Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 August 1 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Marita Isobel Solberg

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

Tagged for notability since February, and still no evidence that it meets WP:ARTIST. Also, most edits seem to have been made by several WP:SPA, both user accounts and IP's, so I suspect WP:CONFLICT Derek Andrews ( talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 04:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Raymond Cambefort

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

No evidence that this is a notable bio. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Let's see... He wasn't even a supercentenarian (i.e. didn't even reach 110). The French government doesn't recognize him as a WW1 infantryman. Even if he were, he wasn't the oldest infantryman, just one of the last to die. And the one (one!) source in the article, which is in French, is marked unreliable source?. EEng ( talk) 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Even if he did, it could be argued that any encyclopedic information could be included elsewhere, on one of the many longevity-related lists. Canadian Paul 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 04:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

DisCleaner

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

No indication of notability or external sourcing ViperSnake151  Talk  23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ignoring the SPAs, consensus is clear. I'm also going to salt to prevent recreations from editors with COIs Courcelles ( talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Brian Boxer Wachler

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

After removing selfpublished and misinterpreted sources there are no sources left. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete No third-party evidence indicating how this person meets WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Dr. Wachler has been widely covered in the media as originally indicated in the sources. Additionally, a simple Google news search reveals he is often in the news https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+boxer+wachler&oq=brian+b&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.2422j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=%22boxer+wachler%22 This person meets the criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennydarko ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Bennydarko ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Strong Keep. Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler is a well-known corneal specialist. All sources of media including TV and newspaper articles listed below are from verified sources which I confirmed by performing a Google news search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffray2 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Cliffray2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Strong Keep. I reviewed the page here ( https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164409/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boxer_Wachler) There is a claim to notoriety here, in that Dr. Boxer Wachler treated the vision of Olympic gold medalist Steven Holcomb, featured in NBC news coverage ( http://www.today.com/news/olympic-bobsledder-overcomes-depression-eye-disorder-create-lasting-legacy-2D11837794). This and related television coverage, establishes Dr. Boxer Wachler’s notoriety as an authority in eye surgery, specifically for keratoconus. He is also a recurring medical contributor on the national television program, The Doctors, and has appeared in segments on NBC Nightly News, Good Morning America, CNN, and in other news sources such as New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Huffington Post. He is also a TED Fulbright Speaker ( http://www.tedxfulbright2015.com/#!boxer/c1oyc)

I counted, of the 216 total sources listed ( https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164409/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boxer_Wachler), 10 are self-published which should be deleted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR00x0Shq9s&list=PLSX2cKGbtvMz1PkxtBmckDauwuCFjab3B&index=6, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdJtYwT7bA0&list=PLSX2cKGbtvMz1PkxtBmckDauwuCFjab3B&index=8, Credentials http://www.boxerwachler.com/credentials/index.htm , Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler's Curriculum Vitae http://www.boxerwachler.com/BBW%20CV.pdf, Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients. http://www.boxerwachler.com, Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients. http://www.boxerwachler.com, News segments can be viewed in Media Player n practice website http://www.boxerwachler.com/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WLIyoPtW3A#t=14, Boxer Wachler receives letter from Department of Defense for contribution and mentoring to ophthalmologists in military http://www.keratoconusinserts.com/mamc.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFept_kyHosand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adubbins1 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Adubbins1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

"Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients". really. That sock/meatpuppet does not understand Wikipedia a whit. My goodness. Jytdog ( talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I believe that edits to the page on August 31 were akin to vandalism BECAUSE the objection raised was over self citing and the edits gutted the page entirely. I think the page should be kept and the edits suggested by one of the other users should be made and a discussion then had with the relevant mods on other revisions. My research indicates the doctor is noteworthy (a simple google news search combined with a google scholar search reveals that, and the page serves an important purpose. I'd be happy to help suggest edits to the mods. There is a very real interest in this doctor's work because it is unique and therefore noteworthy. If only 10 sources were poorly cited, to gut an entire page seems inappropriate. Aren't we supposed to be focused on working together to get pages right? The solution isn't deletion, it's editing. Jf3300 ( talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
About the relentless PROMO pressure - see the COI tags at Talk:Brian_Boxer_Wachler, and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scubadiver99/Archive. And it is going on, even here, with all these WP:SPA !votes. Jytdog ( talk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Started another SPI here [1] Had not seen the previous one. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I disagree on noterity he meets WP:BIO criteria - I think edits should be made, and I'd welcome a dialogue on that. Jf3300 ( talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note to reviewing admin Interesting to note how users who haven't edited for a year or more keep coming out of hibernation to !vote on this... OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There's no unaffiliated coverage besides the one source left in the article. No one can seem to point to any substantial coverage locatable outside of the doctor's own pages or self-published content. His professional position alone does not confer notability. MSJapan ( talk) 21:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and encourage recreation It will be necessary to remove the promotional history, and it's so pervasive that the way to do that is deletion. However, I do think he's notable, just as I did in 2007. Notability as a scientist is determined by WP:PROF, for which the key standard is being recognized as an authority in his subject. We normally determine this by looking at citations to his published works. The standard varies by field, which is why the guideline attempts no exact definition. In clinical biomedicine, the literature density is rather high, but multiple papers with citations over a 100 is always enough for notability. Google Scholar shows [2] counts of 216, 202, 137, 106 ... Looking at papers on Keratoconus, [3], he's one of the 10 most cited scientists. In doing the re-creation the material mentioned by Adubbins1 is some of it so minor that it should not even be mentioned in the article--it serves rather as the example of the sort of promotionalism we need to avoid. Not every doctor who treats a notable patient is notable. Perhaps when we create the new article, we will need to semi-protect it, to prevent what seems to be the expected promotional COI editing. And the SPI should be reopened to check the accounts that have been commented keep here. My priority when I !voted keep in2007 was to get even moderately notable articles into WP; my priority now is to keep promotionalism out. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete the article is not notable (however all these socks are)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 07:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete-- agree with nom and others need independent sources. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 12:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
this was unencyclopedic fluff and i removed it. Jytdog ( talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Speaking generally here, I know a lot of doctors, and in my experience, among the various practices, ophthalmology has the strongest culture of selling their practices. I don't know how many emails I have gotten from my local medical group's Lasik practitioners. There are actually PR companies that offer services to ophthalmologists like this, and the AAO reminds its members to be aware of their online presence. Jytdog ( talk) 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I was about to add his books, but I see that How We Conquered Keratoconus is published by the Boxer Wachler Vision Institute, and I also see that Mastery of Holcomb C3-R® Crosslinking for Keratoconus & Other Disorders is a magnificently self-promotional work which looks like a website put to print, published by a minor medical publisher which seems to be willing to publish almost anything. He is, however, a co-author of Refractive Surgery 2010-2011, published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Hyperopia and Presbyopia, published by T&F. I'd agree with User:DGG on this one. -- Slashme ( talk) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deletion as promotional DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Toscano Classico

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

No indication of any significance of this product, no sign of it meeting the general notability guidelines. Of the two sources given, one lacks the word "classico" altogether, and the other has it in a blurb, not as part of the phrase "toscano classico". So this specific cigar isn't mentioned in either work. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I'd already scanned the article several times but only on the last occasion did it occur to me that it should probably just be merged into, and then redirected to, Toscano (cigar), because it says clearly that "Toscana Classico" is just a new name for the same thing. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There simply isn't enough content about these different cigar products to have separate articles for them. The same editor ( User:Juliettatano) has now created two separate articles for Toscano cigar types that are already listed on the Toscano (cigar) page. (Other one is Toscanello_Caffe). It would probably be best to stop this now before there are many more of these. The "specific features" on these pages are too detailed and seem to function as filler. Other information can be integrated into the Toscano cigar page. LaMona ( talk) 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The Seldith Chronicles

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

Non-notable book series. Books are self-published by the author, and I can find no discussions or detailed treatment of them in reliable sources. Some limited discussion on small blogs, that's it. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Lolo Loren

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

Highly promotional in tone; remove the fluff and very little is left. Does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity ( talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I have no login or registration, but please delete this article not, because I am coming a lot to Ibiza and found this article interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.115.65 ( talk) 21:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

We added this article and just took text coming from the source White Ibiza en from a book published about the artist. Look at the text of other artists like Cornelis le Mair - which is actually also an artist but also does not have any reference. And we noted that from an art historical perspective that artist is also under discussion while his article is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilegalandart ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I could not find "Cornelis le Mair" in Wikipedia. If such an article exists, please provide a wikilink, as it sounds like it should be deleted too. Wikipedia is not a directory for listing artists. Notability must be demonstrated using reliable, independent sources, and I could not find these for Lolo Loren. It is certainly true that there are many articles here which should not be. You can help Wikipedia by proposing them for deletion when you see them. ubiquity ( talk) 13:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Municipal elections in San Fernando de Henares

Municipal elections in San Fernando de Henares (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal elections in Conil de la Frontera, which was recently deleted. Delete Pokerkiller ( talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 10:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Vadne (ferry)

