Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). Sandstein 08:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lammasu (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it had some coverage in White Dwarf or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BOZ BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boz. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Merge. I would be shocked to find any meaningful Notability independent of an in-universe context. Alsee (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking a little broader than the above Find Sources template gives [1] and [2] which appear to be independent RS mentions. I'm not surprised, because this is a preexisting mythological creature, and as such has existed since early in D&D's lifecycle, and as a non-copyrightable element has made it into similar games and places not owned by TSR/Wizards. Note that White Dwarf, already in the article, is already an independent RS. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those may be reliable sources, but how exactly do they do anything for this topic? It's literally just one word per source. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." TTN (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Like previous times I've found such content in topics you've nominated, I contend that the presence of fictional elements in similar or derivative games constitutes sufficient real-world impact to convey notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the target recommened by BOZ, with a cross link to the mythological lammasu.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ and Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 September 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 Elf deities. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corellon Larethian[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elf deities, which is more specific than Boz's suggestion. I have been persistently surprised by how little third-party coverage even the core deities seem to have received. A passing mention in The Independent may be worth including. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elf deities. Aside from Josh Milburn's nice source find, all sources are in-universe. No meaningful independant Notability. Alsee (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Josh Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Josh Milburn.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elf deities per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to elf deities; doesn't seem notable enough for a full-on article, but a couple of reliable sources should be enough to merge this page. Omni Flames (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 September 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 Elf deities. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sehanine Moonbow[edit]

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

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to elf deities; more specific than Boz's suggestion, and more room for some of the content to be kept. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elf deities. All sources are in-universe. No meaningful independent Notability. Alsee (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Josh Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Josh Milburn, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to elf deities; doesn't seem notable enough for a full-on article, but a couple of reliable sources should be enough to merge this page. Omni Flames (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 September 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Zhukov (historian)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. While one can find a couple publications about this person, this is insufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'm a big proponent of WP:REALPROBLEM. I'd like to have the closer move this wreck into my userspace where I can work on it on my own time. I'm pretty sure Zhukov is notable but this shouldn't stay in wiki as-is and I can't commit to fixing it immediately. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or weak keep. He does seem to be known, even in English-language sources, as a Stalin apologist; I just added some sources to the article saying so: Special:Diff/737585109. I think, on that basis, he may well pass WP:GNG, but troutman's offer to userfy and clean it up seems a good one to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references David just added, and а few more from ru-wiki ([3][4][5]), suggest he appears in the press enough to satisify the GNG (albeit for dubious reasons). I don't see anything in the article problematic enough to justify risking it getting lost in userspace (with all due respect to Chris troutman}. Joe Roe (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (as a nominator) per WP:GNG - I do not think that mentioning him in a few sources can be described as significant coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that as nominator you have already been presumed to favour deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I would easily switch to "keep" if others convinced me that the page should be kept. Actually, I even included a couple of Russian language sources about the person during this AfD [6], which is an argument in favor of his notability and works against me. But the page still looks like WP:Promotion for someone familiar with the subject (note that he is proud to be a Stalinist and to be described as such). Actually, I think this page was created by Zhukov himself or by someone close to him, but digging this out would be waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at worst userify: what he has produced is a very substantial body of work. Of course I have no means of judging its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read his books? A substantial body of work? Do you mean his "Handbook of Stalinist"? My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- somewhat noted as a Stalin apologist. I believe that the improved article can be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a Stalin apologist, has enough sources to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:35, 6 September 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hagemeister[edit]

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

There are no 3rd party RS about this person. It remains unsourced for a few years. My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zero^talk 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, ~~appears to be a vanity article~~ BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not applicable to an academic. You need to apply WP:NACADEMIC. Zero^talk 00:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Please tell me where in GNG it describes what subjects it doesn't cover. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I was imprecise. On the same page, just above WP:GNG it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (my emphasis) That box has a link to WP:NACADEMIC. So, while anyone can pass GNG and be considered notable, someone can fail GNG and still be notable according to WP:NACADEMIC. Even highly influential academics frequently have almost nothing written about them as people, hence the need for a separate guideline. Zero^talk 02:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Guccisamsclubs included several references in the page. However, all of them tell nothing of substance about the person/subject of the page. These publications simply make references to publications by Hagemeister. Yes, after checking in Institute for Scientific Information database, one can find 5 references to his work (Google books gives a lot more). However, having even a few hundred quotations does not really prove notability of the author. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hagemeister is a highly respected historian. Such people are notable on account of their output, not so much on account of what is written about them. We have guidelines for notability of academics that should be followed. Of the list in that guideline, he easily satisfies #1 since every modern publication on the Protocols cites his work. It is not hard to find mentions of him in secondary sources but as befits an academic they are about his work rather than about him.[7][8][9] (etc, etc, search and you shall find). Zero^talk 02:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To support #1 one needs some sources telling: "Michael Hagemeister made such and such significant contributions in the field". But I do not see it all. What exactly new did he found about Protocols? This is completely unclear from the links you provided above. Note that your first link is merely an announcement of a seminar, i.e. basically nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Together with Cesare G. De Michelis, he completely overturned the standard account of the history of the Protocols. Richard S. Levy, sometimes called the leading expert on antisemitism, called Hagemeister "the leading authority on this subject". You are correct that the article doesn't say that yet, but articles should be deleted only when they have no prospect of a good future, not according what they look like now. I didn't realise there was an article on him until I saw this AfD, but now it is on my editing list. Zero^talk 03:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start but it isn't finished yet and I'm out of time for today. Note that the article of Levy is largely about Hagemeister's work and strongly supports his notability. Zero^talk 06:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article is currently being expanded thanks to this AfD, and can be expanded further just from de: Michael Hagemeister. But it no longer meets any clear criterion for deletion: it now cites more secondary sources than the vast majority of articles on academics, at least three of which explicitly call him an "authority" and "pioneering"; it is also sufficiently clear from google scholar that his research is widely cited by scholars in the field, that's with many citations missing from google scholar because because of it's inferior coverage of foreign-language publications. So all the relevant criteria appear to have been met. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero0000, the impact of Hagemeister's work on the Protocols meets WP:PROF#C1. Joe Roe (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the improvements by Guccisamsclubs and Zero0000. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as a nominator). None of sources currently on the page about him (or this discussion page) explains what exactly important contribution was made by Hagemeister. According to current version, his "research into the origins of the Protocols led him to discount the French origin and the involvement of the Russian secret police". Well, it seems that he indeed challenged (although did not actually disprove) in his book the common version about Russian secret police fabrication of the "protocols". Is that notable? In addition, the "protocols" is a narrow subject. Writing yet another book on this subject does not seem notable. Yes, this book was quoted a number of times in a positive light, but I am not convinced this proves notability of the author. His ISI citation index is actually very low. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been improved and sourced well beyond WP requirements. Challenges to sources should be made on article talk page, not used as a justification for deletion. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Richarddev did you place this comment in the correct AfD? I see no recent blanking and the creator has been blocked for over five years. Also I see no blankings of reversions in your recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Levy's identification of him as the leading authority on the Protocols should be enough. Also, the identification by BlueSalix as a "vanity page" is problematic and unnecessarily insulting. It is true that the page was created (long ago) by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor focused on the Protocols, but there is no evidence that the creator was Hagemeister himself and some strong evidence against (in particular, the page creator self-identified as Czech in this talk page comment while Hagemeister is German). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't intend to be insulting by using the term "vanity article," David Eppstein. You're correct, and I retract that comment. BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being the object of this discussion, please, allow me to make the following statement: I did not create or suggest this article; I never contributed to it and will not do so in the future; all relevant information regarding my academic career, publications (not only on the Protocols), and current research project can be found on the faculty page of Bochum University. For me this is sufficient. Michael Hagemeister (no user name), 5 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:47:6C0F:A001:6423:5265:8CC7:A52F (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page concerns the foremost Western authority on a thinker like Pavel Florensky, not to mention his other research achievements, and the deletion appears to have been proposed simply out of pique that Hagemeister was cited on the latter's page for a deeply informed remark one or two editors rejected out of dislike (WP:IDONTLIKEIT).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, it is important to Assume Good Faith on MVBW's behalf. Based on close reading of the sources, and based on the comments above, I fully agree that the article should be kept. However, although I disagree with MVBW on the substance of his reasoning (especially now that the article has been improved significantly since MVBW orignially nominated it for deletion), it appears MVBW offered policy-based reasons when he originally suggested the article be considered for AfD. Thanks and regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of his reasons, MVBW did the article a great service. It prompted several editors to improve the article quite a bit. Having said that, I don't think MVBW should have voted "delete" after these improvements were made.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I voted "delete" because I found only 5 references to his publications in Science Citation Index database. Yes, I realize: this database is not the best tool to judge performance of someone in the field of humanities. However, other tools are inconclusive. For example, Google scholar gives very large number of hits to other people with the same name, and many Google books hits also do not refer to him. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvements have been made, an important historian. I agree that if the article was not AfD'd it would likely be very poor quality now. This is the positives that can result from an AFD discussion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:37, 9 September 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Student Cooperative[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of California, Berkeley. Seems worthy of a short mention on that page, although not the lengthy exposition on this one. Neutrality^talk 21:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching for sources under the group's previous name of "University Students' Cooperative Association" shows that there has been coverage in reliable sources going back many years. This cooperative is 83 years old and owns facilities housing well ovef 1000 students. Disclosure: My father-in-law lived in their facilities while a Berkeley student in the 1930s, and I have been familiar with the group for decades. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of "University+Students+Cooperative+Association"&search=Search 16 articles published in the San Francisco Chronicle in the past 20 years that mention the co-op. Google Books also yields lots of coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are indeed lots of interesting mentions in Google books: clearly a historic organization. However the mentions all seem to be in passing. The Bay area News coverage is okay, but of course we have WP:AUD to consider. This collective seems to be too historically notable for a mere redirect. I'm going to go with ~~weak keep~~, at least for now, even though I certainly agree that the article as it exists now is overly detailed and seems to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course another option would be to merge to University of California, Berkeley student housing, broadening the scope there to include off-campus housing, but that article is also overly detailed, and has been tagged as such. Definitely some editorial and cleanup issues on both these articles, if this one is indeed kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:DINC. Clearly the article needs some TLC, but comments above, as well as coverage in sources such as [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] demonstrate the topic's notability, in my opinion. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion rationale I gave was "no evidence of notability", not "cleanup". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm changing my !vote to weak delete, because I don't like the way this Afd is trending. Opposers are making it sound like this is some kind of slamdunk -- but I looked at all those linked Google books hits and they're all passing mentions. The nominator makes a perfectly valid case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passing mentions in books should be given more weight than passing internet coverage. There is a high possibility of other print sources existing, considering this organization has been around for almost 100 years.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All of the keep rationale seems contested by the passing mentions. Relisting for clearer consensus -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.Miles925 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first source I provided is as far from a "passing mention" as possible. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale I gave was "no evidence of notability": just a suggestion, Andy, but in future you should use ACTUAL rationales for your nominations. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual deletion rationale I gave was "no evidence of notability". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 8 September 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:ORGIND. The only sources avaialble appear to be promotional or blogs with videos of this car. No real significant coverage, Fails GNG. Also, there is no inherent notability or inherited notability WP:ORGSIG. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two articles in Road and Track, an independent publication: [[15]] and [[16]]. Also [[17]] which I am unfamiliar with but appears to be an RS, and [[18]] which seems to be affiliated with the BBC. A contribution affiliated with Forbes: [[19]], and Car and Driver: [[20]], Motortrend: [[21]], and Autoweek: [[22]]. I think enough of these are respected enough industry publications to establish notability. MB 02:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and suggest withdrawal per lack of WP:BEFORE. It is sufficient to click the "news" link below the title discussion, and Google News shows 8,100 "recent" news about the car [23] plus several additional hundred news in the archives. Even assuming some of them are trivial, and a few of them non reliable/independent or whatever, with these impressive numbers even 0,1% accurate sources are enough to pass GNG. Cavarrone 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone Vehicle is notable and easily passes GNG Nordic Nightfury 11:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would appreciate not making assumptions about my editing style - WP:BEFORE. What I came up with was a lot of fan sites and/or industry related sources. In other words, these are not independent reliable sources and they lack significant coverage per GNG, and WP:ORGIND and I quote:

"A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.

Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

press releases, press kits, or similar works;
self-published materials;
any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;

Footnote examples:

The article on "Microsoft Word" satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it.
The article on "Oxford Union" satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it".

All of the above sources from User MB are auto industry or auto racing industry related. As such their coverage is fluffy and one sided. And through advertising are supported by these industries. Putting it another way, all of these have vested interests. Also, BBC Topgear appears to be one of these - promoting one car after another - just look at the right hand side bar.

For comparison, something like a Consumer Reports assessment would be really good as a source, such as this [24]. And the Forbes link does not go anywhere, except the main page - there is no coverage obtained by clicking that link. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes link works for me. It is a short article about the car being bought by the Saudi Prince. As far as Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motortrend, they are independent sources that cover the topic (autos) and have large circulations are the publications people read that are very interested in cars. They have their own editorial staffs and are independent of the manufacturers. They are not disqualified because they are single topic mags. MB 14:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the Forbes article. It is trivial coverage, and also promotional. It consists of a Facebook comment from a Saudi Prince, and then a gallery of photos. This is not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy GNG. Also, the rest are fan sites and/or industry related sources, with vested interests, supported by the industry advertising, producing fluff for industry products, and so on - Because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. I suggest finding sources that are actually independent such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, the aforementioned Consumer Reports, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, maybe Esquire, Time magazine, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, NPR and so on. Hopefully, the difference is apparent. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but anyone who argues that 8000+ news articles are not enough to pass GNG is just wasting his time and the time of the community. If you don't like the Google News results, try to click the "Highbeam" link, as it provides additional articles such as [25] (from Daily Record) and [26] (from Arab News). This is not a close call where criticizing this or that specific source could change the direction of a discussion, this seems more an open and shut case with everyone wondering why on earth such article was nominated for deletion. Also, you seems dangerously confused between independence of a source and its main field of interest: well-established, even authorative specialized sources with 50/60 years of history such as Road & Track, Car & Driver, Autoweek or Motor Trend are obviously reliable sources independent from the subject (Bugatti) per your own quote (no press releases, no self-published materials, no material written by the organization). The fact you don't like such articles carries no weight regarding the assessment of notability. Cavarrone 19:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just after a couple of seconds of searching I found two of the independent and reliable sources MB found. I doubt WP:BEFORE was followed. WP:GNG makes no discrimination against "one-sided" pieces, as long as they are independent of the subject. There could be an article entitled "The Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo Sucks!" and that would still be an acceptable source per GNG. The nom's claims that the sources writers are not writing with their own opinions is 100% original research and the nom is possibly violating WP:BLP by claiming as such. (WP:BLP also applies to non-mainspace content.)--Oakshade (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG for a concept car. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of reliable sources per above. Industry sources like auto publications satisfy WP:RS or at least don't inherently not satisfy it as mentioned above. They're considered independent, or at least these are. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 8 September 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. Most of the people arguing to keep are WP:SPAs. Other than that, Prisencolin is the only established user arguing to keep; while asserting that there is coverage in books, no specific sources were presented. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space Development Steering Committee[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Notability: I'm only seeing trivial or PR-like coverage for this somewhat misleadingly named organisation. Most of the coverage originates from the org's founder Howard Bloom, who is not a space expert. Article appears to have been edited by COI / SPA accounts. It was created by editor who confirms that he is indeed Howard Bloom on his Talk page and serves as self-promotion for Mr Bloom's venture. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not enough actually convincing, there's nothing to suggest there's both convincing substance and then not making it simple PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A user posted an !vote on this AfD talk page. I have moved it to here so it's not missed (listed below). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I very recently did extensive editing of the Space Development Steering Committee article. I believe the article now meets Wikipedia's standard for both notability and neutrality. Please see the Space Development Steering Committee talk page for a much more lengthy response by me to the proposal for deletion. GeraldBlack (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep, there is coverage in books. The current promotional tone of the article may need to be toned down a bit.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: Could you please indicate which books the committee is mentioned and / or provide Google books links?

