1974 until his death in 1984". But the List of life peerages (1958–79) includes nobody called Bolton.

I did find a brief mention at http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/britains_second_empire of "John Bolton, former CEO of BOLSA (the Bank of London and South America, which was acquired in 1971 by Lloyds Bank) and at the time the deputy director at the Bank of England".

However, a Gbooks search for "John Bolton" BOLSA didn't throw up anything more substantial, so notability is not established.

If editors decide that there is something here worth, the article needs a rewrite and a new title. The BOLSA man was not called George and he was not a civil servant (just as he was neither an MP nor a Lord). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT ASAP - Please delete and I will recreate a proper article. This article was titled George Bolton (civil servant) but the article called him John Bolton, leading to confusion. There was definitely a notable Sir George Bolton (George Lewis French Bolton, no John) whose obituary I found in The Times in 1982 (not 1984). He was never made a life peer nor was he an MP but was KCMG. He was not a civil servant but a banker, so it won't even have the same title. I say TNT because I don't trust the motives of the person who wrote this article, as they have done nothing else on Wikipedia. They may have tried to slip it in as a hoax by making it a combination of multiple people. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. I created the new article: George Bolton (banker) —МандичкаYO 😜 09:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The fact that this article is its creator's only contribution is, in my experience, consistent with the evidence that this is a hoax. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I don't have enough information to clearly determine whether this was a deliberate hoax or a good faith error made by mistakenly conflating multiple people — but that's a moot point, because either way it's simply wrong. Bravo to Wikimandia for some nice work getting the right topic covered, but I think WP:SNOW allows us to just kill the wrong one. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied as a copyright violation. Bearcat (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Aslam Ansari

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

Various people with his name on a quick Google search, not clear that he's done anything else other than those two movies. Seems like a WP:BIO failure. South Nashua (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as written is an exact copy-paste of the "bio" at the top of his IMDb profile, with not even a comma changed. I'm speedying this as a copyright violation. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America1000 02:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin Gani

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

does not pass WP:GNG and all sources are related to his death news. Also possible case of WP:COI here as the last name of the article and the creator is same and all edit of the user is only related to the article. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key!

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

Deprodded without explanation. Nothing to show it passes WP:GNG, or WP:NMUSIC. Current citations do nothing to go to notability. Onel5969 TT me 01:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what do you mean by "Current citations do nothing to go to notability." But the first reference is a feature article about him in Complex (magazine), so the suggestion that there is "nothing" is simply not true. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Feeble references. The sole credible source, Complex, runs a puff piece written around the subject’s own claims about how important he is, so I'm not convinced this constitutes "significant" coverage.The others (UPROXX, Hotnewhiphop,) solicits and accepts artists wishing to promote themselves. The rest are blatant user generated. If this subject at all merits wikipedia notability it is possibly for his role in the founding of the Two-9 collective, which in itself is of dubious notability with similar problematic references. But that's not the article that's been nominated for deletion. This one is. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one WP:RS = no significant, independent, reliable coverage. Nothing in WP:BAND appears to be satisfied, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiwum Polskiego Rocka

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

Two years ago User:BiH tagged this with prod, but with no justiifcation, I declined it because I think that a, a proper prod justification is needed, and b, that this may be expanded with sources. Two years on, no sources have been added, and I cannot find any to show that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (websites), so I am bringing this here for a wider discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see at least one article (seems to be review/announcement of the printed version) in the "Gazeta Wyborcza" (behind pay-wall): [33] Pavlor (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately nobody was able, even on pl wiki, to confirm that this article is a proper article and not a paragraph-long blurb. While the article has been rewritten on pl wiki, as I noted there I am not convinced the sources presented which mention the portal in passing are sufficient for notability, at least for English Wikipedia. Ex. one of the sources is an interview with the subject, where the interviewer does not discuss the portal, it is only mentioned in passing by the subject (interviewee). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a website it's probably not notable, but it meets notability as a book, which gets press coverage and seems to have new editions published every year. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then someone should write an article about that book, but its publisher does not inherit any notability that the book may have. (And you have not provided sources that would even back up your argument...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I meant to comment soon, and first of all, the person who removed the PROD was a massive and blatant advertiser, so that explains enough, and in this case, I confide in the nominator's analysis as this is his field, and if there's simply not the needed substance, regardless of the claims, then there's not enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Classic example of WP:ADVERTISEMENT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America1000 02:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen America

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is different from the popular Miss Teen USA. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 14:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riley and Son