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

Other than some trivial listings showing that ship did exist, searches on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing which would show notability. Onel5969 TT me 17:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Apologies in advance if this lacks coherency - it's a bit difficult at the moment. I have seen 'Solent Enterprise' and several other former or current Gosport ferries have articles of their own, and appear to have no issue with notability. Vadne is shown on the SimplonPC website (at http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/PortsmouthHFC.html#Vadne ), which may help here or may not, but the same source is cited in several other ferry articles. This particular vessel was of some local notoriety, featuring in the regional newspaper after a collision with a warship and the death of a passenger - whether any of the Gosport ferries have notability on a level outside Hampshire, I don't know, but Vadne seems to be just as well-placed, in that department, as the others. Dan ( talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Hi Daniel Karmy - That's an argument based on WP:OSE (other stuff exists), and that criteria alone doesn't merit keeping an article. In order to show notability, there must be "substantial coverage" from independent, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:GNG to see what constitutes substantial coverage. This ship simply does not seem to meet that. Onel5969 TT me 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This was a fairly prominently known vessel in its working life. As a wreck it's quite well known today as the best-known 'flagship' of the Forton Lake hulks. I'm not local to the South Coast, but of people who pay any attention to wrecks like this in other parts of the country, Vadne is a recognisable name.
No objection though to a well-done merge into Forton Lake. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For my part, I don't mind either way - were this a long article and an arduous task, I may have felt differently, but I've nothing against the merge with Forton Lake either. I would perhaps keep it for the ship's archaeological significance - although I was surprised to learn Vadne is well-known elsewhere in the country! There again, fellow ferries of that era, for instance Vita and Ferry Queen, don't have articles here, and if they're not quite enough for pages of their own, it follows that neither is Vadne. Merge seems fair enough, and in that case, I'd add sections on several other prominent wrecks in the lake (over time). Dan ( talk) 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is well-known vessel today as a wreck that, when active, was notable for naval service on two continents and for a rare collision resulting in loss of life. I have no doubt that she is covered by other books and that the collision in particular was the subject of more extensive news coverage in 1967 - but I do not have access to them at present. Google tests are not very helpful in these circumstances. If merged, should be with Forton Lake as part of a series on the individual vessels, rather than with Gosport Ferry which is not at present structured to cover the historic fleet. Davidships ( talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding the collision with HMS Redpole in July 1957 - I have several images of newspaper clippings published in the aftermath of the incident in the Portsmouth News. I can upload those here and, whether Vadne has a section or an article of her own, should really add something about that collision (edit - have just checked article again. My apologies). As David and Andy mention, it was almost a notable occurrence in and of itself, especially as it resulted in the only fatality in the ferry company's 130-year history. Dan ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation. -- Kinu  t/ c 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Fuel saving gear

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

Violation of WP:NOTGUIDE ABCDEFAD ✉ 17:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deor ( talk) 10:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgios Spanoudakis

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Almost all of these are routine transfer announcements, which do not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
A lot of these sources AREN'T transfer announcements. It also isn't routine for Sport (Spanish newspaper), El Mundo Deportivo (newspaper), Daily Mail, Daily Star (British newspaper), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Rheinische Post or Sport Bild to write an article about the transfer of a 9 year or 15 year old football player. Thaht's only because he's considered as wonder kid. These newspapers don't write ANY article about 99 percent of all players at the same age. -- Yoda1893 ( talk) 09:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Yoda1893: Just because he has been labelled as a 'wonder kid' isn't to say that he will have a professional career in the sport. To do so would be WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isn't meant to host articles for youth footballers who possibly might be the next big thing. Spiderone 20:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What if the coverage calling him a wonderkid meets WP:GNG? That would make WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant. I note above that Sir Sputnik notes that almost all of the references are routine - wait, that implies that some are non-routine. Nfitz ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, please do not twist my words into something that I very obviously didn't mean. Or would you like me to infer from your use of the conditional that you think the answer to your "what if" question is no. It would be equally absurd. Just because explicitly express an opinion on some of these sources doesn't mean you get to twist my silence into whatever opinion happens to take your fancy and present it as mine. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I haven't had opportunity to review the sources. The choice of your normally carefully chosen words though caught my attention. Which sources did you think weren't routine? Surely anytime that WP:GNG is met then WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant; I don't see how the conditionality has any impact on that. Is WP:GNG met - I have no opinion on that, not having reviewed any sources. Nfitz ( talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Numerically, it's a little marginal to declare a consensus, but most of the keep !votes fail to cite any policy-based reason.

Should be listed in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Iraqi Air Force F-16 crash

2015 Iraqi Air Force F-16 crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but not notable military aviation accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, I think this accident was notable in Iraq. Media discussed this event and there are a lot of Iraqi websites mentioned it. Probably it is not notable in Kenya or Uruguay but as Iraqi Wikipedian, it's important accident in my view. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 23:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete or perhaps create List of fatal Iraq Air Force crashes and include it there.We have not kept articles, in general, about each and every military airplane crash in the history of military aviation. Two news articles as refs? Still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Edison ( talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
try to search for (douglas f-16 crash) and you'll find dozens of news articles. I just selected 2 references as all sites gives the same details. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 06:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
To search about the pilot in Arabic: write (راصد محمد صديق) and you'll find many Iraqi pages and news about him and his death. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 13:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This is English Wikipedia. If you want to use Arabic references then write the article on Arabic Wikipedia!-- Petebutt ( talk) 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Petebutt: I'm surprised you said that..! WP:NONENG reads, Citations to non-English sources are allowed. I'm not sure on what grounds you made that comment. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 08:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
As an in-line citation yes, but not the major source of information for an entire article, surely!-- Petebutt ( talk) 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, I didn't mention what was written in Iraqi websites or discussed in media that they think it was deliberated and it was not an accident. There are many references for it:

These are some of major news websites mentioned the crash. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

For accidents involving ... any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