Comment Bob Krone, who is not registered on Wikipedia, asked me to post the following statement that he wrote. GeraldBlack (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP TO WIKIPEDIA ENTRY DECISION MAKERS,

The Space Development Steering Committee, founded and conducted by Howard Bloom ten years ago, is fully qualified for Wikipedia entry. Howard Bloom is one of the current Global Space Community's experts, advocates, scientists, authors and leaders. And, the members of the Space Development Steering Committee are all career professional Space experts.

I request dismissing the efforts to delete entry into Wikipedia by K.E. Coffman. You may want to discuss editing of content or style of the entry to more closely fit Wikipedia guidelines, but deletion of the entry would be an inappropriate, and value biased, Wikipedia decision.

I would be happy to further discuss this with any Wikipedia policy maker. My email and phone are in the signature block.

BobKrone, PhD, President, Kepler Space Institute (KSI)

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, Journal of Space Philosophy

Salena Gregory-Krone, GM-13 (Ret)

Www.keplerspaceinstitute.com

Cell. 951.314.8253 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: The above comment was stricken as a second !vote from Gblack3947 (talk · contribs). If an outside party is interested in taking part in this discussion, they will need to participate themselves. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I first tried to submit Bob Krone's statement (above), which included his email address, I got a warning from Wikipedia that including his email address might result in a large amount of spam being sent to his email address. I therefore deleted his email address. You can still contact him at his phone number which is included. If you still want his email address, leave a message on my talk page and I will provide it to you. GeraldBlack (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP I would also like to add that the SDSC works in concert with the National Space Society on a variety of issues. NSS has been a vocal supporter of space development since the 1970s. In fact, there should also be a link to the NSS to support the ties between the two organizations.Antoniusvivaldi (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Antoniusvivaldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment -- the improvements to the article have not been sufficient, IMO. Here's an example:

The SDSC is an organization member of the Alliance for Space Development.^[1] References to the SDSC have appeared on the internet^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] and in books.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13] Also, the SDSC has been a topic of discussion on three broadcasts of The Space Show , a radio talk show hosted by Dr. David Livingston.^[14]^[15]^[16]

References

^ ASD Members, Alliance for Space Development, retrieved March 4, 2015
^ Messier, Doug. "NSS, Space Frontier to Announce Formation of New Space Development Alliance". Parabolic Arc. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Bloom, Howard. "Sequestration Shovels Money to the Russians". Guest Blog. Scientific American. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Bloom, Howard. "NSS Board of Governors". National Space Society. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Boozer, R.D. "It's Time to Send Americans Into the Inner Solar System". SPACE.com. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Smith, Marcia. "Eleven Organizations Form Alliance for Space Development"". spacepolicyonline.com. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Anderson, Rupert (March 31, 2015). The Cosmic Compendium: Space Law. Lulu Press, Inc. p. 34. ISBN 978-1329030190. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Boozer, R.D. (December 17, 2013). The Plundering of NASA: an Expose. Lulu Press, Inc. p. 9. ISBN 978-1300939061. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Morris, Langdon (October 12, 2010). Space Commerce. Aerospace Technology Working Group. p. 244. ISBN 978-0578065786. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Bell, Sherry; Morris, Langdon (May 22, 2009). Living in Space. Aerospace Technology Working Group. p. 150 & 185. ISBN 978-0578021379. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Seedhouse, Eric (March 26, 2015). Survival and Sacrifice in Mars Exploration: What We Know from Polar Expeditions. Springer Publishing Co. p. 7. ISBN 978-3319124483. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^ Flournoy, Don (December 2, 2011). Solar Power Satellites. Springer Publishing Co. p. 65. ISBN 978-1461420002. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
^ Dick, Steven; Lupisella, Mark (October 23, 2011). Cosmos & Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context. NASA. p. 523. ISBN 978-0160826016. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
^ Boozer, Rick (January 27, 2014 interview). "Broadcast 2174". The Space Show. Dr. David Livingston. Retrieved 28 August 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Bloom, Howard (January 20, 2014 interview). "Broadcast 2169". The Space Show. Dr. David Livingston. Retrieved 28 August 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Bloom, Howard (March 1, 2010 interview). "Broadcast 1319". The Space Show. Dr. David Livingston. Retrieved 28 August 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

This is citation stuffing, with non-RS or primary sources such as amazon.com, allianceforspacedevelopment.org, www.nss.org/about/bios/bloom.html, Howard Bloom, Scientific American guest blog by Howard Bloom, www.thespaceshow.com, etc. This demonstrates that the organisation exists, but does not confirms its notability; pls see WP:EXIST. The books that the organisation "appeared in" are from Lulu Press, which is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source, and is not RS.

The section "Criticism" is not about the organisation, but about the position it takes, again cited to primary sources.

Lastly, the article states that "the primary activity of the committee currently is to produce press releases as needed." An organisation whose main function is to issue press release does not appear significant.

Thus, I come to the conclusion that independent RS sources have not taken notice of the group yet (WP:TOOSOON and that the article's purpose is to promote the organisation, violating WP:PROMO.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain further consensus; The arguments for keep seem weak and there may be potential outside interest. Added notavote template to clarify how this process works. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, only 2 of the six book references listed were published by Lulu Press. The other four books were not self-published. The book cited in reference number 13 above was edited by Steven Dick, the former chief historian for NASA and by Mark Lupisella, an engineer and scientist working for NASA, and furthermore this book was published by NASA. Here is a quote from page 523 of this book: “The Space Development Steering Committee includes the second astronaut on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin; the sixth astronaut on the Moon, Edgar Mitchell; and members from NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Future Science and Technology Exploration Branch of the Air Force.” Certainly this conveys notability and is from a RS. GeraldBlack (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)— Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This citation proves that the org WP:EXISTs; not that it's notable:

“The Space Development Steering Committee includes the second astronaut on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin; the sixth astronaut on the Moon, Edgar Mitchell; and members from NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Future Science and Technology Exploration Branch of the Air Force.”

Having important people as part of the committee does not confer notability to it, per WP:INHERIT. It appears (per sources) that only Mr Bloom is active; it's not clear what other people do apart from participating in teleconferences. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See my REFs 1-16 analysis below. I also searched for new sources with the Find Sources links. I can find no independent reliable sources that make more than a minimal passing mention of the SDSC. The only thing I didn't check was the 6 hours of audio, with no ref-time. Even if we assume the audio is a Reliable Source with in-depth coverage, the three audio refs would amount to just one source (all The Space Show). Notability requires multiple independent sources with Significant Coverage. (BTW, the three audio refs contribute exactly zero information to the article.)

REFS 1-16 analysis: #1 self-source #2 Passing mention (blog?) #3 Scientific American blog is had promise, but it's passing mention by a member #4 passing mention by member #5 passing mention by member #6 bare mention in a list #7 Book, checked, bare mention in a list #8 Book, checked, bare mention by a member #9 Book, checked, bare mention Hsu is on the Committee #10 Book, checked, duplicate bare mentions Hsu is on the Committee #11 Book, checked, passing mention #12 Book, checked, bare mention Hsu is on the Committee #13 Book Partial check, this strongly matches other passing mentions but I couldn't see the bottom of the text #14&#15&#16 counts as a single source, not checked, 6 hours of audio. Alsee (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading some of the recent comments I realize that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the SDSC does, what it is accomplishing, how the committee works, etc. This problem is largely because the article in its current form doesn’t covey this information very well. I am working on rewriting the article to address this issue and hope to release a substantially revised version of the article within the next day or two. I’ve been doing my best to improve the article so that it meets the high standards set by Wikipedia.

My knowledge about the SDSC stems from the fact that I joined the committee about 2 years ago and have participated in most of the weekly teleconference calls since that time. I previously disclosed this information on the SDSC talk page but am repeating it now since someone might have missed the earlier posting. It has only been about a month since I became a Wikipedia editor and I’m still a novice regarding all the abbreviations, jargon, editing procedures and policies that are a part of Wikipedia. Please forgive me if I have deviated from the correct procedures.GeraldBlack (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)— Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I just completed making substantial changes to the Wikipedia article. It is now more informative and will give the reader a better understanding of what the Space Development Steering Committee is all about. Included is information about Space Development Steering Committee activities that was not in the previous version of the article. GeraldBlack (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, the current version is not an improvement. It reads like the org's web page, and wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. For example, it includes a list of non-notable individuals of no encyclopedic value:

Other active members of the SDSC include:

Bruce Pittman, Director of Flight Projects & Chief System Engineer, NASA Space Portal, NASA Ames Research Center

Fred Becker, a systems engineer who has worked on the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, X-33, Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Taurus, the Spitzer Space Telescope, the Lunar Prospector, Pluto New Horizons, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and the Gravity Probe B.

Gary Barnhard, former executive director of the National Space Society, a robotic space systems engineer who worked with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to support the development of the International Space Station User Information System Requirements.

John Strickland, board member, National Space Society

I believe the editor who made the changes has a self-admitted conflict of interest (having participated in the teleconferences of the org). It may be best for them to not edit the article. (But I would let an admin decide whether COI is present or not).

In any case, I still reiterate my "Delete" nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the COI issue, it is true that about 2 years ago that I started taking part in the organization’s teleconferences, as I disclosed earlier. However, I would like to point out that no one on the committee receives any pay or compensation of any kind, so there is no financial issue at stake here. We volunteer our time freely because we believe in the value of our work.

Since most of the organization’s work is behind the scenes, it would be difficult for someone who has not been participating in the teleconferences to write a good article or to keep the article up to date. If we were to insist on absolute purity regarding the COI issue, then the quality of Wikipedia articles would go way down.

The important issue is not whether my involvement on the committee is sufficient to raise a COI issue, but rather whether the article is written from a neutral point of view. In the editing I’ve done over the last month, I have done my very best to ensure that the article is neutral. For instance, I added a section titled “Criticism” that includes opposing views on policy than that taken by the SDSC. If anyone still believes that the article is not neutral, let’s discuss why so we can remedy the problem. That’s a much better solution than deleting the article over this issue. GeraldBlack (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article in its current form does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:NORG. My suggestion would be to draftify the article, so that you could work on it in draft space, and then submit it to articles for creation. The current version is too weak for an article at this time, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Well, we’ll just have to disagree on the verifiability and notability issues. The article has been improved substantially since the deletion proposal was brought up, such that the article now contains 7 internet references, 6 book references and 3 radio program broadcasts where the work of the Space Development Steering Committee was discussed.

I also don’t think that the right course is to delete (or “userfy”) the article and submit it later to articles for creation. The time to remedy deficiencies in the article is now, while we have the benefit of discussion to identify needed changes. For instance, in a recent comment K.e.coffman was critical of the list of members that was included in the revised article. I added this list because I thought the qualifications of the committee members would be of interest to readers of the article (the committee members are all highly qualified career professionals who are experts on space issues). However, if most of you think the member list should be pared down or deleted altogether, we can do that. I’m flexible. Again, let’s improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s standards, rather than just delete it. GeraldBlack (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this may help a bit: You're concentrating on what color to paint the spacecraft, when you havn't even filled the engine with enough propellant to get off the ground. The propellant needed in this case is 3 or more independent, reliable sources that significantly discuss the SDSC. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Standard searches not showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. About best I found is a Universe Today article about one of their proposals[27] If better sources are found I would probably change my vote. Until then, suggest to move to Draft space (not User space). -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for news about the Universe Today article. This article does include significant coverage of the Space Development Steering Committee and is an article that I had somehow overlooked. I just added this reference to the SDSC article. GeraldBlack (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found two more references with significant coverage of the Space Development Steering Committee, both from Universe Today. Just finished adding these two references to the SDSC article. The list of references with significant coverage of the SDSC is growing. GeraldBlack (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dunhill[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this individual. References fail WP:RS as they are all promotional. The article appears to be a vanity page and purely promotional, which Wikipedia does not do WP:PROMO. Does not meet high standards for sourcing WP:BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur completely with nom. Promotional article without independent RS. MB 03:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article on a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece which is almost WP:G11-worthy. No reliable sources found, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page, and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016[edit]

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

Fake. Elections are not assigned Wanderer777 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Elections are required within three months of Karimov's death under the constitution. Number 57 20:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fact? --Wanderer777 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's cited in the article if you had bothered to read it... But here's another one for you ("According to the constitution, Nigmatilla Yuldoshev, the chairman of the upper house of parliament, is supposed to take over after Karimov's death, and elections must take place within three months."). Number 57 20:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - must take place. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Wanderer777 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines; WP:CRYSTAL specifically states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Or do you have evidence to suggest that the elections will not take place, in violation of the constitution? Number 5 7 11:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        " Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. " --Wanderer777 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What part of that supports your desire to delete the article? It only supports keeping it as far as I can see. Number 5 7 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Elections are required within three months of Karimov's death under the constitution.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though there may not be Presidential elections that satisfy Western observers, this is the beginning of a major political event in Uzbekistan and the name of this article can always be changed.--MorrisIV (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon. This is going to be an appointment of successor, not elections. My very best wishes (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a successor is in fact appointed and the election is aborted, then it will be time to delete.Wetman (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: your argument is false. Technically it is an election such as syrian presidential election, 2014. Cf WP:POINT. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Number 57. Ueutyi (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a crystal ball. Barring something truly remarkable, like Karimov rising from his grave, this election will happen. It will just be rigged. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. 184.148.6.185 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Aclany (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To resolve this issue I propose that the possible naming of a successor without an election be noted as an option in the Background section regarding this article. It is true that in the media it has been noted that the successor will likely be chosen or agreed upon by a small group of government individuals and family members of Karimov, but that individual may still only take office after being fielded as a candidate in the election and presumably winning, as user Editorofwiki points out above. Until that time the only reliable source with regard to naming a successor is the Constitution of Uzbekistan which foresees an election within 3 months time after the position becoming vacant and names the Chairman of the Senate acting head of state until such a successor takes office. Another scenario, as Number 57 pointed out currently has no legal basis or reliable source.Northernelk888 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is disruptive. It's going to happen. Smartyllama (talk) 01:26, 7 September 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 Rob Smith (Irish musician). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Railway Orchestra[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources to support the article's current content, and there is very little room for expansion. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page should simply redirect to Rob Smith as essentially he is the only person involved in this musical project[28]. -- Jackpollock^(talk) 22:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rob Smith (Irish musician). Very little coverage, can easily be covered there. --Michig (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into Rob Smith (Irish musician)#Discography etc. and redirect jnestorius^(talk) 14:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Rob Smith (Irish musician) - per notes above. (References provided describe the subject as a "project" by Mr Smith. Rather than a standalone group that might meet WP:MUSBIO in own right). Guliolopez (talk) 10:10, 8 September 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) 08:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered text (archaeology)[edit]

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

Can't find sources discussing this as a concept in archaeology Doug Weller talk 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of the phrase outside Wikipedia. A very loose, non-defining concept that could apply to thousands of texts but the article only includes a random selection of three. Joe Roe (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it matters that the phrase is rare. More serious is that neither the introductory sentence nor the existing content gives a clear idea of what the subject of the article is. It's possible that there is a useful article here if its scope is defined properly. The title is a secondary issue. Zero^talk 07:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a subject covered in reliable sources. Texts that are dug up and hence discovered don't deserved to be discussed separately. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we have a rather extensive category system for lost works, lost texts, etc. Not for "discovered" ones. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title appears to be a translation from Chinese, which might better be translated as "Excavated Texts" which appears to be a concept in Chinese Archeology (see e.g. [29], [30] Snippet from The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature - Volume 1 - Page 66). Note also the references in the Wikidata-linked Chinese article [31]. I placed a translation template on the article where a machine-translated version can be viewed for discussion purposes. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have three items on texts of which one or two are from archaeological sources; the third probably be something that was standing there until someone interested passed. This is not a useful list. There must be vast number of texts from archaeological sources, including much of what we know of the history of Sumer, Akkad, and ancient Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very vague term that requires a lot more defintion than this article gives. Going off a quick Google search, the phrase doesn't seem to be used anywhere else and it doesn't seem to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find a source that clearly defines the term. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:35, 7 September 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. This time around we have a quite solid consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 08:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The article has already been substantively deleted in all but name by a handful of editors. In its current form it is a WP:COATRACK for an anti-conspiracy POV essay with exactly one sentence left that very generally references the subject of the title. The article fails NPOV and everything of substance that could be connected to the title has been redacted.