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

Non-notable engineering company. Only ping on Google is company website Nordic Nightfury 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. It's not quite true that their own website is the only 'ping'. There's http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/restoring-the-nations-favourite-bury-rail-872079 and http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11430899.New_locomotive_plans_could_be_heading_to_Ramsbottom/. There's a mention in at least one book (about their role in restoring The Flying Scotsman). And a 1957 patent reported in New Scientist that may be theirs. And plenty of news. I'm surprised it is here, frankly. Mcewan (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat: It's just possible there are multiple companies with similar names. It's odd that their own website does not mention The Flying Scotsman project, but internal WP links go to this article. Mcewan (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Flying Scotsman restoration was this company, and there is coverage in the BBC, Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail and any number of specialist railway publications. I will ad some references to the article. Mcewan (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the listed links above are simply local news stories and listings, nothing for a genuine substance here and nothing to suggest there would also be the sufficient improvements, so although it may be locally known, there's nothing to suggest a convincing encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have now found national press articles, admittedly all for the Flying Scotsman restoration, a single project but nevertheless a significant one. Mcewan (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a vanity page / catalogue; not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, but on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A company that really exists, and actually makes things that move. No bad sourcing on the article page has been pointed out. Then the nom comes along saying Non-notable engineering company [a]. Only ping on Google is ...[b] as decisive negatives. Just those two arguments for deleting?! Well, [a] is a personal opinion so useless, and [b] is a non-RS measurement. Unless there is something I did not notice (pls tell me), this XfD is bad-tempered by origin. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of references can be found in Railway Magazine, Steam Railway, etc., so easily meets WP:GNG. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete due to lack of sources and WP:OR. There is some feeling that it might be possible to write a useful article about this topic, but the current article isn't it. If anybody wants to try that, I would suggest trying a new version in draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

School week

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

An older article that has been tagged for multiple issues for many years. PRODed at one stage, the PROD was removed without addressing the issue. Concern was: The average school week in the UK is Monday to Friday and I don't feel this is a relevant topic on Wikipedia, it is not updated and is a poor article and considering we do already have a page for the Work Week on wikipedia which is alot more informative, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend hence this page should be deleted and we should keep the more informative one called "WorkWeek". I am adding to this that it is an essay or WP:Original research. In any case, it's unreferenced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:BLUE and WP:V, sources are not normally required for common knowledge. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Workweek and weekend, very valid search term. ansh666 19:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think a merge and/or redirect is the correct way to go; school and work are similar enough to where they fit in the same article, and a potential comparison section would be better off in a single article than split over two. ansh666 16:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is obviously totally inadequate, but we should certainly have an article about the hours of schooling that are provided around the world. Is there any other article that covers this properly? The fact this this is common knowledge, as said above, is a reason to have an article, not to not have one. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good source for this kind of topic is A Time For Every Purpose which has a chapter about the various hours scheduled for schooling. Some place have tried a four day school week and there are substantial sources about this such as Practical Strategies for School Principals. The effectiveness of different durations has been compared across many countries in works such as Effectiveness of Time Investments in Education. The topic is therefore notable and its current deficiencies are acceptable per our editing policy which states that " Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome". Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The standard school and work week are indeed common knowledge. Andrew D.'s sources perhaps demonstrate a need for an article on Alternative school week proposals (or similar), but we do have an article already on Four-day week that could also possibly accommodate that information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eggishorn fails to explain why we should delete common knowledge. We have an article about even more fundamental concepts such as school and week, even though most people know what they are. The job of an encyclopedia is to cover everything, not just obscure and esoteric information. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we don't have any such job: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Or, to be more correct, the WP community has come to a long-standing consensus that we do not cover everything. In line with that, I don't see that my earlier statement needs justification other than to say that I believe I suggested two good and useful alternatives to simply removing the information completely. Cheers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we don't remove the information completely then that's a keep, not a delete. Delete means that everything has to go. Once you start keeping bits then you have to keep the page for attribution. Andrew D. (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a policy reason that this page cannot be deleted while an interested editor cannot go to, say, Four-day week and start adding new information like the sources you mentioned. They weren't there before, so attribution to previous versions is moot. That said, I'm content to let the admins parse what was said into functional steps however they want and I think we are nibbling around the same concept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The admins tend to be bilious types like Sandstein below but what's needed is a more constructive approach. The four-day school week has a lot of coverage in English language sources because this has been tried in the USA. But four days is obviously not the only possibility. In ancient Rome, they used to have a 7-day school week with a day off to fit their habit of 8-day weeks. In France, we find that "Students go to school between 24 and 28 hours a week, spread over four, four and a half, or five days depending on the region. Students preparing the baccalauréat may have as many as 40 hours per week. Some schools close on Wednesday afternoons and older pupils may have lessons on a Saturday. Although Saturday classes were once a common practice in French primary schools, this has been phased out and replaced by a longer school year." I am quite capable of making something of the topic from such sources but am disinclined to do so while unhelpful admins threaten to delete the work. See WP:INSPECTOR... Andrew D. (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic might or might not be theoretically notable, but the content is unsourced crap. I am not in favor of keeping crap. No objection to recreation by somebody competent.  Sandstein  16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Peter Mueller