  • The accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
    — WP:AIRCRASH
Also WP:NOTNEWS WP:PERSISTENCE Also (last one I swear) The inclusion or lack thereof on other language wikipedias is moot. This is English Wikipedia. We use the inclusion guidelines for English Wikipedia.-- Savonneux ( talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand - I have found coverage by Air Force Times, CNN, Russia Today, Fox News, Associated Press and other Arabic sources (which I am sadly unable to read), and the deceased appears to be a flag officer as well; the death of the flag officer I believe tips the scale in favor of notability. Furthermore, foreign language sources can be used in the English Wikipedia. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Expand what precisely? "Plane crashed. Pilot died. Cause unknown." Literally the reason we have articles like List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). Also since there isn't even a cause yet, even more reason why WP:NOTNEWS applies.-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Once again, there are Arabic language sources that I cannot read. We should have a language expert and subject matter expert collaborate in incorporating those sources into this article. In addition, the pilot was a flag officer. According to WP:MILNG, flag officers are notable by that criteria alone. As the crash resulted in the death of a flag officer, a person entitled to having an article about them to begin with. Per WP:AIRCRASH "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia", hence the crash itself is notable. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:SOLDIER says:

In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:# Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour;# Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour multiple times; or# Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
— WP:SOLDIER

Notice the almost always, not always, just almost always. Here is an arabic search of the pilot's name for pages from 8/2006 to Dec 31 2014, i.e. before he died: [18] 10 hits, one relevant which is a passing mention about meeting a US official. Brigade General is usually barely notable in and of itself, they aren't quite the same as full generals.-- Savonneux ( talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That's not even what I was referring to though. It is a one pilot, one plane crash. No matter how you write it it's going to be. "Plane crashed -> Effects of plane crashing" aside from the pilot dying and a few bushes in Arizona getting torched there is nothing else.-- Savonneux ( talk) 15:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

T. K. Abdullah

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

Lacks notability and reliable sources ScholarM ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Haymarket Line

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

Proposed railway line still in premiliary stages for the next two years, clearly fails wp:crystal delete Pokerkiller ( talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

TestBird

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

Contested PROD by article creator. Non-notable product. I cannot find WP:RSes that meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Product shares a name with another product for GIS software. I see a number of sources in Chinese but cannot determine if they are RSes or not. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Life Is Full of Possibilities. Courcelles ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

(This Is) The Dream of Evan and Chan

(This Is) The Dream of Evan and Chan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find much in the way of sources (except this Pitchfork review), and it doesn't really have any info that isn't already in the Life Is Full of Possibilities article anyway. StewdioMACK ( talk) 14:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Suggest merge of info and redirect to album page, if the active contributor cannot improve the subject article until a certain period. I haven't researched the subject that much, but it appears to me that the song was "instrumental" to the band's creation. I found few notable mentions (in retrospect) such as in Billboard 1, Billboard 2, Entertainment Weekly, and MTV. -- Efe ( talk) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to album. I don't think it would have been contested even without a discussion. Reviews generally put the single in context of Possibilities or of the Postal Service's founding, but there's little in depth on the EP or track itself enough to warrant its own page besides AllMusic, Pitchfork, and Brainwashed. Billboard notes it as the standout track on Possibilities. AllMusic agrees. BBC calls it the "indie single of the year". And Pitchfork ranks it within the top 250 tracks of the decade. A.V. Club passing mention. Anyway, best off merged unless someone can dig up more reviews (especially in offline sources)! –  czar 15:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to album. WP:NSONGS does not grant automatic notability to every song that exists at all — rather, to qualify for a standalone article rather than simply being discussed in the article on the album from whence it came, a song has to meet certain specific criteria (such as verifiable status as a charting hit, etc.) which haven't been demonstrated, or even really claimed, here. Bearcat ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America

AfDs for this article:
List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is extremely narrow in relevance, which seems to fail to meet WP:Notability and to violate WP:Overcategorization. There is also some confusion about the criterion "accredited." The U.S. Department of Education accredits the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), [1] which is then independently tasked to accredit naturopathic programs. Therefore, to reflect this reality, the title should be changed to reflect that they are accredited by CNME. This would make the article even more overcategoried. There is also a separate accreditation offered by another naturopathic organization, The American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board, which has accredited seven schools in the U.S. and Canada. [2] I do not think it is relevant to have a page dedicated to naturopathic programs accredited by any organization. Trhermes ( talk) 14:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "About the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education". CNME.org. Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
  2. ^ "Accredited Member Schools". American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board. American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. WP:Overcategorization has nothing to do with lists or anything else in article space; it is relevant only to categories. postdlf ( talk) 03:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — There are several problems with this article. First things first, the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNMD) claims that their accredited schools offer an education equivalent to medical school programs; that is a lie, since CNMD's recognition isn't based upon the scientific validity of what is taught at the accredited schools — for more information on the topic, see this article from Stephen Barrett, M.D. Secondly, all the naturopathy schools accredited by CNMD receive much of their financial support from companies that market dietary supplements and homeopathic products (read: quackery sponsored by sellers of quackery products). On top of that, naturopathic services are not covered by US Medicare, or most world-wide insurance policies, since U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) recommended against of naturopathy due to its pseudo-scientific nature. Finally, all the CNMD's accredited schools account for a total of less than 1,000 graduates per year (approximatively ~200 graduates per school); those low numbers don't corroborate WP:N. An entire WP article dedicated to any naturopathic accrediting agency is too narrow in relevance to be included in WP. Toffanin ( talk) 08:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not against naturopathy my self, but this is little more than WP:LISTCRUFT. It has only passing mentions and listings as sources. If it's not improved, I would have to go along with delete. Bearian ( talk) 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Den Klyuev