That said I would prefer the article be kept. It recently survived, barely, an AfD. Further, the closing was strongly endorsed in a Deletion Review. What has occurred here appears to be a deliberate end run around the previous AfD by editors who presumably did not agree with its outcome. Reasonable people can debate the merits of this article and whether or not it should be kept. But I do not believe that it is right to delete an article by radical redaction after a no-consensus AfD. ~~If you want to delete an article that's fine, but do it honestly at AfD, not by the back door.~~ (Striking a sentence that I believe could be interpreted as impugning the good faith of the editors in question- A/O)

If the community confirms the gutting of all relevant material from the article then I !vote to Delete for the reasons stated above. However, my preference is to Keep the article, conditional on restoration of at least most of the redacted material for the reasons put forth in my Keep !vote in the previous AfD.

I respectfully defer to the community's judgement. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is WP:POINTY as can be and should probably be closed. That said, I agree that the article has effectively been blanked and edit warred to keep it blanked. That's a problem. Hobit (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. A couple of quick notes... First I do strongly disagree with the deletion by redaction (blanking of all relevant material) in the article, fair enough. However, the article has in fact been blanked and all that's left is an anti-conspiracy theory declaration (that I agree with but that's neither here nor there). That's not something we want to keep. Secondly the editors in question are blocking attempts to restore any of the blanked material. And lastly the article is very controversial. So much so that the closer of the previous AfD recommended a speedy renomination to try and get consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close – To be clear, you're nominating the article for deletion and want it kept? AfD is not the place for content disputes. Graham (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this is not a "content dispute." It is presenting to the community the question of whether we should confirm formally what has already been done informally, i.e. delete the article or whether it should be kept. That is exactly what AfD is for. The previous AfD ended in no consensus with a recommendation for a speedy renomination. The article in its current form does not meet our standards and if that remains the case, it should be deleted as I stated above. The guidelines only require that a rational for deletion be presented. It does not require that the nominator support or agree with the rational. AfD exists precisely to resolve existential questions of this sort. And yes there are a number of complicated issues here as can be seen from the previous AfD. Which is why it needs to be placed before the community for the broadest possible participation in the hope of gaining consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. In order to establish notability, it must be shown that someone has written about the topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election, not that various journalists have written about various individual theories. "Conspiracy theory" has a specific meaning in the literature, but journalists may stretch it. So for example the theory that Ted Cruz could not become president because he was born in Canada has been described as a conspiracy theory but is actually a fringe theory. The theory that Clinton's concussion affected her cognitive abilities is either an unfounded or malicious rumor. What we need is a source that explains what is meant by a conspiracy theory and outlines some examples from the 2016 election. And we need to know before we add anything that the author is talking about the same topic. If no one in reliable sources has chosen to write about the topic of this article then it lacks notability. The fact that we can find numerous examples where someone has called one theory or other a conspiracy theory (the "but we have sources!" argument) is insufficient to meet notability guidelines. Otherwise we could have articles such as "Republican sex offenders," "Democrat thieves," "Liberals who text pictures of their genitals," etc. Each of these articles would be a point of view nightmare, wasting editors' time edit-warring and on talk page arguments, which has happened here. TFD (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I've argued above this should be speedy closed, but until then...)

keep and restore material We have a lot of conspiracy theories this time around. I don't think it makes sense to have an article for each one (though many, if not all, of the ones in the article are individually quite well sourced and well above our inclusion guidelines. We have policies for judging notability, and that's WP:N. This is pretty clearly beyond "news"--these are real (if incorrect) discussions going on, and it should be our job to clarify them to the extent sources allow us to do so. Basically, I claim there is no basis in policy for deletion. I've seen notability, BLP and a misunderstanding of how we cover hoaxes as justification, but none of those hold water. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TFD has convinced me. This is a synthesis of a bunch of individual theories, and there is coverage on the individual elements but not the article topic itself. That it is a POV nightmare is true but not as persuasive as the fact that the sources are talking about the individual events, not the group. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hopeless POV coatrack that is bound to violate BLP and is unencyclopedic.--MONGO 23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the exact same reasons I argued just like ... last week (though it seemed to be about 10x longer at the time). BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TFD. As a stand-alone topic, I don't see evidence this concept exists in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. Compiling all such ideas in one article is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. --Jayron 32 01:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if these sources were in it before the article was culled, but 30 seconds on Google uncovered plenty of sources that treat "Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election" as a concept in its own right, not a collection of disparate ideas SYNTHed together -

"Presidential election brings conspiracies into the light" (Associated Press) [32]
"Welcome to the Conspiracy Theory Election" (Newsweek) [33]
"The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016" (Politico) [34]
"Donald Trump's a Liberal Plant and 5 Other Ridiculous Political Conspiracy Theories" (Men's Journal) [35]
"The 10 weirdest 2016 election conspiracy theories" (San Francisco Chronicle) [36]

BlueSalix (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly op-eds and therefore do not meet rs. The exception, from AP merely uses the term "conspiracy theory" in passing. It does not define "conspiracy theory" or identify any of the "rumors and innuendo" mentioned as conspiracy theories. Going forward, how would we determine whether speculation about Clinton's health or Trump's alleged ties to Russia were legitimate questions or mere conspiracy theories? TFD (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor as a related AfD above, as relevant to this discussion. Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TFD, and my own comments in the last discussion. --Begoon ^talk 03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteConspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 lacks any notability in its self. Excluding perhaps the Trump plant theory the aspects that have been removed lack any notability stand alone, though I question if it does. This article is abit of a coatrack. I question if it's anything more than a povfork to hold non-notable fringe topics such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. Thus far I've no evidence other than the affirmative. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no way to have this article be encyclopedic once one removes all the non-RS garbage. I have no idea what "anti-conspiracy theory POV" is. That just sounds strange. Is that like when someone doesn't believe in conspiracy theories and that's supposedly a bad thing or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now that the WP:fringe and WP:OR has been removed there is nothing left that is notable for a stand alone article. And frankly the old version should not be "restored", it was a WP:POVFORK and also had WP:UNDUE issues. It should have been deleted. Kierzek (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The election does seem to be full of conspiracy theories, and several media outlets (MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times certainly) state explicitly that they are conspiracy theories - that Clinton had brain damage, that Cruz's dad killed JFK, etc. Now this is all clearly bollocks, but the fact is such things have been a surprisingly substantial part of the campaign on the GOP side. These things have been removed under the guise of BLP, but I believe that is being applied too widely - it seems people would rather pretend such theories don't exist and are using the idea that "Cruz's dad killed JFK" as being defamation to remove it. Saying that without context is defamation, what is not is saying "Trump implied Cruz's dad killed JFK citing a supposed image of Cruz and Oswald. The photo is not of Cruz. Trump repeated these claims despite debunkation." Cite to NYT, WP, CNN, BBC, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore. I don't think the present stub version of the article is really worth keeping, but the revision with details was well-sourced, and only WP:SYN in the sense that any article that aggregates multiple opinions and perspectives is. I do not see any novel thesis being advanced, either in the stub or non-stub versions of the article. Much has been written about conspiracy theories, in American politics in general, and also in the 2016 election cycle, to warrant an article on that subject. There are even good sources for specific theories that we can use. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coatrack. Should have been deleted in the first AfD, it was running 22-12, which seems decisive. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with BlueSalix, there are many RS that put all these theories in the same context, so it's appropriate to have an article. JerryRussell (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it should have been the first time; that was a terrible close which should have been overturned and hopefully will be this time. Loads of synthesis, including an attempt to end-run round the Clinton brain damage AfD. Just because reliable sources happen to comment on lunatic ones doesn't make a cobbling together of them notable. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm still not convinced there's an intelligible encyclopedic subject here. There are sources using the term "conspiracy theory" to talk about specific claims and there are sources which talk about the use of conspiracy theories being a trend in one campaign or another -- or in the election in general. Given the latter, I get why there are people arguing to keep. My problem is that it's analogous to "List of lies of the United States presidential election, 2016" based on sources like this, this, or this. Or a "List of crazy claims of the United States presidential election, 2016" because of sources like this or this. There are indeed plenty of sources for both -- talking about individual crazy claims and a pattern of crazy claims. The problem is, "conspiracy theory", like "crazy claim" does not in this usage have any clear meaning such that they can be brought together without either (a) WP:SYNTH, or (b) sourcing that simply uses the term (in which case a list of "crazy" claims also fits the bill). As others have pointed out, many of the things called "conspiracy theories" do not include a conspiracy, but are rather just baseless/fringe/outrageous claims. There's plenty of room in the various campaign/election articles for mention of particular claims that attracted significant attention, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if you look at this article not just as a violation of Wikipedia's rules, but as an 'attractive nuisance' which will encourage editors to add allegations to it, and of course pave the way for the sequel, Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2020... or why not create one for 2008 and file all those Kenya birthplace stories?→StaniStani 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories?? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Weak delete?): This article, if kept, needs to be held on a very, very short leash, to avoid it being flooded with unreliable garbage. I am not confident that that could be done. I do acknowledge that there is enough info out there to probably pass GNG. p b p 19:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TFD and others.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we'll be able to keep this under control of NPOV. Most of these things will be forgotten as soon as the election is over, anyway. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm going to quote two other editors:

On Clinton: "The article was created to subvert this AfD on Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. The media has to feed the 24×7 news frenzy, and throw-away attacks are described in detail. However, Wikipedia should not contain such attacks except with an after-the-fact encyclopedic treatment based on secondary sources with an analysis of the long-term effects of the attacks." (Johnuniq)
On Cruz: "The section exists to include only negative information about a living person with dubious sourcing. It's a repository for information too dubious for the Cruz bio article and this article title doesn't make the BLP violations okay. Stuff said about Ted Cruz that doesn't have enough reliable sources to be in his biography is not an article we need to create under any title." (DHeyward)

In summary, "it's-in-the-news" does not cancel normal BLP standards. And just because several RS took the time to dispell a rumor, that does not mean that an article needs to be created that would synthesise the commentary into a coat rack article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, and salt until the day after the Electoral College decision (20 December 2016) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, plus as per WP:IAR, the encyclopedia must be maintainable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TFD and my past reasons in AfD's of this ilk; still a WP:COATRACK and not appropriate for this venue at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All valid content (if any) related to these theories should be included in other pages. None of these theories seems to be sufficiently notable to deserve a page. Each of them is a textbook example of WP:Recentism. All together? An example of WP:Coatrack. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page was nominated for deletion, the closure was "No consensus", and it was brought to Deletion Review, where the closure was endorsed. This should be sufficient to require a moratorium for a few months, and you shouldn't re-nominate it just 2 days later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Even if you were right, WP:IAR alone overrides all procedural crap. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks. I appreciate the Keep !vote. I've been feeling a little lonely on here. That said, I felt obliged to renominate due to the fact that it's been stubbed by a handful of editors who blanked all material related to the subject of the article and left only an anti-conspiracy theory paragraph. I am more than satisfied that the subject meets WP:GNG and I am unconvinced by the arguments alleging violations of BLP and SYNTH in the article before it was blanked. Unfortunately repeated efforts to restore most of the redacted material by various editors have been blocked by aggressive edit warring. In its current form the article is an empty shell with nothing but a POV attack on conspiracy theorists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies to one of our former presidents, I view invoking WP:IAR as something that should be safe, legal and rare. It certainly should not be invoked as a defense for abuse of process in an effort to delete an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An AfD, when closes, imposes no such moratorium. In fact, the closer stated: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." Which is what happened. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are omitting the small detail that the article was first deleted in all but name, without bothering with any renomination to AfD in violation of WP:BLANK and with no respect for the lack of consensus on the part of an AfD that had very widespread participation. This article may well end up being deleted via this discussion. While disappointing, I can live with that, because that is how we delete articles on here that are controversial. Blanking an article is an extreme act, and a specie of de-facto deletion. While I concede there are very rare circumstances where it is appropriate and have even done it myself a few times, it should never be done without the strongest possible consensus and/or in cases where it is non-controversial. The fact that it was done in this situation is bad enough. But once editors objected the redacted material should have been restored. Removal of all substantives content, again excepting a handful of special cases is improper per WP:BLANK. If you believed that all or most of the material in the article needed to go, the correct action was to renominate it at AfD. No editor or small group of editors have the right to unilaterally blank an article in this manner. That you don't seem to realize how inappropriate this was is extremely disconcerting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, User:The Four Deuces puts this better than I can. Unless there are reliable sources on the specific topic of "conspiracy theories about the 2016 US presidential election", then this is at best going to be a pile of WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, many of the "Keep" votes are rooted entirely in procedural argument about the previous AFD/DRV rather than addressing the substance of the argument, or argue for the inclusion of a list of fringe theories rather than conspiracy theories (this would still be WP:SYNTH, but would at least be accurate). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, this reeks of WP:SYN. Not that I blame anyone especially: the current election is dominated by a man who appears to be irrational and who has surrounded himself with zealots and cranks, so undoubtedly there will be a very high degree of bullshit in the coming weeks. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And wouldn't we want to document this bullshit as a warning to our future? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; looks like WP:SYN with a dose of recentism (which is Wikipedia's biggest problem). More-over its originally and primarily WP:CONTENTFORK to get past an AFD of the Hillary content article, using Synth techniques to justify a broader article. Content that is not a BLP issue can be merged into relevant articles (not that I saw much that was worth it). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia should not be a repository for repeating wholly-false, absurd and damaging personal attacks against living people, which is what these "theories" about Cruz and Clinton amount to. If, at some point down the line, there becomes significant academic and media discussion of "conspiracy theories about these presidential candidates," we could consider an article. But in the heat of this election, it looks like a COATRACK for negative campaigning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest early close As the OP who was in the odd position of arguing to Keep the article (it's a long story; see the nominating statement) I am compelled to acknowledge the obvious. There is a very strong consensus in favor of deleting the article, and I entertain no realistic hope of reversing that. While respectfully disagreeing with that consensus, I am nonetheless obliged to bow to it. There is no reason to drag this out any longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Why is this article's subject matter any more (or less, depending on how one views it) special than the myriad of other articles covering conspiracy theories of other events. We do not have to document them as credible claims, but we do need to catalogue them as widespread and popular, significant events. Otherwise we are whitewashing the insanity, trying to paint a pretty picture of the United States' political climate. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep it to spread the Truth^® about American politics? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is unclear to me whether the article's various sections (such as the passage that describes a rumor / fringe theory that Clinton had a seizer) describe the hoax itself, or an alleged conspiracy to promulgate such as hoax. The former would be outside of the scope of this article (but that's what the article mostly consisted of, with Cruz content added after the first AfD concluded).