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

Does not seem to meet the criteria in WP:PROF Domdeparis (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't see how they meet WP:NACADEMICS, while he's written several papers, the highest citation count is 3. Onel5969 TT me 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as easy deletion for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 01:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Singer

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

the article does not seem to fulfill the criteria WP:AUTHOR I couldn't find much on a web search Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A web search of "Andy Singer" + cartoon will give a number of mentions, including a cartoon in Forbes, mention in the Washington Post, illustrations in at least one book, and cartoons distributed to a number of publications as mentioned in the French wikipedia article on him. It seems that he is notable, but the new (one day old) article on him here should be fleshed out. Kablammo (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I typed Andy Singer into the google search bar, "cartoonist" was the top autofill suggestion. Once you filter past the promotional/retail results, there is some coverage of him that could be used to improve the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Singer is relatively well known, especially in Minnesota. -Senori (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books by Andy Singer: https://www.amazon.com/CARtoons-Andy-Singer/dp/8023870203 https://www.amazon.fr/Cartoons-cauchemar-automobile-Andy-Singer/dp/2915830037/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b?ie=UTF8&qid=1202934071&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Attitude-Featuring-Andy-Singer-Exit/dp/1561634085/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480930505&sr=1-6 https://www.amazon.fr/Ils-ménervent-mais-garde-calme/dp/2911289919/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202934071&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Drive-Automobiles-Journalism/dp/1621064867/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480930557&sr=1-3 Books that include chapters or collections of cartoons by Andy Singer: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561633178/qid=1012055196/sr=1-7/ref=sr/103-5215442-2987008 https://www.amazon.com/Treasury-Mini-Comics-Michael-Dowers/dp/1606996576/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480930815&sr=1-1&keywords=treasury+of+mini+comics https://www.amazon.com/Superheroes-Strip-Artists-Talking-Animals/dp/0873517776/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480931158&sr=1-1&keywords=Superheros+and+Strip+Artists https://www.amazon.com/Bike-Art-Bicycles-Around-World/dp/3939566373/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480930987&sr=1-1&keywords=Bike+Art+Kiriakos Samples of work: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/19/156982029/double-take-toons-laissez-fair http://www.npr.org/2013/06/15/191677502/double-take-toons-patently-absurd http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/books/review/no-joke-by-ruth-r-wisse.html https://www.wired.com/2009/01/our-12-or-so-fa/ http://www.politicalcartoons.com/artist/Andy+Singer.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/cartoonoftheday/2016/08/15/keep-calm-and-play-pokemon-go/#561ecf49e303 http://www.forbes.com/sites/cartoonoftheday/2016/02/23/cartoon-the-art-of-the-business-deal-meets-the-business-of-art/#5fd40b3728cd Reviews and interviews: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/10/cartoonists-vision-car-free-future/7088/ http://www.iamhiphopmagazine.com/the-person-behind-the-artist-andy-singer/ https://microcosmpublishing.com/blog/2015/04/in-praise-of-human-power-an-interview-with-andy-singer/ http://www.cyclingutah.com/advocacy/book-review-drive-interview-cycling-utah-cartoonist-andy-singer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.129.30 (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Fidelia

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

Doesn't fulfill the criteria WP:MUSICBIO Domdeparis (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://noisey.vice.com/en_ca/article/get-into-the-awkward-uber-ride-that-is-city-fidelias-video-for-lately This article fit the first criteria of WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnsembleCreative (talk • contribs) 03:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iram Shabbir

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

Delete. Non-notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 01:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 01:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not terribly familiar with the political structure of India, but our article about Block Pramukh plainly indicates that it's a local government office roughly equivalent to what the countries I am more familiar with would call a municipal or county council. That is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, and the volume of sourcing shown here is nowhere near approaching the level it would take to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Non-notable politician.Does not conform to WP:POLOUTCOMES.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 14:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Block pramukhs and other local elected officials are not inherently notable. I failed to find coverage in reliable sources. Subjects fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra Singh (journalist)

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Came into news only due to his murder. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. Current coverage is routine, a person is murdered so all newspapers have an article on his murder. We will have to wait for more time to know if the event has any lasting effect. Pratyush (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per the consensus below. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lukey