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

Non-notable martial artist. Essentially a biography written by a near relative. The only source is the subjects own website. The list of titles which at first glance look impressive are not supported by any reliable references and are only from a particular branch of karate. High rank is not an indicator of notability but the subject is only a 2nd degree black belt - not that impressive. This was up for a BLPPROD but was declined since at the time I proposed it there was a source (reliable or not). Should have gone a different route. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I haven't been able to find notable, or significant coverage about the person, just a YouTube video and his Facebook page. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete BLP with no independent sources or significant coverage of any kind. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Despite a seemingly impressive record, there are no independent sources to support any of the claims so WP:GNG is not met. I'm also concerned about the accuracy of the claims. For example, the article claims he won a medal at the WKF world championships in 2013 but the WKF holds its world championships in even numbered years and I found no mention of a special shito-ryu division at the WKF website. Papaursa ( talk) 03:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - withdrawn. ukexpat ( talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Malcolm Gordon

( non-admin closure) - Withdrawn. -- ukexpat ( talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Non-notable school hockey coach - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat ( talk) 14:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Inducted into US Hockey Hall of Fame in 1973, among the very first class of inductees (see [25] "The game had been earlier introduced at St. Paul’s from Canada, but Malcom Gordon is regarded as the individual who helped formalize the game by putting down on paper what is regarded as the first set of rules in the United States. " [26] also. [27] obit in New York Times. " Malcolm Kenneth Gordon, who taught history and hockey to boys 75 years ago — and gave his final lecture only last year —died yesterday at his home here. He was 96 years old." I suggest a person in a notable hall of fame is notable - and the fact is he made the NYT. [28] NYT: "When Malcolm Kenneth Gordon, 87 - year - old master of history at the Malcolm Gordon School here, talks about hockey, he really dips into the past. " 1955. NHL Official Guide & Record Book (2006)"Gordon, Malcolm K. 1973 ", etc. In short - easily shown to be quite notable. Collect ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Happy to withdraw if someone edits this 11-year old unreferenced article to add even a single reference.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 07:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nahas Ahmed Khalil

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

Does not meet the notability guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 01:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Baghdad of Peace

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

I'm not exactly inferring this is fabricated but my searches found nothing at all, there's no Arabic Wiki and there are no linking articles (orphan) so I'm not seeing any possible improvement here but maybe it's simply the country and language barriers. Notifying author Soman. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 07:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Jason Binn

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

Long-troubled article that, whether intended or not, looks more like a personal page, and my searches found nothing to suggest meaningful improvement here, here, here, here and here. Although he's accomplished quite a few things, he would probably be best mentioned elsewhere but there's no target (orphan). SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I can see nothing particularly notable about this business person. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's been more than a year since I noted that the article was a puff piece with few sources. I had planned on stubbing this down to the two sentences that are reliably sourced, but figured I'd hold off until I could justify it by a year without the issue being addressed. But frankly, I don't even see notability here, so, delete. TJRC ( talk) 18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's quite a bit of in-depth coverage in the mainstream press, and no real argument for deletion has been put forward by any of the !voters. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Mysmartprice

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

Another startup whose coverage is limited to the fact they received funding, in media that covers that. Claims like "ranked 16th in list of 25 best" and "9th Asian startup" and so on are just scraping the bottom of the notability barrel. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.250.157 ( talk) 19:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Added links on the page to news sources that are entirely about the start-up and not at all about its funding. Check them out and see if they satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-31/news/55631406_1_price-range-users-sulakshan-kumar

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/shop-smart-let-this-online-platform-get-you-the-best-price/article6258025.ece

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/mysmartprice-aims-to-double-gross-merchandise-value-from-next-year-114091500387_1.html

I think they do, but I could be wrong. 49.205.250.157 ( talk) 20:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain but ultimately draft & userfy for now (delete for now) - This has gotten considerable, searches here (starts fading by page nine but these are the best results of all), here, here, here and here. I thought of "weak keeping" but all in all, this may still be incidental coverage and we can wait until there's a little better. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep The startup gets as much coverage online as is possible here in India and does feature quite a bit on paper. It might also be worth considering that the website is the top price comparison website in India and is much more popular (ranked 95th on alexa in India) than closest competitor Jungee (291st on alexa in India) by Amazon.com. So considering this and the reasonable amount of coverage online, I'd still suggest to keep the page. 49.205.250.157 ( talk) 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Spaceman Spiff 11:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sadkhin Complex