Thus, listing various rumors and then adding a "Conspiracy theories" headline on an article is pure synthesis and hues too close to BLP violations. After the election, when the dust settles, it would be a proper time to revive this article (provided sufficient coverage would exist). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Help me out here as I am a new user. "Delete" sounds like a fairly permanent action to me. "When the dust settles" will the article's history still be available to work from, or will anyone who wishes to make the article be forced to do so entirely from scratch? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Most admin will undelete articles to allow an established editor to extract sections for a plausibly notable article if it emerges. Delete looks permanent, but all deleted articles can be seen by and undeleted by admins (like myself) under a set of policies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Restore the blanked contents and rename to Fringe theories in the United States presidential election, 2016. Contested material will keep popping up everywhere until the election is over, and probably some time afterwards. This article is a great WP:ONEWAY landing pad for such claims, similar to jurisprudence established at 9/11 conspiracy theories. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories seems more like a classic example of WP:MERGE than WP:ONEWAY. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, wouldn't this be an example of the walled garden that WP:ONEWAY hopes to avoid?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contentious material about living individuals in a contentious topic area with discretionary sanctions should require a firm consensus to keep, rather than a firm consensus to delete. The topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To condense the reasons I added at the end of the last AFD, this article in its full state (i.e. before the deletion of various paragraphs) is synthesis of various claims and allegations and it is too soon for them to be considered a notable topic. Most of them also fail to meet the definition of a "conspiracy theory". After the election is over, the claims about the winner will probably live on; some will believe Clinton cheated if she wins, or others will continue to question Trump's ties with Putin if he wins. Truly notable theories will have their own articles, similar to claims about Obama. But it is too soon for claims about Clinton, Cruz and Trump to be lumped together in this manner. In the future there may be discussion about what role (if any) these claims had in affecting the outcome of the election. That is when the theories would become notable as a topic and this article would become appropriate. Until then, it should be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. There is a lot of disinformation surrounding this election, much of it deliberate. The analysis of what, why, who, and how may eventually become encyclopedic. But at this point, the article seems to be here less for that purpose and more as a way of putting the disinformation into the encyclopedia and then pointing to it to say "see! with all that smoke there must be a fire!". That is, to spread it around even more. That is the opposite of our purpose as an encyclopedia. So I think it would be best to wait (at least, after the election) until time has made more clear what aspects of this subject are encyclopedic. If I had any faith that we could clearly, decisively, and unambiguously debunk the rumors that deserved it, I might have a different opinion, but Wikipedia is not Snopes and shouldn't try to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/donald-trumps-latest-conspiracy-theory-im-afraid-the-election-is-going-to-be-rigged http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/hillarys-health-conspiracy-theory https://newrepublic.com/minutes/135452/trump-putin-conspiracy-theory-gone-mainstream http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/conspiracy-theories-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-214183 https://medium.com/@sahiljain07/2016-elections-conspiracy-theory-df48fb23401f#.4m4fz9y06 http://www.newsweek.com/welcome-conspiracy-theory-election-456654 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10-strangest-conspiracy-theories-us-145536675.html http://www.sfgate.com/elections/article/The-10-weirdest-2016-election-conspiracy-theories-7377054.php and many more sources found in google. There are many of these articles with different spins on this, some are unreliable, but there are non-trivial numbers of ones in reputable places too. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's an essay, not an article. Jonathunder (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because it's been reduced to that state with contentious edits. Followed by an AfD wholesale. Is this gaming the system? No clue, I haven't been around long enough to tell. Feels like it though. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At the previous AfD I supported deletion on the grounds of a lack of citations specifically about the topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election as opposed to citations about individual theories. Since then I have seen several reliable sources talking about the overall topic of conspiracy theories in the U.S. presidential election. I also picked one of the conspiracy theories that was properly sourced and tried to discuss it on the article talk page, only to find that several individuals have removed all of the content and will not allow any conspiracy theory to be listed on the page, no matter how well sourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider re-creating the day after the election Per Unscintillating's `excellent argument below. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note there appears to be some incidences of off-Wiki gaming occurring vis a vis this AfD (undoubtedly in coordination with the on-Wiki gaming) - [37], [38], etc. BlueSalix (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fascinating! Why is it claimed that the article is "pro-Hillary/anti-Trump"? jps (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reality has a well-known liberal bias. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:BLP–WP:NOTNEWS superstorm Seeing as how everything here falls under BLP restrictions, it is a magnet for people who don't even know what a conspiracy theory is (hint: Clinton's health is just a false rumor) and people laying down "I'm just saying" slanders, never mind reporting the various rumors accurately. Even when it isn't reporting ongoing stories, it's mostly about making sure people don't forget whichever flash-in-the-pan crazy political rumor is making the rounds. Sure, you can cite any of this stuff out of the various mainstream media sources: that's why these lines get fed to them, to make sure that they get spread around. Is there any way we can report thins stuff in a responsible and encyclopedic fashion? Not really. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding among some "Delete" !voters about terminology. Conspiracy theory = False rumor. The term "conspiracy theory" is, inherently, a term of delegitimization. "Conspiracy theory" is NOT a synonym for "conspiracy" or "theory about a conspiracy." For example, Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. BlueSalix (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the introduction of conspiracy theory says, or the dictionary definition provided here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly what it says: "The term conspiracy theory has derogatory connotations, suggesting explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing imaginary hypotheses that are not true." Aside from the obvious gamers, everyone here seems to be !voting Delete out of personal offense that a CT they happen to believe was among those listed in this article. I'm starting to feel like this article may have been a sociology experiment. BlueSalix (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So people are either gaming the system or they believe a particular conspiracy theory to be true if they opted for a deletion argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While a conspiracy theory is a false rumor, it is more than that. A conspiracy theory is "a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal, [It is] notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” (M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton quoted in Scientific American.[39]) Powerful and sinister does not mean groups like the DNC or RNC, but groups like the New World Order or illuminati. TFD (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't George Soros and Vladimir Putin considered NWO/Illuminati by fringe groups? Doesn't Alex Jones constantly talk about Hillary being an NWO puppet? Doesn't Hillary Clinton say Trump and the alt-right are controlled by Putin? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inherent problem with all pages (such as that one) that combine unrelated subjects, but misrepresent them as something essentially the same. Some of the "theories" are obvious nonsense, others could be legitimate theories about actual conspiracies, but they are all dumped together and discredited simply by the name of this page. Hence "delete" per WP:Coatrack. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All true. The problem for Wikipedia editors is where to draw the line between legitimate speculation and conspiracism. TFD (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: another great source published during this debate: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/trump-black-latino-voters-national-diversity-coalition Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to userspace/draftspace until reliable sources about the subject as a whole exist There are plenty of RSs about individual conspiracy theories during this election. But I've yet to see one that actually discusses the phenomenon of conspiracy theories during this election as a whole. There will be some eventually, of that I have no doubt. But until then, Wikipedia should not be write about the phenomenon as it is too soon to speak authoritatively on it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: About journalistic coverage of multiple fringe theories in this election as a whole, several such sources have been quoted in this AfD and the previous one. — JFG ^talk 09:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such information can be adequately covered by a sentence or two in other articles. The issue is the lack of support for collecting these into a single article on this concept. --Jayron 32 12:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG:Do any of those sources talk about the conspiracy theories that won't hit popular consciousness until next week? What about the ones that won't show up till next month? That's my problem (hence why I keep saying "too soon"): We're not done with the election season and we have no idea what new CS's will show up, and whether or not those new CS's will drastically change the overall tone or analysis of this subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

Delete per WP:PROFRINGE. Anything that actually needs to be covered can be covered on one of the many existing 2016 election pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be inline with WP:ONEWAY. Placing the material in one of the existing articles that it. Where applicable and not limited by another policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As a WP:BCA per the discussion. Merging the disambiguation page's contents here would be a discussion for the article talk pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report[edit]

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

This appears to be a classic case of WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Article's references are 1.) to a dictionary, and 2.) to an unreliable source on the word. I can see nothing particularly special about this word to justify us having an article on it or even a redirect from it to some other (probably equally vague) word. KDS4444 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move report (disambiguation) to this title and partially merge. ~~Disambiguate - Convert to a~~ [This is] basically [already] serving as a disambiguation page [of sorts]. [Moving report (disambiguation) to this title after merging some of the content that currently resides at report with it (taking WP:D and MOS:D into account in regard to what should be merged) is the best option. The history of what resides here should be preserved at report (disambiguation) which would become a redirect.]—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would type simply "report" if they are looking for a annual report, credit report or any of the other partial title matches listed there, so I don't see anything to disambiguate between. To my eyes, it looks like a textbook example of a broad-concept article. Uanfala (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: Report (disambiguation) exists. If report is freed up, it should be moved there, as "(disambiguation)" becomes unnecessary (WP:DABNAME). I've clarified my !vote above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy:, per my previous comment, in my opinion there isn't anything to merge into the dab as it's a typical broad-concept article. Uanfala (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a typical a WP:BCA. The fact that at present its two references are word definitions has to do with what happened to be the current content of the article, and that is a different matter from the general notability of the topic. Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes it's a broad concept article with many senses. I don't think the current article is in such sad shape as the tags suggest. Clearly a notable topic. Is it a dictionary definition? I think it's a topic that can be considered to be encyclopedic -- with many angles -- so I think it belongs. Plus there are over 600 readers a day suggesting it's serving a purpose.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanfala. JackHoang (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A broad-concept topic that comfortably passes WP:GNG: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 10 September 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 Miss California USA . (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Beezley[edit]

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

Beezley is a non-notable beauty pageant contestant. She just won a state competion, this is not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at WP:BEFORE and go through the steps there? Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is the above referring to the tabulating mixup?

"A bigger blunder this year belonged to Miss California USA organizers. The judges crowned the wrong queen in their November contest and reversed it days later, saying Raquel Beezley, of Barstow, was the victim of a vote tabulation error. Dethroned Miss Los Angeles, Christina Silva, a Hispanic woman, has filed a lawsuit alleging racial bias."

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss California USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2008 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a weak keep) Winning Miss California, and then the tabulation screw-up, with legal fallout, puts her in the keep category for me, but just by a tad. Sources include coverage of the mixup here and here and here. So, does beauty pageant winner + screw-up = notability? I'm lukewarm, could go either way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss California USA per North America. I don't see sufficient coverage for an article. I don't think the vote count error was that significant. MB 03:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss California USA; not independently notable. The coverage is mostly of the screw-up, not about Ms Beezley. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss California USA per above. Minor coverage of vote-tally error doesn't focus on the individual; not in-depth, significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 15:25, 8 September 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 Miss Arizona USA. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Joiner[edit]

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

Joiner is a non-notable person. All the sources relate to her pageant apparence, but they are also all overly connected directly to the pageant. It would probably a bit much to call any of them a truly secondary source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; a non notable individual otherwise. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arizona USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2008 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arizona USA. Insufficient notability for an article. MB 03:16, 3 September 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 Super Bowl LI. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Super Bowl Host Committee[edit]

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

A few Google News sources appear to be announcements promoting a "volunteer drive". Appears to have garnered coverage for only this single event. This organization is not notable, lacking significant coverage as the primary subject in reliable sources WP:RS. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG, i.e., the Superbowl. This article fails WP:ORGDEPTH, and this article is perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Also, this article adds unrelated information under various section titles, which makes it appear as though there is more related content than there actually is. Wikpedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons cited by nom, delete or possibly merge or redirect to Super Bowl LI. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside of Super Bowl LI. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Super Bowl LI. A lot of the stuff is actually relevant and should be in the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Super Bowl LI, a reasonable WP:ATD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 9 September 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/archive as a hoax. It's taken a few years since the first AfD, but it's finally gone now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Donoghue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hoax. The first AfD nomination was for lack of significant coverage, and was closed as no consensus, but there is a more serious problem with the article: the reason for lack of coverage is that there is no such actor. None of the references stand up; there was no character "Shane Swanson" in Hollyoaks; he is not in the cast lists of the films and programs he is supposed to have featured in; he has no IMDb entry. The article author Rank99 (talk · contribs) also created hoax articles Tom Prescillo (deleted) and Frankie Wicks (since redirected, now nominated at RfD). JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a potential hoax. My searches are not finding anything either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks to be a fairly blatant hoax - I can find nothing to substantiate any of this. Since this existed for over a year I guess I can add this to the hoax pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived it given the lack of proof that this person exists as an actor - or that any of his roles have either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 4 September 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 21:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Banayan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted per AfD, this is a somewhat expanded version and thus I am bringing it here. This was the version previously deleted. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Banayan is notable neither for being a venture capitalist nor for anything else he has done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrapping the same advert in a prettier package does not change the underlying non-notability. Nothing present here is new apart from the appearances. The only reasonable sources where checked out last time and found wanting. No new sources published since the last afd. Last result should stand. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 6 September 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. No consensus on creating a redirect, but the page removal has enough support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Ann Mewha[edit]

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

Being Miss Florida USA does not confer notability. The other incident, basically getting passing notice over a tweet, is also not notable. being a "licensed medical doctor" is no where near making someone notable, nor are any of her other positions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. My searches didn't come up with much, except a mention of a doctor named Carrie Mantha. Searchers note the last name change; my sense is the "Ann" middle name shouldn't be used when searching.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and lack of sources to meet GNG. IMO, a redirect is unnecessary as the name would not have been well known to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 6 September 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 lack of notability. Seems like there is no consensus on a redirect so not going for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rafalowski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rafalowski is a non-notable model who won Miss Flordia USA back about 10 years ago, but that title is not enough to make her notable, and her modeling career is not enough for notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Per my comments at WP:BP notability discussion, I don't think winners of subnational competitions are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E pertaining to the pageant win. Ms Rafalowski's modeling career and appearances do not rise to the level of notability either. A redirect is unneeded as she was unlikely to be noted enough for her name to become a valid search term, and it would come up on the list of winners anyway, should anyone search wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 5 September 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. No consensus on creating a redirect instead, so going for delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Clementi[edit]

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

Clementi was Miss Flordia USA, and also previously runner-up to Miss Florida America. The second is no where near any sort of notability. The former produced one article in a reliable source, and at best is one-event notability. Her being a cheerleader for the Orlando Magic does not confer notability. There is also no indication that her sports journalism has risen to the level of notability, but I am thinking that is the only place she is likely to rise to the level of notability, but I don't think it has happened yet. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Redirecting to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Getting much press here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC) But not much in-depth, switching to Delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; this is a WP:PSEUDO biography on a otherwise no notable individual. A redirect is unneeded as the subject was unlikely to become noted enough for her name to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 5 September 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 Miss Delaware USA. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Bosso[edit]

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

This article relies heavily on the publication of the University of Delaware, where Bosso was a student. I have grave reservations about using university newspapers as sources, but using them as sources for the notability of their own students is even more questionable. Other than that the sources tend to be Bosso's own website, a PR site on a reality show she was in, or pageant PR. Nothing at all indicates that Bosso is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO BLP on a non-notable individual. State level pageant win is a WP:BIO1E and does not add to subject's notability. I agree with the nom's cogent analysis of sources: overage is trivial, WP:ROUTINE or non independent of the subject (Uni newspaper). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Delaware USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Not much found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 3 September 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 Miss Egypt. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heba El-Sisy[edit]

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

The sourcing on this article is down-right weak. We have one source, that basically shows her in a massive precession at a beauty pageant. The other is her own personal website. None of this is enough to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my comment at the wikiproject (permalink), there is nothing to suggest WP:GNG is satisfied. There are sources [short-biography.com/heba-el-sisy.htm like this]had to disable link because it's on the blacklist! that do not meet WP:RS, and which are possibly based on the article, or vice versa. I do not see anything further re WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Egypt as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Egypt; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 4 September 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 per WP:SNOW. Early discussion focused on WP:PROF but since the nomination started she has attained what the consensus of the relevant comments here shows to be a clear pass of WP:NPOL. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lau Siu Lai[edit]