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

reads like a resume and does not meet the notability guidelines for WP:BLP Domdeparis (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Domdeparis, thank you for your remarks. i will correct the text and try to make it less resume-like. Bernard is a well-known person in the Russian internet (Ozon.ru - Russian Amazon, Yandex - Russian Google). As he is not Russian i would like to add his biography in English-speaking Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazgul ka (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is quite famous in the Russian internet industry, I think he deserves a wiki-page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atoots78 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Significant independent coverage is lacking. Most of the coverage available, either in the article references or in wider reference searches, are PR pieces or self-aggrandizement. Yandex itself is notable, but that does not make its executives automatically notable as WP:NOTINHERITED states. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" is not policy-based and does not address the reasons for deletion.  Sandstein  16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in in Armenia

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

WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR. One of several unnecessary Armenia directories by this user. -Jergling PC Load Letter 18:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see nothing here that violates either WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR. Armenia is a wine-producing country, and has plenty of notable wineries, many without yet Wikipedia articles, so a list of wineries would appear to be far from unnecessary. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Only two wineries on the list have articles and there is no evidence of notability for the remainder, does not satisfy WP:LISTN. Many references appear self-published. Ajf773 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains many info about wine-making culture and industry in a major wine-producing nation. It will also include many info about wine-making traditions regarding each particular region.--Preacher lad (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so people are away, this vote came from the originator and only contributor to this article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The actual article has been moved to List of wineries in Armenia (not using "in in"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at this article and this discussion quite a few times but not noticed the "in in", and I assume from the lack of comment that others have also not noticed it. This must say something about human perception. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT is irrelevant to deletion, because an article can be rewritten without being deleted first, and WP:LIST says nothing remotely related to deletion. As for the rest of that comment, I can only conclude that you were the one who was drunk when reading the article, because it is far less of a "horrid mess" than the majority of Wikipedia articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets named after rivers

List of minor planets named after rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

river is only a type if place. no need for a seperated list. 2001:DA8:201:3512:E433:1B8B:4CC0:AAF6 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably. It could merge to a List of minor planets named after natural features, if there were one; and it would be much the better for having and populating a "References" section (quaint and old-fashioned, I know), but there's no reason to delete this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, I'll get off the fence and bold my !vote. Per WP:CLT, I don't see a valid reason to delete this. Now, if someone wants to do the grunt work to somehow merge with the other list, which is minor planets named for populated places, or repurpose to a broader list of minor planets named for natural features, fine. But neither requires an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hoffman (actor)

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

Held minor roles in 2 minor films; not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in any depth. GRuban (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete roles/movie combination not significant enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable actor, not significant coverage. I also do not see reliable sources for him. The fact that he works as an English and Spanish teacher at [insert random high school name here], without any sources to verify as to this, makes me suspect as well. It is on his IMDb, but that's not something someone would bother putting in for a no-name actor. I suspect an original research COI...but even if there is no COI or OR, it it still not a noteworthy article. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Porting Kit

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

Does not appear to be particularly notable software. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I SQUARE

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

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which relies entirely on primary sources that cannot carry notability. There may be a stronger notability claim here than advertised, because what the article says right now is that they peaked at #1038 on a chart that only goes up to #100 -- so that might potentially be a typo for a significantly stronger chart position, but it might also still just be bullcrap as the link provided as referencing for it fails to actually verify that they charted at all. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can locate significantly better evidence that they actually satisfy NMUSIC #2, but the claim of charting has to be verifiable (and higher than 938 positions below the bottom) before it constitutes a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've corrected the data error in the article -- they did hit No. 88 on the Airplay chart in 2011 (the '1038 for a day' was added by an IP vandal in February of this year). But is peaking at No. 88 on the Airplay chart enough for an article? I note that the Airplay chart is just one component of what goes into Billboard's Hot 100, so I'm not sure that this one placement really counts for notability. And the article offers no other evidence of notability. If someone can demonstrate that a low placement on the Airplay chart is generally accepted -- by itself -- as evidence of notability, I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Record charts, Airplay is technically permitted as a second string chart (it's listed in a "you may add this chart if none of the first section charts are applicable" section), but I agree that if it's the only thing we can reliably source about the band, then it's not a particularly strong slamdunk of a notability claim. WP:NMUSIC, after all, specifically requires sourcing, and explicitly states that nominal passage of a criterion does not exempt a band from having to be the subject of enough RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Campbell

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

I'm struggling to find any independent proof of this academic's notability. The article is almost entirely uncourced. His co-written publications appear to be self-published, by a 'publishing arm' of the groups he set up. Apart from very brief mentions such as [34] and the odd article written by him [35] there doesn't seem much to prove he meets WP:NPROF. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable architect and urban designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unreliably sourced vanity page on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both nothing for applicable notability and then for advertising which is sufficient for deletion alone, regardless of anything. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_28&oldid=1142621063"