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

Inadequate evidence for notability. One article is USA today is not enough for a fad diet. There are a number of press releases in /Google News, but none of them would help. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found two sources via HighBeam. Have no idea if these are reputable sources.
    Los Angeles Sentinel, 2002: [29]
    Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week, 2002: [30]
Until these are evaluated, I don't have an opinion on notability. Brianhe ( talk) 02:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The Los Angeles Sentinel is a mainstream newspaper and as such it should be considered a reliable non-academic third-party source. I never heard about Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week and I really doubt it has a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy like academic and peer-reviewed publications. For sure, none of those two newspapers could be considered a scientific literature, or an authority in the scientific field of nutrition. An example of reliable source, on the topic of diets, is the medical journal Nutrition. Toffanin ( talk) 09:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've been looking for sources. It's actually a franchise, so there are franchise disclosure documents and other reports available. None indicate notability. The actual business names are The Sadkhin Complex, Inc. and Sadkhin Franchising Company, LLC. I can't find anything on this business that indicates notability and isn't promotional. Manta (business directory) says "Categorized under Weight Reducing Clubs. Our records show it was established in 2005 and incorporated in New York. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of 110000 and employs a staff of approximately 2" [31]. That fails WP:CORP. John Nagle ( talk) 04:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have searched for sources but could only find poor-quality advertorial pieces with zero coverage in books or journals. For a diet that has been around since 1989 it would suggest that it is not notable. SmartSE ( talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Despite the claim to be a well established diet since 1989, I was not able to find peer-reviewed publications on PubMed, or other prominent scientific databases, about Sadkhin Complex. No scientific literature exists about the use of acupressure to control hunger. The only sources mentioning this diet are secondary sources talking exclusively about alternative medicine and pseudo-scientific diets. In absence of valid evidences, Sadkhin Complex should be considered quackery, and the WP page shoud be treated according to WP:OR. Toffanin ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Jennifer E. Flanagan

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

Paid press release. No notability except with respect to Actua, which is mildly notable, and the bulk of the material here duplicates the material there. This sort of duplication is a hallmark of promotional editing.

The material is what one would expect in a press release: praise of the organization, unsourced adjectives of praise , appeals to the intrinsic social value of the work, the typical jargon . Long sections of just where she has presented lectures -- and presenting lectures not only doesn't show notability but is usually not even mentioned if the person is actually notable. List of board memberships, which again is not usually worth mentioning. List of organizations where she has volunteered. All of this is essentially puffery . If the person were actually highly notable, the puffery could be removed, but in this case there would be nothing much left.

The refs are mainly about her organization, not her, and most of them are in any case press releases or mere mentions.

There are thousands of articles like this in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower. It may take a long while for us to remove them, but the least we can do is not add to them. Do you want your organization to be a good example, or another bad example? DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I started going through the references. A number of them have no mention of her, and some do not even mention the company. What I did find with her name was the usual "executive quote" or a name-check. To truly analyze this article all of the irrelevant references would need to be removed so that it would be possible, with a reasonable amount of time invested, to see if there are any reliable sources. I definitely didn't find any. LaMona ( talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to Actua -- this ain't LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 01:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan)

AfDs for this article:
Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This college is clearly fake. I couldn't find a single reliable source, and it doesn't appear to be listed on the Higher Education Commission website. [32] Several previous articles with similar names were deleted; their websites are suspicious, such as this vague location page. [33]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's a disambiguation page with only one link:

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Benny White ( talk) 21:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I've converted that "dab page" into a redirect (stops it being reported as of interest to the Disambiguation WikiProject). If the article on the college survives deletion it should be moved to the base name as there is no need for disambiguation. Pam D 11:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated BuildStudio

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

Clearly the least notable SmartBear Software product being promoted on Wikipedia. Cited only to SmartBear and I can't see any evidence of it being profiled in any reliable secondary sources. There's no claim of it even winning the most minor tech award. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only non-company ref is to softpedia, which as a download site is not entirely independent and in any case would not on its own be sufficient to establishing notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Software is discontinued so future RS coverage is unlikely. Dialectric ( talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree with reasons above. Old software that is no longer supported; of dubious improtance to users other than developers. References are self-published by maker of software. The article reminds me ofmthe old software manuals one sees at yard sales. Valuable imformation for perhaps one person in a million. New Media Theorist ( talk) 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Overview of RESTful API Description Languages

Overview of RESTful API Description Languages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTCRUFT personified. This is no overview, it is a cobbled-together list of disparate IDL languages ( REST is an irrelevance to these) that are cherry-picked because their back-end API might be RESTful.

This article conveys nothing to the reader. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The list needs significant work, but no valid argument for deletion has been raised. Courcelles ( talk) 20:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of songs recorded by Snoop Dogg

List of songs recorded by Snoop Dogg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to Snoop Dogg discography. Koala15 ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: "List of songs..." and "... discography" articles are completely different in content, and one shouldn't be used as the others reasoning for deletion. If it were the case, lists like List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande would be deleted, instead of being granted featured list status. A large majority of the entries are not covered in the discography, and although the article is in dire state, the fact it's an unsourced article is not a viable reason for its deletion, merely a cry for help for a cleanup. Azealia911 talk 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