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

May or may not be notable; I cannot evaluate the references. Though presidents of impt colleges inherently meet WP:PROF, I don't think this applies to presidents of junior colleges. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator - definitely fails WP:PROF. Joel.Miles925 18:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I've looked through the sources on the Chinese-language article with the benefit of Gtranslate and this appears to also be a kind of COAT article about self-styled democracy activist -- which is laudable -- but one who seems to be mainly known for her and her brother's efforts to sell rice rolls in a market, per this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any evidence that she is the president of any college. Has anyone found support for that assertion?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The translated Wiki article is here. Quite a few different claims, mainly as a democratic activist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That suffers from the same problem as the English article. The president assertion is sourced to a "not found". I don't believe she's the president of the university, and the college appears to have a director, not a president.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She could of course be notable without being a university president, such as for her 'democracy' work. But doesn't appear to be there yet, even going by the Simplified Chinese article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes! Thanks for correcting this, Bbb23 -- I had !voted twice. Lack of sleep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that Lau Siu-Lai is one of the candidates running in the upcoming 2016 Hong Kong legislative election, which is being held tomorrow. She's running for a seat in the Kowloon West district. Not sure if she'll win or if that makes her notable if she loses, but it's just one factor to keep into consideration. --Rhapsodic (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. Thank you. I struck through my delete, for now. If she wins her seat, I believe that would make her automatically notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered by Hong Kong/China press.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56], as well as numerous other Chinese sources, including Apple Daily, and The Stand News. Stats suggest that she could win a seat in Kowloon West. She is a professor in a university but she was primarily known for founding Democracy Groundworks, advocating democracy and encouraging youth to join politics after the Umbrella Revolution, for those who do not know about her. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lau Siu-lai is potentially councilor, and she is widely discussed across the Web in HK and is widely reported by Apple Daily HK. But the article should be improved instead of deletion.
Speedy keep – she was just elected to LegCo. Citobun (talk) 03:53, 5 September 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) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axisesboy[edit]

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

I really doubt this musician meets WP:NMUSIC, but I'm hesitant to nominate for speedy deletion. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 18:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND. Joel.Miles925 18:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - non-notable hip hop musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 5 September 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monturque[edit]

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

Census-designated places are not notable Tylr00 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Article needs reworking to express notability Tylr00 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Keep - While I don't believe all census-designated places are notable, there is no specific policy to say this shouldn't be here. A search turned up a lot of results (341,000) and that alone should say "keep" to anyone reading this thread. Joel.Miles925 18:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keshish Qeshlaqi[edit]

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

Census designated places are not notable Tylr00 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Only 12 people? That isn't even a village. A google search found nothing of note, and there were no other sources. Looks pretty clear-cut to me. Joel.Miles925 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND explicitly says that offially recognised places with very low, even zero, populations can be kept. ~~I do however note that the coordinates in the article seem to point to a mountain with no sign of habitation~~, so it would be good if someone who understands Persian could check out the census source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Census data has nothing to do with notability per WP:GEOLAND Tylr00 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

WP:GEOLAND starts with the words "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable", so census data have everything to do with it. They show that it is both populated and legally recognized. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Though editing as an IP, the editor appears to be quite knowledgeable and the nominator may have misunderstood what he or she is saying -- or what the reference to "census tract" in GEOLAND means. At any rate, if it can be proven to exist as a separate entity -- not a subdivision of a larger village or town -- I daresay this tiny village might meet GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the same sentence on WP:GEOLAND census-designated places are specifically excluded from notability. This nomination was based on that precisely. Tylr00 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

As Shawn said, you are misinterpreting the phrase "census tract", which has a very specific meaning that is only applicable to a very small number of census-designated places. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Just to make it a little clearer to the nominator: a village is not a census tract -- or it isn't solely one. But census data could be helpful in verifying that such a small village exists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not to discerne this village from a census track, but to say that per GEOLAND a population is not required to be considered notable, as abandoned places could be notable. Therefore, census data (i.e., number of inhabitants) has nothing to do with notability. So, this article is not notable because nothing worthy of posting has been or is written on this article Tylr00 (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still misinterpreting WP:GEOLAND, which I quoted above. If there is a reliable source showing that a place is legally recognised, such as a census entry, then it is considered notable. The stuff about census tracts only serves to confuse, and only applies to a handful of countries. It means that arbitrarily delineated areas used in some censuses are not "places" as meant by the guideline. A village is not arbitrarily delineated, and it's vanishingly unlikely that census tracts would be set up with a population as low as 12 - that would defeat the whole object of census tracts. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what the nominator's trying to get at, since this place is recognized as a village, not a census tract or a census-designated place (which is an American concept anyway). At any rate, villages of any size are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. I'm not sure how one construes "a population is not required for notability" as "being recognized by a census does not establish notability", given that being included in a government-run census is in fact government recognition. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that per WP:GEOLAND, a large city or an abandoned village could be notable (therefore, having or not having population is not required), and in the same breath it states that areas only for the purpose of taking a census are not notable. Therefore, we're not looking at the population or acknowledgment of a "government" and being included in the census has nothing to do with notability. Please refer to the WP Tylr00 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of what everyone else is telling you. The stuff about census tracts in WP:GEOLAND is just an esoteric case that applies to a vanishingly small number of places covered by censuses, and, personally, I wish it wasn't there because it leads to such confusion. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be using the best possible sources to show official recognition of a village. By persisting with your idiosyncratic interpretation you are diverting the discussion away from the point that I made in my first edit here, that the coordinates given in the article point to a place high in the mountains that doesn't, per Google Earth, have any sign of human habitation. Either the coordinates are wrong or the census data have been misread, and it needs someone who reads Persian to check out the latter. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So much wrong with nomination. Census designated places are an American concept, and in any event satisfy WP:GEOLAND and are something very different from census tracts, which generally don't. And this is a village in India, which also satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing that the nominator's argument is invalid, I'm still concerned about the issue that I have raised twice above about the coordinates in the article pointing to a place near a mountain top with no sign of human habitation (and, by the way, this village is claimed to be in Iran, not India). I think that that's enough, before we can support keeping this, to ask that someone who can read Persian checks the census source to see if this article is mistaken in the claim that this village even exists, as it is obviously mistaken in its location. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I clearly see buildings on the Google satellite view. I'm not sure what you mean by "no sign of human habitation." It's a small village to be sure, but it's a village. Zoom in and you'll see the buildings quite clearly. Smartyllama (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what was wrong with me when I looked before, but I can see them now. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 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. Jujutacular (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paravector[edit]

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

No significant coverage, Apparent COI Rgdboer (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. William E. Baylis is the author of cited sources, and possibly the author of this article as it was started from University of Windsor at computer 137.207.80.65. User: Cabrer7 last edited it in May of 2007. The four-dimension concept of "paravector" fails notability outside Baylis texts. Rgdboer (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar search linked above appears to contradict your last sentence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This search shows plenty of sources not by Baylis— this topic seems to have very clear notability to me. Margalob (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On mathematical subjects Mathematical Reviews gives sharper results than Google, which turns up links like this for Paravector Using MR with "paravector" requested in the title of an reviewed paper turns up only six articles with 2 by Baylis, 1996 and 2004. The review MR2343438 is just an advertisement for the reviewer’s book. Two other reviews only quote from the source papers: MR3129054, MR3266495. The sixth article MR2970983 looks more significant, but appears in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras where Baylis is an editor and editorial standards can be viewed online. The body of publications on paravectors is insufficient to support an article on the topic.Rgdboer (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Highbeam search showed 6 articles, and a plain google search turned up sources not from Baylis (R da Rocha, R Jozef to name a couple). Also, there isn't any definite proof of a COI. Joel.Miles925 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 4 September 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) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AquaMobile Swim School, Toronto[edit]

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

promotional article -- refs consist of local notices and notes about funding. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. The only items I found were a few yelp reviews, not nearly enough for a wikipedia article. Joel.Miles925 17:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert-like, certainly not applicable for schools notability here. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 5 September 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. I'm closing this early under WP:SNOW. The only keep recommendations are coming from single-purpose accounts, many of which are sockpuppets. The only recommendations coming from established Wikipedia editors, familiar with policy, are to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kjiva[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable rapper who fails WP:BAND. I could find no third-party coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Kjiva has 43000 listeners around Asia, America & Europe. Also, Newspapers.com has 431 matches about him. I have go through each of them must check on [57] Samj39 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Samj39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

Strong Keep: Richarddev (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Kjiva is also known as marathi rapper if search on google news as marathi rapper get result link here [58] Also he is creator of marathi rap he is legend rapper his bio meets inspire a lots youth[reply]

Keep I've reorganized the article, added a ton of content, and a number of references. Kjiva appears to be a quite well known and discussed Rapper, especially in aviation circles. I would say he easily meets notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richarddev (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Richarddev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

Keep: This rapper has Pass WP:BAND i had study more about him he as news articles and featured on national television on zee news http://zeenews.india.com/tags/marathi-rapper.html and [59] Nileshjambhulkar (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Nileshjambhulkar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

Note: These obvious sockpuppets have been disrupting multiple other AfDs in an apparent attempt to disguise their origin. I have blocked them and struck their comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Pass WP:BAND as it had some coverage in Zee News check latest edits in page reference Kjiva Junaid khan ale (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Junaid khan ale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:as a borderline pass of WP:BAND as per the significant coverage in the source in the article and smaller coverage in more newspapers that adds up to enough coverage for notability purposes also found more third-party coverage in reliable sources at newspaper.com | newspaper —Margosullivan (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Margosullivan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

More socks blocked and struck. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper with the article plagued with lots of non-reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I generally stay away from assessing non-U.S. musician articles, but the massive amount of keeps (most of which have recently been exposed as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY) intrigued me, considering that the majority of the provided references are user generated. What am I missing? I'm not finding the non-trivial,independent, third party references others claim to. If they exist, someone provide them and I could change my vote. My only question mark is the source Zee News, of which I am unfamiliar. But in reading the links it appears the cited instances of coverage are basically examples of a news source simply printing/rephrasing a press release, which to my interpretation do not add up to significant coverage, especially since there are only two of them. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. For anyone in academia who claims they don't contribute because MediaWiki is hard to learn, I point you to the self-promoters that create articles like this. Obviously, it's not that hard. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He ismarathi rapper not American rapper please note that point the article about marathi rapper in Zee News media india which satisfy WP:BAND notable rapper Rajjones12 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Rajjones12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pečenci[edit]

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

Not notable Tylr00 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Villages are generally considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there published secondary source data with which we could build an article Tylr00 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. It exists, it's inhabited and listed in census. No such user (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly. Smartyllama (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND and per lack of a valid rationale for deletion. Cavarrone 07:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - It's a population center as per GEOLAND and even legally recognized as such. --Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 9 September 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. Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Chauhan[edit]

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

Supposed actor with only an IMDB reference. The article was previously filled out with text copied verbatim from Khesari Lal Yadav which may indicate a hoax article here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy was wrongfully deleted by the page creator - I have restored it. Spam at best, hoax at worst. --Drm310 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article looks to be (as was mentioned) copied and really probably speedy deleted without any fuss. Joel.Miles925 17:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no speedy Author removed AFD and speedy tag again. Right now, I'm on team delete, but opposed to the speedy. Tried to remove the overtly promotional content. Let's see if anyone can come up with verifiable sources here even if it is clearly a COI account. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Nothing to support any claim but I would say best photoshop the only thing they forget to edit is sunglasses. GSS (talk) 17:48, 2 September 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Chi-hsin[edit]

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

Should be redirected to the 1992 Olympics part of the Chinese Taipei national baseball team. It would give more information. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NOLYMPICS, athletes are presumed notable if they've participated in the Olympics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Meets WP:NOLYMPICS. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Lepricavark (talk) 02:20, 3 September 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) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Times[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any independent, reliable sources in any language offering more than a trivial mention. —swpb^T 13:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Given that it's own web site is down, it's kind of hard to justify keeping at present. Have you notified any active editors to see if they want to take a shot at salvaging it? Montanabw^(talk) 07:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Other that it exists (or existed), it's difficult to reliably assert anything more about it. GregorB (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:20, 10 September 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) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted elastic array[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability JMHamo (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge to Dynamic array and then redirect.There is not much to be said about a sorted elastic array excepted in the context of a dynamic array as one of the possible types. Agree with single primary source reason given by Ruud Koot below.~~References exist to provide a definition, but not an encyclopedia article.~~ — Neonorange (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This concept is not known under the name "sorted elastic array", except in that one patent used as a reference (which isn't a reliable, independent source). I don't think merging or redirecting it anywhere as is, would thus be appropriate. —Ruud 11:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:20, 10 September 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. WP:CSD#G5 see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tshavis JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Shavis discography[edit]

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

Page is copied from Iggy Azalea discography almost in its entirety but claims to be about non-notable rapper without his own article. Smartyllama (talk) 13:10, 2 September 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) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Akbar[edit]

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

Non-notable soldier. Akbar's military accomplishments and sacrifice, while laudable, do not rise to the level of notability required for inclusion in Wikipedia. PROD declined. Bring to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:soldier, nor GNG at this time. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with no special claim to notability. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 7 September 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) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N K Sajeev[edit]

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

Was nominated for CSD:A7 as non-notable, but whilst I'm not convinced it's good enough, it does at least make a claim to notability so I am moving it across to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was deleted on or after 8th August 2016 as a speedy deletion after the author had removed a PROD without explanation or improvement. The article was then re-created but the subject still demonstrates no notability. The references show that he exists but almost all are peripheral mentions. "The Hindu" reference is the closest to establishing notability although this appears to cite a Facebook page as its source. Nothing here in any depth. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google book results for ActLab return the digital project at U of Texas -- can't see any for this studio. The couple of The Hindu articles give no indication of notability and look like standard promoting the institution pieces, which isn't an indication of notability. • DP • ^{huh?} 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough verifiable sources to claim notability. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:21, 10 September 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 A419 road. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A419 Road Bridge[edit]

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

Some bridges are notable; they may be Grade I listed, designed by a significant engineer such as Thomas Telford or be regularly featured in books and television. This slab of concrete is none of these. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge (with something) It's not even mentioned at Cricklade, let alone pictured. In fact, neither is the entire "Cricklade By-pass" (which doesn't have any article) mentioned there. To be fair, it is at least two slabs, but evenso... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Has it ever been the location for a charity walk involving false breasts?[reply]
Delete. Not important enough for its own article... if it or the bypass need a mention, the best place is in the Cricklade article, with suitable refs. Acabashi (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at least some of the contents with Cricklade (or possibly A419). There is a nice List of crossings of the River Thames and it would be a shame to spoil the link from that but a redirect to a section of a broader article would seem to me to be utterly unobjectionable. Thincat (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually know the bridge is even known by this title? The claim is unsourced and a search doesn't bring back anything definitive. Usually, bridges have some sort of name, even it's a bland serial number type. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article says it's called "Thames Bridge" (!) and, surprisingly, some dear soul has included that in the disambiguation page Thames Bridge.~~ It's reassuring to know the encyclopedia is in good hands. I'll investigate. Thincat (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Thincat, about List of crossings of the River Thames. I've changed my !vote above to "Merge (with something)." I think it might still need at least one source to deserve a mention or image anywhere. It's hardly a landmark atttaction in Cricklade, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A419 road. Individual bridge, not found to be notable. Some other links on that page also could do with deletion. Nordic Nightfury 11:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A419 road. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the (entirely unsourced) text are you planning to merge? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found that a statement I made above is wrong. Now struck. I'll blame my satnav. I hope this hasn't sent this discussion down a wrong road. I wonder whether a mention could be put into Cricklade without copying from this article – the current title isn't a very useful search term. The bridge's significance is that it is the last public bridge on the Thames under which one can navigate (in a very small boat) before getting stopped at the Town Bridge in Cricklade. Thincat (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How small is very small? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 6 September 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 per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbles.tv[edit]

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

Very new company with only refs that are own regurgitated press releases. Only started operations on 10 August 2016. Way, way too soon and fails WP:GNG. Clearly promotional in content. Potential candidate for speedy deletion if the advertorial content is considered sufficient. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as article appears to be promotional. Ayub407^talk 13:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedied as G11 - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 2 September 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. D. S. A. Dissanayake[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also just because he is the nephew of a former IGP does not make him notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Dan arndt (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete poorly referenced and no inherent notability of being an ambassador. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Expand/improve Delete clearly fails GNG as per obi2canibe BlueSalix (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article needs work to bring it to minimum standards, as an ambassador and author of several books he meets WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he does not meet WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google books shows that he has authored nine books.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that does not mean he automatically meets WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a good article about him in Encyclopedia of Sri Lanka by Charles A. Gunawardena which can be seen on Google Book. Just look for Dissanayake+1938 (1938 being his year of birth). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

could you please provide a link for this. I can't seem to find it. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you looking, under your bed?. Encyclopedia of Sri Lanka. His entry is on page 118.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sarcasm doesn't work in trying to win a discussion. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An ambassador to major countries such as Indonesia and Egypt should be presumed notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no inherent notability in being ambassador to any country. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pointless nominations of ambassadors. this one too passes WP:GNG and POLITICIAN. this one is as well an author of several books.BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 9 September 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 17:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romar Morris[edit]

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

This article was PRODded but sources have been added since. Subject is an American football player who has been signed to the Jets practice squad this year and hasn't played any NFL games -- therefore not meeting the requirements of WP:NGRIDIRON. A Train^talk 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played in any professional games, does not meet the notability requirements for football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I agree that the subject does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, a simple google news search turns up hundreds of articles about his college football career. Granted that many of those are "blog-type" posts and may have issues with WP:RS, but I'm also finding NY Times, ESPN, and regional newspapers. Clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a Google News search, I see that most of these hits are routine game coverage and passing mentions. Reliable source hits need to provide significant coverage to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look deeper. Google News is populated with a lot of that transaction stuff now because it's current. Chicago Tribune, Syracuse Post-Standard, ESPN, Deseret News, New York Times, and USA Today all have articles about his college career or his legal issues. He should be considered notable from collegiate play and coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the record, he's not on the practice squad. That's only during the regular season. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. Passing GNG as an athlete requires coverage that exceeds routine sports coverage (which is more indicative of the notability of the team). Transaction pieces don't clear that bar, even in major papers. The closest thing I found to substantial coverage in a reliable source that focused on the athlete himself was here, but that's just a bio piece from his hometown paper. I don't see evidence of Morris being notable independent of the teams he's briefly been a part of. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Paulmcdonald: Aside from the two articles concerning the DWI, the links you give are routine coverage and passing mentions. The DWI article don't go deep either. Not enough to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree I do not believe that is a correct assessment. The information in the article is far more than basic score or box scores as declared by the WP:ROUTINE guideline. For details, see essay WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment please don't take the "bold" to be anger or anything offensive. Just following the style. My reply is not meant to be harsh but it might be taken that way without clarification. --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Romar's college stats are a bit underwhelming (his best season was 386 rushing yards as a freshman, dropping off to 64 yards as a senior), but this article and this one (both from Romar's hometown newspaper) look like significant coverage. This from the Star-News might also be considered significant coverage. These two articles by themselves are kind of thin to satisfy WP:GNG. Also, I am a bit reluctant to rely on press reports of an athlete's DWI arrest as a principal basis for establishing notability. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's clear he's not applicable for the football notability hence there's essentially nothing actually convincing from there. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Please comment specifically whether he meets WP:GNG based on already presented refs or refs you find (not on Google searches etc). Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cbl62's comment. I believe there just isn't enough to suggest Morris meets WP:GNG at this time. My points are mostly rehashes of what has been said but: a.) his college career was uneventful, b.) DUI arrest shouldn't be the basis for an article and c.) he had an unspectacular training camp in New York, spending most of it injured, and is now on IR for the year. The soonest we hear from him again is likely mid 2017, if that. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose we can agree that a DUI arrest "shouldn't" be the basis for an article, but the extent of the coverage does point toward notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The GNG and the SNG are compatible--according to the SNG we do not presume notability in him at the current status--and the lack of substantial references bears it out. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Query What is "SNG" ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet gridiron. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:43, 15 September 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. Essentially per WP:TOOSOON. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rio (franchise)[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced that merely having two films with the same characters makes it suitable to have a standalone article about the films' franchise. This franchise article entirely duplicates information that can already be found at the existing articles Rio (2011 film) and Rio 2. There is no indication that the franchise itself is significant as its own entity under WP:GNG; all the sources I'm finding seem to only discuss either the first film or the second film, not the franchise as a whole. We should wait until a third film comes out (or when there is otherwise significant new information about the franchise as a whole) before considering creating a franchise article. Mz7 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fairly messy article and like written by the nominator, two movies doesn't make a franchise. I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only coverage of Rio 3 to be found were rumors from 2 years ago. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete Look, I know it my be messy, but give it some time. If there is a third movie of rio then maybe it can be a franchise. Crazybob2014 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same argument can be made for deleting. It's not that messy of an article, but I think we should wait a little bit for now, and if there is a third movie and enough information, then we can recreate. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, it's not that messy in comparison with other franchise articles. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"not delete" if you fix I.e it added a bit about the video games suchs as "angry birds rio" etc and maybe a section about the real "Spix's macaw" and a few other things this page is also useful as a quick link for the highest grossing animted films page.82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the video games, and I don't think they're enough to justify this franchise page because they are also part of the information that's already included as a subsection of the first film's article: see Rio (2011 film)#Video games. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above stated reasons, especially Mz7's. Trivialist (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the article's references talk about a "Rio franchise", so the sources don't actually substantiate the existence of the subject. Compare with a article like The_Dark_Knight_Trilogy where the cited sources specifically discuss the "film franchise" in depth. A Train^talk 22:49, 8 September 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Walker[edit]

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

I cannot find multiple independent sources concerning the subject of the article. The page has two sources, one of which is a dead link, and the other does not mention Walker himself, but is a press statement from President George Bush. Fascinating biography, but it just reads like a bloated linkedin profile. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable air force person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet notability requirements of Wikipedia. Fuortu (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete"" He doesn't meet notability requirements of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwalker123 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability. EricSerge (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable for a stand alone article. Reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 5 September 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Adelberger[edit]

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

Orphaned, and as far as I can tell, meets almost no criteria for notability. Hampton (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 with 12 papers in GS with over 500 cites each. Nominator needs to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that subject passes WP:PROF ArchieOof (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely appears to meet WP:PROF C1 and article is sourced reliably. A Train^talk 22:53, 8 September 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) 08:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Marban[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability since its creation. Article almost entirely made of puffery; one RS in the whole thing (PopUrls in Time). Dangerously ill-referenced for a BLP, needs serious attention to stay. Previous AFD was in 2004, abandoned as moot when creator blanked page; later speedied as A7. David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed most missing/non-primary references, removed peacocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.0.229.28 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing a link to a press release with a link to a different copy of the same press release probably doesn't solve the problems - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 5 September 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) 08:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circus (1949 song)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. The 2 given citations aren't very clear, but they don't appear to be have more than trivial coverage, and I've been unable to find anything more. The limited info here could easily be added to Louis Alter. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both citations are actually very trivial, the latter (They Also Wrote 2000 ""Circus" (1949), words by Bob Russell, music by Alter) is literally a passing mention. There are evidences of the song's existence, but no convincing signs of the song's notability. Cavarrone 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Traveltoromantis (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike to grow beyond stub and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS completely. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:56, 6 September 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sampath Bank[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a Sri Lankan bank. All but two of the article's sources (before I gutted the unsuitable sections) 404 out, and the other two are PR and a PDF from the bank itself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, basically, what you are telling us is, you have removed dead links from the article, and then you have opened this AfD because the article was unsourced? If that is so, can you take a look at WP:KDL and WP:NEXIST, do a little bit of WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this AfD? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have taken this to AfD if I could find any usable sources. Another thing worth noting is that articles with bad sourcing and bad format, as this one had, are generally used by new COI users as an example of how to write a Wikipedia article. I generally don't AfD a page unless some COI user on -en-help is trying to use it to justify their own unsuitable page and the article itself is not up to snuff. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself was going to consider deleting too, since I myself searched through and through at news sources, but never found nothing even one for coming close to substance; there has essentially been nothing suggesting we can keep these with guaranteed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick review of GNews and GBooks results convinces me the bank is sufficiently notable. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bank with over 200 branches would seem to be notable. Reportedly, it is the 9th-largest company by market capitalization on the Colombo Stock Exchange. [60] There do seem to be an adequate number of news sources to justify having an article. Granted, the article needs some work to tone down the promotional aspects, but that can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Metropolitan90 above, and also the substantial discussion of the bank's rise to prominence in this book. And another book says this and another bank are "considered as the pioneer Internet banking service providers in Sri Lanka" which is a reasonable claim of notability. Presumably more could be found in other languages/scripts, but even just in English language sources there is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would agree with other users - satisfies WP:NBUSINESS. Dan arndt (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see enough in Google books to suggest that the bank has been sufficiently covered by independent reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 5 September 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) 08:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Agoglia[edit]

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

Subject fails the notability guideline for Judo. Appears to have competed only at junior levels to this point. The edit summary given at article creation clearly indicates a WP:COI and WP:NPOV on the part of the article creator. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Judo player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article currently consists of nothing but his name. Looking back at earlier versions shows he competed at junior events, but never at a major international event as an adult. WP:NSPORTS is not met, nor is WP:MANOTE. WP:GNG is not met due to a lack of significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Safiel (talk) 01:10, 3 September 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 Bhāskara II#Mathematics. Surprisingly little discussion, even after two relists. I guess AfD lurkers just find porn stars and pokémon more interesting than the history of mathematics.

In any case, while it's hard to declare a real consensus for anything here, the redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, and WP:ATD argues for it as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskara's First Proof[edit]

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

Non-notable/content fork. Addded to Pythagorean theorem but removed as a trivial and badly written variant of what‘s already there. Certainly not independently notable even if it were properly written and sourced. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it happens there is already history of Indian discovery at Pythagorean theorem#History but no mention of Bhaskara. Through this I were able to discover that the discovery was by Bhāskara I and not Bhāskara II as I first thought as it would explain the lack of Bhaskara in our section, coming way later. However what heavily complicates things is the other discoverer mentioned, Brahmagupta. Adding to the insult is that Brahma's page mentions the Pythagorean theorem but not Bhaskara I's page, making it even vaguer. In any case I'd suggest our article mostly take place at the page of Bhāskara I just like Brahma's. If some sourcing is found they could be both namedropped at the history section. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below). This well known dissection "proof" of Bhaskara I consisted of the diagram (without the labels, that are, in any event, incorrectly placed) and the single word "Behold" (Eves, History of Mathematics). Thus, any attempt to associate an algebraic proof with Bhaskara I must be considered WP:OR. To pile on, there is an algebraic error in the presentation and the formatting is very primitive. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Upon further digging I have found that it was Bhāskara II who provided the the proof in Bījaganita. Besides the diagram, a numerical problem is fully worked out and a general statement of the Pythagorean theorem is given. According to Kim Plofker, the often repeated "Behold" story is just a legend that can be traced back to a verse in this work. Bhaskara does present two calculations and this one is actually the second of the two. I apologize for uncritically passing on Eves' "story", but this does not change my opinion of the value of this article.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I hate to back-track like this, but I'm trying to be fair to the article's originator. After considerable thought I have come around to a different perspective. My original call for a delete was based on faulty information that was widely available in what are usually considered reliable sources. After reading the translation given by Plofker I can see that the editor had the argument essentially correct, so mathematically this page can be salvaged (however, a reliable secondary source would still need to be found). The question now becomes one of notability. There are literally thousands of proofs of the Pythagorean theorem and this one is not the earliest or even the earliest one of Indian origin. What makes this notable, at least for me, is precisely the urban legend that has grown up around it (the "Behold" argument). This article could be written to debunk the myth using Plofker as a source (and I mean to keep a NPOV by presenting both Eves' and Plofker's statements). The article's title should also be moved to something like Bhaskara (II)'s proof of the Pythagorean theorem. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I don’t see how it is notable. As I noted here a few weeks ago proofs very rarely are. For it to be an “urban legend“ we need sources that say it is such, with the significant coverage needed for notability. As it is there is not enough in content or sourcing to justify a separate article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I may agree with you (note that it was only a weak keep). I've just redone the page and will be able to get the references in by tomorrow. I'd be interested to see what you think of the revision.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before I noticed this AfD, I redirected Bhaskara's Second Proof to Bhāskara II#Mathematics. That should probably be given another look, depending on the result of this nomination. Brianga (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhāskara II#Mathematics, where there is already a mention of due weight. If some content must be kept, then merge under a subsection of that article. But that is an excellent parent article for an anecdote un(notable enough) for a standalone article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:42, 9 September 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 17:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Herp[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. Written like a linkedin entry. Drdisque (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've reorganized the article, added a ton of content, and a number of references. William Herp appears to be a quite well known and discussed businessman, especially in aviation circles. I would say he easily meets notability standards. Silver seren^C 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PR by all means, the one Keep vote above is merely asserting that he's known and there's "notability" but none of it actually amounts to notability thus, with no substance, delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "asserting" he's notable through the copious amounts of in-depth secondary sources about him spanning years of his various businesses. It's called the General Notability Guideline, that's what we use for notability around here, not your claims of "PR". Especially considering I rewrote almost the entirety of the article. Are you claiming I wrote a PR article? Silver seren^C 06:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the GNG, what the article insinuates currently and what's still shown is PR, whether intended or not. Yes, there are some sources and they are from acceptable news sources, but still none of it actually establishes independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Regardless of the GNG" Nope, stop right there. There is no regardless. The GNG (and subject specific notability rules) are all that matter here. That is the purpose of AFD, discerning notability of the subject. If there are PR issues with the article, that is something that needs to be fixed by editing the wording of the article to be more neutral. It is not an argument for deletion. Silver seren^C 18:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being still an advert-like article regardless of whatever can supposedly be fixed is an argument for deletion, especially if there is still nothing for his own notability apart from any claims of companies and people. This is an excellent example of deleting something and there has been considerable consensus with this at AfD numerous time before, especially since an advert can still be an advert even if not blatant. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advert, it is a BLP about a person who works in business. Are you claiming all business BLPs are adverts because they include information on the businesses the people created? And notability is clearly shown from the in-depth discussion of the subject in secondary reliable sources, as I previously noted. Sources like this, this, and this. Silver seren^C 19:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a corporate resume and no indications of notability. I cannot locate secondary sources sufficient to meet GNG. The company that the subject works at, Linear Air, may not be notable either. The three sources above appear to be trivial, such as

Business Jet Traveler' -- interview with the subject and is not an indication of notability, only of their ability to do PR.
WSJ -- cannot see the full article but it appears to be about the subject's business, not about himself
Inc. -- these are trivial mentions, as the main focus of the article is a company where the subject worked as a CFO.