.450 Bonecrusher

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

Non-notable firearm cartridge type. The only provided reference is an esay by the developer himself. I'm not finding any viable references that demonstrate WP:N, though the cartridge does appear in various publications of exhaustive lists of ammunition types. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete...Not notable, just one of countless obscure wildcat cartridges. I can't even find a major manufacturer that has ever made a gun chambered for it. I think the only guns ever made for it were the inventors prototypes.-- RAF910 ( talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Delivery drone#In healthcare. As the probably most acceptable variant of the outcome of not keeping this as a separate article.  Sandstein  17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Let's fly wisely

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

This event, originally described as a "history-making event" in which the first FAA-approved drone was used to make a delivery, appears more to be a research/demonstration event in the FAA's ongoing efforts to investigate the uses of drone technology. It was a single research demonstration event, not a "history-making breakthrough". As such, I don't believe it deserves its own stand-alone article. The event may merit mention in other articles on drones, such as delivery drone or Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles, but it does not merit its own article. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Card warp

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

I cannot find any sources that discuss this in detail and are not solely in "how-to"... Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO... format. There are not even many of the latter. The sources already included in the article appear to be "how-to" material of that nature. One apparently reliable source describes it as a "classic" card trick (in a clause mentioning some other tricks), but has no other details. Significant coverage in reliable sources therefore does not appear to exist. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

DoItYourself.com

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

Does not establish notability per the general notability guideline in that it fails to provide (multiple) reliable source(s) covering the entity in detail. A brief GNEWS search found nothing but trivial mentions and SEO-type referral links. The previous AFD in 2010 made no assessment of this specific page. Izno ( talk) 14:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The important facts in this article are that it was created by someone and then acquired by someone else, and those facts are unreferenced. I think its inclusion on the list of companies on the internet Brands page is more than adequate. The best source for anyone interested in the article subject is probably the page itself... Its history is minimally notable. New Media Theorist ( talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University

Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional and at best borderline notable. (It might be possible to merge a single short paragraph to the university, but the merge was objected to.) The refs are notices or PR--even the article in theTelegraph is essentially a press release. Promotional language and unsourced adjectives of phrase throughout; long list of their services, extensive use of jargon. Note that this is not Oxford University , but the school formerly known as Oxford City Technical School. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unsure but maybe redirect to Oxford Brookes University#Specialist Study where it is mentioned - I wanted to hear from other people until commenting but my searches didn't find much sources here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The nominator includes one distinctly bad reason for deletion and, in my opinion, rather overstates his main reason. Whether a British university was already a university before 1992 or was, like Oxford Brookes University, up until then (or later) a polytechnic or college can still correlate fairly well (though not totally) with their current standing - but what they were called in or before the 1960s is effectively irrelevant. In league tables, Oxford Brookes tends to come through slightly below average for all British universities and among the better former polytechnics. And even borderline notability should trump promotionalism - provided that the article not only can be, but is, rewritten to show that notability without any of the promotionalism. Having said that, it comes nowhere near saving this article. The best research centres at an average British university would probably be considered to be average or somewhat below at Oxford University (and be rather unlikely to be notable enough for a standalone article) - but a check on Research Excellence Framework results and Oxford Brookes's own webpages suggests that it does not even come close to this. It is apparently one of three research centres within Oxford Brookes's Faculty of Health and Life Sciences - but the Faculty seems to have completely ignored it when making its REF submission (which itself was not one of the best from Oxford Brookes). While it might be possible for Oxford Brookes to have a research centre notable enough for a standalone article, this clearly isn't it. PWilkinson ( talk) 09:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist( talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Antigng ( talk) 03:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Eye of Agamotto

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

This may well be important inside the particular fictional world, but there is no secondary sourcing for this article, and whatever I saw in the less fictional world of Google was either primary stuff or fan stuff--nothing we could call in-depth discussion in reliable sources. I'll settle for a redirect, of course. Drmies ( talk) 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. A core artefact in the Doctor Strange mythos, and thus both mentioned and discussed in all evaluations of the Ditko/Lee reimagining of sorcery; the article is over-stuffed with in-universe detail and under-referenced, but I have added three sample references to it in independent discussions of the material. Also Cat Yronwode's prominence in the field should be noted in weighting the reference to her that was already present. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable enough for it's own article, it's been in the comics since 1963, has appeared in direct-to-TV films and animated movies, and TV shows (including the 1994 Spider-Man show, The Super Hero Squad Show, and Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme). That definitely qualifies it for notability, and Yngvadottir has already added references. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 23:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be enough editors who favor a merge, however, that it may be advisable to propose one at Talk:Taste; that would be a better place to decide whether this should be a stand-alone article or should be incoporated into that article. The consensus is that the information should appear on Wikipedia somewhere. Deor ( talk) 10:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Oleogustus