This coverage proves that the subject exists and that he had a career, but is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: The sources are about his businesses and how he founded them or was involved with them. Those sources give the subject notability, just like books or movies do for other BLPs, see WP:NBIO. They are significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also, your claim that an in-depth interview doesn't count toward notability is complete BS. There is no sourcing rule that states that. Please back up your claim of lacking secondary sources by actually addressing the copious in-depth sources in the article. There are far more than the three I mentioned, I just gave those as examples. Silver seren^C 05:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would argue that a few articles in the press, some of them promotional / interviews, do not amount to "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG. This is a small company, of which the subject is the CEO. The coverage presented is insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is not inherently promotional and claims of promotion must be backed up with evidence. Just claiming a reliable source is promotional has no backing. Significant coverage means, in most cases, a paragraph or more talking about the subject, preferably an entire article of course. You haven't actually given specific arguments to back up your claims of lacking coverage in regards to the coverage itself. Silver seren^C 04:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is a source inherently not independent of the subject, i.e. the subject is talking about himself, without any editorial oversight or fact checking. Thus, it cannot be used to establish notability.
I also don't see how "Significant coverage means, in most cases, a paragraph" --? I've never encountered such argument before. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" 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." If something is more than a trivial mention (a sentence), but isn't the main topic of the source, then at least a paragraph meets that requirement. That has been generally understood as significant coverage for years.
And where are you basing your claim that interviews are not independent? That's not how that term is meant at all. Unless you can show that an interview is actually a paid for Press release or something, which these aren't, then that doesn't fall under "non-independent". The fact that a reliable source is covering a biographical subject with an interview still counts toward notability. That has never not been the case. Silver seren^C 23:56, 3 September 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electra mustaine[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician whose only substantive claim of notability is having a famous father. Notability is not inherited, but nothing else here would confer a pass of WP:NMUSIC at all -- and all there is for sourcing is her Facebook profile and a directory page on a non-notable music fansite, so the references don't get her over WP:GNG either. No prejudice against recreation when she can actually be properly sourced as having accomplished something that gets her past an NMUSIC criterion, but she's not entitled to have an article like this just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was poorly sourced. I've fixed it. She's been profiled in Rolling Stone, the Tennessean and other sources. She's obviously an established musician (already). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs developing more. Also a strong feature in rolling stone Here Not just known for being the daughter of Megadeth band player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.74.158 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC) 80.193.74.158 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Nice work @Megalibrarygirl:. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integral City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BK, it seems. The multiple reviews claimed in the previous nomination do not seem to confer proper notability on the subject, per se. The existence of reviews can be an indicator of notability, but it does not seem to be enough in this case and it appears to me that many of the reviews are little more than back scratching (based more on sympathetic relationships with the author due to ideological reasons rather than a serious review). See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Hamilton jps (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete book fails GNG. It is not even listed in Open Library per this and the reviews cited are from a few fringey/alt journals - no acknowledgement/discussion outside its bubble. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the previous AFD was closed by a non-admin after only 2 editors had participated. —PermStrump(talk) 23:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, fails NBOOK due to lack of coverage in third-party sources. —PermStrump(talk) 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all sources appear to be in the integral thought walled garden. No evidence of notability in the wider world, no evidence of critical review - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NBOOK #1 it has been reviewed in World Future Review, Kosmos Journal, Futurist, Alternatives Journal, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, and EnlightenNext. These are all ~~quality~~ reliable sources indexed by EBSCOHost one of the largest library services making them available to schools and library collections. They are not "fringey/alt journals" or "thought walled garden", which are pejoratives not objective examinations of source reliability. The noms theory of "back scratching" is unsupported. -- GreenC 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being indexed only by ebscohost usually doesn't count towards notability. —PermStrump(talk) 01:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of sources that counts towards the notability of the article. -- GreenC 02:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Green Cardamom has listed several sources that should satisfy WP:NBOOK. Only two are necessary to meet that criterion. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the sources given have been discounted too hastily. The Canadian Journal of Urban Research is published by the University of Winnipeg, and the editorial board is composed of faculty from the University. The principal editor (also the book review editor) is Marc Vachon, an associate professor and head of the Department of Geography. I see no immediate reason as to why a book review in an academic journal should be seen as less reliable than, say, a book review in a newspaper, which would surely qualify as a reliable source. Now to address concerns of "back scratching." The review from the Canadian Journal of Urban Research is hardly favorable toward Hamilton's book. The review states that the book is filled with "laudable" but "vacuous" statements, and that its organization is "somewhat jumbled." This is definitely a critical review. The other journals do carry definite ideologies, but that doesn't mean they should be immediately dismissed. WP:RS states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The important thing is checking whether the biased source has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Based on its guidelines for contributors, I suggest that the Alternatives Journal meets this criteria. The review from the Alternatives Journal is not entirely favorable toward the book either, and disagrees with the book's ultimate conclusion. For these reasons, I support keeping the article. Altamel (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for RS is different than notability, which requires that the sources be "independent of the subject", as does WP:NFRINGE, which covers this topic as well. So far we have one independent source (Marc Vachon). —PermStrump(talk) 02:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the source are independent. Can't demonstrate an absence of Conflict of Interest. -- GreenC 02:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Please give evidence that Alternatives Journal is not independent of the subject. I don't believe that sharing a common ideology is the same thing as not being independent. The Alternatives Journal says it focuses on environmental journalism. This is not necessarily the same thing as integral theory; if there is evidence that the editorial board of Alternatives Journal is affiliated with the integral theory movement, I would like to see it. Altamel (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to mention something. The Alternatives Journal used to be published by the University of Waterloo, and left the University in 2012 [61]. However, the review that Green Cardamom found was published in June 2009, before the journal left the university. Altamel (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be a financial conflict of interest in order for a source to be non-independent. Sources aren't independent if they're closely affiliated, i.e., written by other integral theorists. —PermStrump(talk) 02:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the source and describe why it has a conflict of interest with this book. -- GreenC 02:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the OP and first several !votes. —PermStrump(talk) 03:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence of a conflict of interest in any of these source. -- GreenC 03:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it isn't a "conflict of interest" that is concerning. It is the concept of independence which is basically a question of whether the source in question is ideologically supportive of the broader fringe community. To take a different example, it's like asking whether a particular creationist idea is only mentioned in the sources written by other creationists. jps (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then please list the sources and describe why they are not independent. It's not self-evident. -- GreenC 14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done so below. You seem to have not either not done your homework or are willfully obfuscating obvious problems here. jps (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with your characterization of the sources, as described below. As for "willfully obfuscating", we can agree to disagree without assumptions of bad faith. I'm not "willfully obfuscating", are you willfully obfuscating? -- GreenC 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of sources

Comment - For reference, the editorial board of Alternatives Journal at the time its book review of Integral City was published. Altamel (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The six sources used as book reviews:

EnlightenNext is a spiritual/region focused magazine part of Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)'s organization. Used as a reliable source in about 21 other articles.[62]
Kosmos Journal is a spiritual/religion focused journal founded in 2005. According to WorldCat it's carried by one Library University of North Carolina. I can find no evidence of fringe; for example on the question of creationism they have essays that refute creationism. Used as a reliable source in about 14 other articles.[63]
The Futurist. "The Futurist was nominated for a 2007 Utne Independent Press Award for Best Science and Technology Coverage." The magazine has been published since 1965, has top-tier writers like Kevin Kelley and Lester Brown, is often cited by other news orgs, etc.. (hard to tell number of cites in other articles due to common name)
World Future Review. Same organization that publishes The Futurist, this is their academic journal which operates independently. I see no problems with fringe in this journal. Used as a reliable source in 3 other articles.[64]
Alternatives Journal - already described by Altamel above. Used as a reliable source in about 40 other articles.[65]
Canadian Journal of Urban Research - already described by Altamel above. Used as a reliable source in at least 8 other articles.[66]

(please leave replies below not inline above thanks). Based on the above, these are all reliable sources used throughout Wikipedia. If there is an dependence problem than it needs to be demonstrated with evidence. It is not self-evident, just the opposite, these are reliable sources which by definition means they are independent. -- GreenC 16:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sources not yet discussed above by those who oppose your peculiar blinkeredness:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (2nd nomination). Obviously not WP:FRIND.
Kosmos Journal is run by the founder of Transpersonal Psychology, Nancy B. Roof. Obviously not WP:FRIND.
The Futurist and World Future Review are both publications of the same entity: the World Future Society which is an adherent to the auxiliary fringe ideology Singularitarianism, directly interrelated with the integral theory and transhumanism ideas of Ken Wilbur. Obviously not WP:FRIND.
The person who wrote the review for Alternatives Journal is Chris Lowry whose qualifications for reviewing such a book seem to be that he has in the past written for groups interested in sustainability. As such, this seems a rather weak source, notwithstanding that the review is short and discusses a different book at the same time. This is not a serious review, but instead is the kind of filler content that many smaller journals use to hold reader interest. It's basically the equivalent to a review on a blog.
As PermStrump indicates above, Canadian Journal of Urban Research is just about the only review which seems to be legitimately without issues. That's one source. That's not "multiple" independent sources.

Please try to be more careful with your evaluations. jps (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, we can cross the Canadian Journal of Urban Research source off the list too. See my response below.~~ *JK I conflated this one with the WFS source.* —PermStrump(talk) 19:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *Updated 22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

jps, thank you for your substantive analysis of the sources above. I don't quite agree with you that Lowry's review should be considered "filler content", especially as the reviewer raises several points against the book. It would be ideal if this Wikipedia article could be supported by more sources on the same caliber as the Canadian Journal of Urban Research, but in my opinion the Alternatives Journal review meets the threshold of RS. Of course, we can leave that for other !voters to decide. Altamel (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:

EnlightenNext AfD'd.. if a source is notable is unrelated to reliability.
Kosmos Journal.. if Transpersonal Psychology was the subject of the book, I could see your point, but it has no relation to the book under discussion. There's no dependence between the ideas of the book, and the Kosmos Journal.
The Futurist and World Future Review.. if the Singularity was the subject of the book, I could see your point, but it has nothing to do with the book. Also to say they are an "adherent" is questionable, see the About Us page, nothing about Singularity. Please don't artificially inflate criticisms without evidence.
Alternatives Journal.. Chris Lowry is qualified to write a book review. Who determines that is the source where the book review is published. That is why we have a rule about using reliable sources.

You haven't demonstrated a dependence problem with this particular book (the subject of the AfD) and these particular sources. Look I can dig up dirt on just about any periodical and label them fringe. The question is if there is a dependency problem with the ideas of this book and the sources in question. -- GreenC 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my evaluation of the 6 sources mentioned so far:

EnlightenNext: Non-independent, integral publication that was deleted at AFD for not being notable outside of the integral bubble.
Kosmos Journal: Non-independent, trivial coverage. Kosmos has almost no online footprint outside of its own website and facebook page (plus the non-independent thing that jps mentioned).
The Futurist: Non-independent, trivial coverage. This is a really short review (4 sentences total) in a non-notable magazine (The Futurist links to a disamb page that mentions The Futurist with a link to World Future Review), plus the non-independent thing that jps mentioned.
World Future Review: Trivial, not-actually-scholarly, non-independent. World Future Society considers this their "academic" journal and it's apparently peer-reviewed, but considering "Futurism" is definitively not an academic subject and I don't see independent commentators considering it an academic journal, IMO a book review in this journal is not serious coverage worth mentioning (plus the non-independent thing that jps mentioned).
Alternatives Journal: Weak source per jps above: "The person who wrote the review for Alternatives Journal is Chris Lowry whose qualifications for reviewing such a book seem to be that he has in the past written for groups interested in sustainability. As such, this seems a rather weak source, notwithstanding that the review is short and discusses a different book at the same time. This is not a serious review, but instead is the kind of filler content that many smaller journals use to hold reader interest. It's basically the equivalent to a review on a blog."
Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Trivial, not-actually-scholarly, not-likely-independent. The review reads like a fluff piece and based on the author's (Rick Docksai) linkedin profile, he doesn't have specific experience or education related to urban planning, so it's not a scholarly piece and it's seeming more and more like a fluff piece (aka trivial). Plus, Docksai used to work for the World Future Society and there are other indications based on googling him that he's involved with the integral movement (example). *I accidentally conflated this one with the WFS source. Take 2: In-depth, non-trivial coverage, though still ends up pointing towards to book's lack of notability outside of the integral bubble anyway as the last sentence of the review says: "the book is likely to remain marginal within the broader urban discourse, and appeal mostly to those interested in exploring Wilber’s integral theory."*

All of these publications may or may not (my guess is not) have been appropriately used as reliable sources in other articles, but regardless, that doesn't speak to this book's notability outside of integral theorists. Pending in-depth/non-trivial coverage in at least two solidly reliable and independent sources, there's still no indication to me that this book is notable outside of the integral theory bubble (which is hardly notable itself outside of its own circle and the WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard). —PermStrump(talk) 19:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *Updated 22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

PermStrump, you don't even have the author for the Canadian Journal of Urban Research review correct. The author is Sharon Ackerman; Docksai is the author of the article from the World Future Review. Please take another look. Altamel (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futures studies (not "Futurism") is absolutely an academic field. You keep confusing notability with reliability. There are 10s of thousands of reliable sources (academic journals etc) that are not notable on Wikipedia. Likewise there are notable sources on Wikipedia that are not reliable sources. The idea that Chris Lowry is "unqualified" to write a book review makes no sense, his qualification is being published in a reliable source. He doesn't need to pass a second higher level of qualification. The source Alternatives Journal is either reliable or not, we don't second guess their editorial decision to publish a book review. -- GreenC 21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. You're right. I did mix them up by accident. I guess I had too many tabs open at one time. I corrected my previous comments about the CJUR source. I'll respond to your other comments in a few. —PermStrump(talk) 22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the correction. The mark of a seasoned Wikipedian is that they have crashed their browser by trying to research too many sources at once. Altamel (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the undeniable connections between the Integral walled garden here on Wikipedia with transhumanism, transpersonal psychology, and other New-Age-related ideas are unmistakeable. If you are not aware of them, I encourage you to do some research on the subject. As for future studies (which you unhelpfully try to disambiguate from futurism as somehow legitimized simply because it is the academic arm of the community), it is fairly undeniable that the subject has been for many years looked on with rolled eyes by many in the academy as being willing to accommodate the fringe as Wikipedia would define it. e.g. The connections to Integral Theory are easily googleable -- connections which are not accommodated in, say, architecture, urban planning, sociology, or systems engineering where the ideas that are the ostensible subject of the book actually are evaluated. The lack of any notice whatsoever from serious architects, urban planners, sociologists, or systems engineers is a giant red flag and the discoverable connections of the supposed "reliable sources" to the ideological bent of the author cannot be so easily dismissed out-of-hand as you are wont to do. jps (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future studies is an academic field of study, it's not the same as Futurism which is a 19th century Italian art movement. Academic examples include the Future of Humanity Institute est. 2005 at Oxford University, plus many others, plus government organizations. Calling Futures studies "fringe" is not supported on Wikipedia. Linking to a contrarian-opinion Wired magazine article dated 2003 as proof of anything is not helpful. It's also not helpful to draw a connection between transhumanism, transpersonal psychology, and other "New-Age-related ideas" when no such connection has been shown to exist with the book. "Easily googlable" means nothing, I don't know what your talking about, again not helpful. Whatever you think of the topic of the book, the question is if it is notable and that is determined by book reviews in reliable sources. -- GreenC 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FHI is not something I'd put forward as an example of the academic mainstream, really - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an academic research center. Along with many others. Futures studies started with the Pentagon in the 1960s, and then academia picked up on it feeding research and graduates into government programs, and government providing grants to academia. There is also private sector, such as RAND corporation and other groups. -- GreenC 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your second and third sentences are actually non sequitur to your first - FHI was a vanity project from a wealthy donor. (Compare its close associate MIRI, which is the same sort of organisation but without a university's imprimatur.) It's certainly academic, but it's no normative example of such - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off research centers are started with the help of private donors all the time, as are cancer hospitals and other things, it's how Universities work. And where they get grant money to write reports is another question entirely. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you agree that it's certainly academic. -- GreenC 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for saying futurism instead of futurist. The point is, though, that this is a WP:Walled garden within Wikipedia closely connected to other walled gardens including the one associated with "integral theory". I do not deny that future studies have become the hobby horse of well-regarded academicians, but I do not find evidence that this is a "discipline" in the same fashion that the other academic departments I list are. That problems were identified with this 13 years ago in reliable sources is all I was getting at by linking to the wired source. I am a little confused as to how an editor who has read the review in the Canadian Journal of Urban Research could plausibly feign ignorance that the book is part of New Age speculations. jps (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Actual experts in the fields the book purports to cover ignore it; the only people paying it attention are fellow inhabitants of the fringe - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books can be notable regardless of subject matter. The question comes down if the sources that book is reviewed in are reliable sources for reviewing this book on this topic. -- GreenC 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that'll be "no" then - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's flaky woo, but it's notable flaky woo. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 06:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A book with only 51 GS cites in a high-citation field does not rise to the level of notability required for the existence of an encyclopedia article regarding the book. The reviews for the book appear mostly in fringey places like walled-garden futurist publications, not the kind of sources required per WP:FRIND. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author article just killed at AFD. So, nonnotable author with a few reviews not from publications in the fields it claims to address - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one bothered to work on or defend that article, which likely actually could be notable and recreated at any time with appropriate new sourcing. It has no relation this AfD. Also we don't "kill" articles. -- GreenC 14:19, 10 September 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enonic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still nothing actually suggesting convincing substance as the listed sources are not convincing and my searches including at Norwegian newspapers are not finding better; the NorwegianWiki offers nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial on an unremarkable products. Coverage insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Promotional content aside, the article is referenced by 3 main sources:
- digi.no - Norwegian online newspaper published by Teknisk Ukeblad Media; 4 references
- Sarpsborg Arbeiderblad - Local newspaper in Sarpsborg, Norway; 2 references
- CMSWire; 1 reference Pavlor (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: this appears to be either local or trade press coverage, which is insufficient to meet WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I notified WikiProject Norway; hopefully they will offer an opinion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I can be of help. I do know Norwegian but not tech stuff. The list in the "Users" section is of important and legit government and commercial names. Other claims sound good, too, if true. Coverage does seem slim for a company that's been around for so long and with offices in USA & UK. --Hordaland (talk) 10:28, 5 September 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. As noted, "another article like this exists" is not a reason for keeping it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of men's Major, Players Championship, World Golf Championship, Fedex Cup and Olympic champions[edit]

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

This article contains a list of winners of many different tournaments that were determined by the creator to be the most important tournaments, which, as the length of the title suggests, is an artificial grouping. Why not include the Race to Dubai Final Series? Or the BMW PGA Championship? No information is in this article that is not contained in existing articles. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tournaments included are PGA Tour tournaments, hence why the European Tour tournaments you listed (Race to Dubai and BMW Championship) were not included. The article is an exact replica of this tennis article which has not been deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_Grand_Slam,_Olympic_and_ATP_Tour_Finals_and_Masters_Series_singles_champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty p s (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 16:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRITERIA - no source(s) referenced that makes this list notable. Tewapack (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little low in input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unclear criteria for inclusion and arbitrary grouping of events. WP:LISTCRUFT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is already covered at the respective articles and combining them seems arbitrary. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kesava Pillai of Kandamath[edit]

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

Does not meet the basic notability criteria Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been carefully drafted and references from books have been included in the list of references. It is incredibly hard to find any history at all in this period in India and often local sources such as these in the collection of the Kerala Council of Historical research is the only available written source of information as there aren't many books or journal articles written about this period as it is of but little interest to western academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkl1805 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 2 September 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. Notability not established. Generally, a subject's own website does not satisfy the criteria for an independent source that is required by WP:GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sbraga[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced article about chef that fails WP:GNG SanAnMan (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source, which is his website 86WikiEditor (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a source, which is his website." Bingo. That's the problem. Still I do see some Ghits.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also just noticed the page in its current form is a 100% copy WP:COPYVIO from that said website, tagged G12 for this. - SanAnMan (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the copyvio portion. — Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles require multiple, secondary, 3rd party indepth, reliable sources. His website is by very definity not third party. It is also a single source, and we more than one source. The mentions of google hits do not suggest any are indepth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Searches mainly turn up puff pieces, a restaurant closure and litigation issue, neither of which are suitable for a Wikipedia article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:44, 8 September 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. Sorta WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite three relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Perruno[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google search shows results about a manager while the article is about a music producer. --Marvellous Spider-Man 08:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm literally unable to find any significant coverage online. The ones I found are brief mentions and are far from satisfying GNG. I see results about a "manager" and none about a "music producer". Regardless, there is hardly any coverage, so I'll go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living Corban[edit]

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

Unsourced and doesn't meet WP:NMG. Nothing on Allmusic, and Google searches turn up nothing significant. Nick Number (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 2 September 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 objections to renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SBACH[edit]

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

No evidence or claim of notability since creation in 2008. Two review references (third is a 404) and an AllMusic bio are a start, but not enough to get anywhere near WP:NMUSIC. I'm willing to be convinced, but this doesn't. David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only one album and even that listed sourcing is not convincing, I'm not finding sufficiently better to suggest convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 September 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. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacksons TV Performances 1979[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and WP:NOTTVGUIDE, especially with something that can't even be used by anyone that doesn't have a time machine. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine, run-of-the-mill performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Even if this information was appropriate for an encyclopedia, it's unclear why the group's performances in each year should be broken out into a separate article rather than including all years in one article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 4 September 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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite three relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vulvodynia (Band)[edit]

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

A7, non nontable band. no sources exist showing that this band is notable for inclusion on here. they had one post on Metal Injection but I really dont think thats enough. the only other source is that horrid Spirit of Metal site which goes against every source guideline on wikipedia (and every band ever is on it anyway) Second Skin (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, love the band but I don't get why they should be on here if Infant Anninilator, Acrania, Acranius, The Last Ten Seconds of Life, Black Tongue, Inherit Disease, A Night in Texas, Science of Sleep and many other similar currently popular bands aren't 172.56.30.122 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 2 September 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) 08:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacksons TV Performances 1977[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and WP:NOTTVGUIDE, especially with something that can't even be used by anyone that doesn't have a time machine. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine, run-of-the-mill performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Even if this information was appropriate for an encyclopedia, it's unclear why the group's performances in each year should be broken out into a separate article rather than including all years in one article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 4 September 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) 08:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacksons TV Performances 1976[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and WP:NOTTVGUIDE, especially with something that can't even be used by anyone that doesn't have a time machine. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine, run-of-the-mill performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Even if this information was appropriate for an encyclopedia, it's unclear why the group's performances in each year should be broken out into a separate article rather than including all years in one article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 4 September 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 Hella (band). While allmusic is a reliable source, the amount of coverage is arguably not significant. The consensus appears to be that it isn't enough to be a stand alone article and redirect is the proper course, with any merging to be done from the article history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitches Ain't Shit but Good People[edit]

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

No references since creation in 2006, no statement of nor evidence for individual notability per WP:NALBUMS, tagged since 2012. David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- There are references in the infobox. Album has been reviewed at allmusic.com and at Pitchfork. Hitro talk 19:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pitchfork link from the infobox is a 404 - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have corrected the Pitchfork link, it is now pointing to the proper page. Hitro talk 07:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hella (band) or Hella (band)#EPs - I agree the Allmusic and Pitchfork reviews are good reputable coverage, but I exhausted every page of google searches looking a third article, and only found this measly mention: [67]. Unless something else is brought to the table, I think it fails WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hella (band); not enough notability for a stand-alone article. Worthwhile content can be merged from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 2 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qiqqa[edit]

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

PROD removed but I still confirm it (see here) as there's still no convincing substance. I will also then note the IP objected to not only the advertorialism but also then making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:WAX comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which reasons of WP:DEL-REASON? Not-notable? Advertising? Would like to see a concrete basis. Avram (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See link above. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the sources as reliable and substantial and see notability under GNG. Agree that article's tone is less than optimal and that the arguments vs PROD were unsatisfactory. But that doesn't mean that the article's basic notability is negated. Avram (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qiqqa is a reference management solution that should have a place on Wikipedia. I improved the tone (mostly, neutral language) and deleted several overtly praising passages. --Pahi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 7 September 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. While delete votes outnumber keeps, it is hard to ignore the work by Megalibrarygirl, including providing actual sources in this discussion. So I won't. Looking at the previous AFD and judging what the global consensus would be based on the sources, I'm forced to keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aima Rosmy Sebastian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable Malayalam actress Uncletomwood (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG with articles in The Times of India, the Deccan Chronicle and the Gulf News. I'm sure we're missing references too, because I don't read Malayalam, the language she performs in. Considering that this was a clear keep in May of 2016, this nomination seems like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources to the article and cleaned up a little. We should also ping the other editors who commented on the 1st AfD, Montanabw and Northamerica1000. I've added the article to relevant WikiProjects. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources cited are interdependent related to one film (more like a promo), fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and fairly this gives enough sanctions for delete, re-listing's by related editors from previous discussion seems to be Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive.103.61.208.98 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cilvaringz[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. Only 2 references. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets notability. I added some references. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 September 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 Miss Montana USA. Since the RfC is still active, it is a good idea to allow non-admins to access the page history. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 09:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Wanty[edit]

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

The article tells us very little about Wanty, and has no indication she is known for anything other than winning Miss Montana USA. That alone is not enough to establish notability. Neither of the two sources linked has a working link. One looks like it might be an extremely short mention, possibly in a longer list. The other may be more substantial, but it is not clear that it is a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Montana USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Montana USA This is a WP:BIO1E and I don't see enough sources to enable the expansion of this beyond a stub. A redirect to the Miss Montana USA article is appropriate here. If she achieves notability later, we can always undo the redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. I advocate deletion as the name has not likely became well know to serve as a useful search term. (If the closer's decision is to redirect, I suggest delete first).

Separately, the discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" comment is not a valid argument in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 4 September 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 Miss New Mexico USA. Since the RfC is still active, it is a good idea to allow non-admins to access the page history. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 09:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raelene Aguilar[edit]

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

Aguilar was arrested for drunk driving in 2009. That is the only event in her life we have something approaching a reliable source on. The in pageant sources for her being Miss New Mexico USA just do not cut it to create enough coverage to pass GNG, and arrests for driving while drunk are very common, and I have to admit I have a problem with how the article is written to essentially assume she was guilty because she was arrested. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss New Mexico USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak one) Yes she did have some notoriety with the DWI but overall -- eh -- or maybe Redirect to Miss Whatever State.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. Moreover, the DUI reference is a BLP concern; that's most likely not what Ms Aguilar wants out there. I advocate deletion as the name has not likely became well know to serve as a useful search term. (If the closer's decision is to redirect, then I suggest delete before redirect).

Separately, the discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" comment is not a valid argument in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 4 September 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) 08:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Rouch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A largely unsourced essay on an unremarkable author (only one citation provided). Fails WP:NAUTHOR and I cannot locate significant RS coverage to confirm notability. Previous AfD closed as "no consensus"; it did not result in presentation of new sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - I can't find anything either - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:29, 10 September 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Roundtree[edit]

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

She was Miss New York USA. This is not a title of a level to establish notability. Her other claim to fame is ranking in the top 147 in American Idol 8. That is just totally not a claim to notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition the article was created by a user under the name Dani Roundtree. This makes it seem highly likely that this article represents a conflict of interest edit, another reason not to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss New York USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. I advocate deletion as the name has not likely became well know to serve as a useful search term.

The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" comment is not a valid argument in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Nileshjambhulkar (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nileshjambhulkar: I don't see any blanking in the article history. Are you perhaps referring to something else? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This user and others have been leaving similar remarks on many unrelated AfDs, in an apparent attempt to disguise their sockpuppetry and single-purpose account nature at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjiva. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My news sweeps didn't come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 5 September 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) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Offutt[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a mayor in a town with a population of just 4,000, which is not large enough to hand a mayor an WP:NPOL pass just because he exists. While this looks extensively sourced on the surface, in reality it's based almost entirely on primary sources like the city's website and his own ZoomInfo and raw tables of election results stored as PDFs in somebody's Squarespace -- the little bit of real reliable source coverage present here is entirely local to his own town, with the exception of a single article in a big-city media outlet which merely namechecks his existence while not being about him. A mayor of a town this size could still get an article if he could actually be sourced over WP:GNG, but the sourcing here isn't doing that. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be fair, the city has almost 5,000 people. However this is not nearly enough to make the mayor default notable, and the sources do not pass muster. Even if the last few years have seen significant growth in Platte City, which I am not sure is the case, it is just not a city at the level to make the mayor default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO strictly a vanity page. Does not meet WP:NPOL. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another NN small town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 7 September 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. If material can be used on another article, please ask at WP:REFUND. The preponderant opinion here seems to be to delete due to notability and fringe pushing concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Hamilton[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BIO generally. Note that this is probably covered under WP:FRINGEBLP, so it is important to keep in mind the way in which the subject may be pushed by fringe sources which can confuse classic notability tests. See also, the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral City (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete holy cow this article is four years old and the only refs are a bunch of spamming links. TNT. Maybe there is something here but it would have to be completely rewritten. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the Integral Thought walled garden. Note all the self-references. I could ref check this and exhaustively tag this but I'm only on two weeks' holiday - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —PermStrump(talk) 04:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has a section called "References", it is actually a list of books and papers that she has written, which are not independent and not acceptable as Wikipedia references. Essentially, this is an unreferenced BLP, which is contrary to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so that participants are informed of afd. forgot to sign, sorry. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The biggest problem with the article is that it is gibberish and needs a lot of cleanup. The second biggest problem is seeing what sources do exist. I found an interview that has a photo of her here, which may be useful in a search, as there are multiple people with this name. My question is if her publications are self-pub or independently published. Seems we have an interesting theorist here, the question isn't so much if she's fringe as if she's notable for her ideas or not. Montanabw^(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See the AFD on her book. The discussion now is bogged down in to what degree WP:FRIND applies to the reviews - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- weakly sourced WP:PROMO possibly written by someone close to the subject: note the use of "Marilyn" to refer to her, rather than more neutral "Hamilton". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Integral City or vice-versa. The two as separate articles don't sut it for me, but combining them as a BIO1E or a book-and-author set works, there are eough sources in combination to support one article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 6 September 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. czar 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Electronic Gaming[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG only appears in passing mentions or interviews--Prisencolin (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sourcing helps it meet the WP:GNG - it's all obscure esports blogs and player's personal sites. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I couldn't find any sources except for a couple gaming blogs. Definitely fails WP:GNG Joel.Miles925 17:05, 2 September 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.

[1] ASD Members, Alliance for Space Development, retrieved March 4, 2015

[2] Messier, Doug. "NSS, Space Frontier to Announce Formation of New Space Development Alliance". Parabolic Arc. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[3] Bloom, Howard. "Sequestration Shovels Money to the Russians". Guest Blog. Scientific American. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[4] Bloom, Howard. "NSS Board of Governors". National Space Society. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[5] Boozer, R.D. "It's Time to Send Americans Into the Inner Solar System". SPACE.com. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[6] Smith, Marcia. "Eleven Organizations Form Alliance for Space Development"". spacepolicyonline.com. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[7] Anderson, Rupert (March 31, 2015). The Cosmic Compendium: Space Law. Lulu Press, Inc. p. 34. ISBN 978-1329030190. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[8] Boozer, R.D. (December 17, 2013). The Plundering of NASA: an Expose. Lulu Press, Inc. p. 9. ISBN 978-1300939061. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[9] Morris, Langdon (October 12, 2010). Space Commerce. Aerospace Technology Working Group. p. 244. ISBN 978-0578065786. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[10] Bell, Sherry; Morris, Langdon (May 22, 2009). Living in Space. Aerospace Technology Working Group. p. 150 & 185. ISBN 978-0578021379. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[11] Seedhouse, Eric (March 26, 2015). Survival and Sacrifice in Mars Exploration: What We Know from Polar Expeditions. Springer Publishing Co. p. 7. ISBN 978-3319124483. Retrieved 28 August 2016.

[12] Flournoy, Don (December 2, 2011). Solar Power Satellites. Springer Publishing Co. p. 65. ISBN 978-1461420002. Retrieved 29 August 2016.

[13] Dick, Steven; Lupisella, Mark (October 23, 2011). Cosmos & Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context. NASA. p. 523. ISBN 978-0160826016. Retrieved 29 August 2016.

[14] Boozer, Rick (January 27, 2014 interview). "Broadcast 2174". The Space Show. Dr. David Livingston. Retrieved 28 August 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[15] Bloom, Howard (January 20, 2014 interview). "Broadcast 2169". The Space Show. Dr. David Livingston. Retrieved 28 August 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[16] Bloom, Howard (March 1, 2010 interview). "Broadcast 1319". The Space Show. Dr. David Livingston. Retrieved 28 August 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]