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

Original article PMID  26142421 fails WP:MEDRS, all the sources here are pop-sci sources. Deletion or redirect to Taste#Fattiness. No content salvagable as all sources fail. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • It makes it clear that this is a "proposed" new taste. I do not see it as being undue. It is not making an effectiveness claim. Maybe merge to "taste"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Taste#Fattiness, which already has related content. Failing WP:MEDRS is irrelevant as this is a biology article, not a medical article. The citations are fine for a biology article. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    WP:SCIRS is pretty clear that whatever they are, it's not "fine". -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The article cites the original research report, as WP:SCIRS allows in a situation like this. WP:SCIRS does not disallow news coverage, although it has advice on when and how to use it. The article needs improving in terms of how it uses citations, but that's not an argument for its deletion or not using the content in the article in a merge. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm saying delete because this concept has not received any independent critical coverage. There is no evidence that anybody will remember this term a year from now. I would not be opposed to having an article if the article could clearly state that the concept has not yet been validated, but Wikipedia's policies make that very difficult: it is impossible to find reliable secondary sources to substantiate the fact that there are no reliable secondary sources. Looie496 ( talk) 13:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (was delete) per RockMagnetist, albeit severely trimmed. as there is not enough evidence this will become a widely used term. WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON obviously apply here, and merging/redirecting is moot at this point. The primary source is so recent it hasn't even been cited once for crying out loud! Wikipedia is not a news outlet. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep The sources are adequate to show the phenomenon as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. WP covers such hypotheses; they need to be recognized and discussed before we can cover them, but they don't have to actually be proven true, as long as the article correctly states the status. The sources for this are high ranking scientific journals, and that is all that is necessary for biology. There is however a problem with the terminology--I doubt very mush this will end upas the accepted term, but we need some place to keep the material. Just as Umami was for a long while referred to as the fifth taste until its nature became more defined, and it became accepted as corresponding to a preexisting Japanese term, I suggest sixth taste as a temporary place-holder. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • DGG Per your words: "WP covers such hypotheses; they need to be recognized and discussed before we can cover them". This is exactly what we don't have. There is a single study that has proposed this term, and it hasn't even been cited once (it was published last month; I exclude the Time article from my analysis because in the world we live today this sort of thing is easy and catchy reading {see this and this}). If the term is subsequently discussed in the literature, then of course Wikipedia could use an article about it. The fact of the matter is it is too new even to have been discussed appropriately. We can't include this at present per WP:FRINGE. As it stands, this is a single article summary; if there is significant coverage about it at a later point, then I'd gladly see it created again. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      There's an inherent problem in this: in science, it takes time to write and publish a paper--normally at least 6 months. In contrast, for films or books, a review can come out the same day the item is published, if not earlier. But there are already news items about it: the article give Time and Science News; I see also NPR and the Guardian. Public interest in a hypothesis is just as significant forus as scientific interest (the special restrictions of MEDRS have their place, but this is human biology, not clinical medicine.) This is unlikely to be ignored--using common snese, there is fairly certain to be work either confirming or refuting it. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Should we have articles on beer goggles, neurotic people being more creative, autism and gluten, and cricket swings and weather? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I find it hard to classify this as a "science" article at all, and it has absolutely nothing to do with medicine. It's really no more scientific than Scoville scale or Pungency or Sweetness. I am unimpressed by the assertion that we should delete the article because the peer-review cycle is too slow to have already produced "discussions in the [scientific] literature" about what food tastes like. That's the biggest problem with this proposal IMO: this is being treated like it's some sort of medical project, and it's not. This is about eating. IMO these are acceptable sources for this point in time. Additionally, there is quite a bit here (e.g., the sourced history section) that could be merged to Taste#Fattiness, if we someday decide not to keep it as a separate article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Passes WP:GNG and also keep per WP:NTEMP. The topic has received international significant coverage in reliable sources. See this link for source examples. North America 1000 17:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
How does this pass NTEMP? I see no coverage previous to July 2015. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NTEMP, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." North America 1000 07:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In terms of WP:NTEMP/ WP:NEO concerns, the original academic journal paper builds on an existing literature, so one can build better article content using a variety of sources... but that literature is already covered at Taste#Fattiness. I see no point in having Oleogustus as it is separate from the material at Taste#Fattiness. Either merge Oleogustus into Taste (a simple cut'n'paste job), or take the Taste#Fattiness material out of Taste and merge it into Oleogustus. DGG, in terms of your suggestion for a sixth taste placeholder, while I like the idea, if you go to Taste, there is a lot of material already there about tastes beyond the traditional 5. Indeed, the more obvious candidate for a "sixth taste" is kokumi, so a fattiness taste would be a seventh taste! (There's more literature to support a full kokumi article than there is for oleogustus, I suggest, although those sources haven't been included in Taste yet.) WhatamIdoing: I'm not certain I agree with your argument that this is no more scientific than Scoville scale or Sweetness. This, and sweetness, are entirely scientific topics, like visual perception or hearing; and those are all much more scientific than Scoville scale. (I did my PhD on food psychology: I don't like to see the subject dismissed!) Bondegezou ( talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I disagree. What food tastes like is a fundamentally human topic, about which science can provide some interesting and valuable information. Non-science (e.g., aesthetics, aka "does it taste good?") also plays a role here. Refusing to engage in the overmedicalization of food is not dismissing the subjects: it's restoring them to their rightful (and broader) position. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The relation with medicines and MEDRS sounds really weird and I see no reason to delete this article on these grounds. The sources are adequate to show the phenomenon as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. The Banner  talk 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Taste#Fattiness. A subject may have enough sources to make it notable, but that doesn't mean that a separate article is the best thing for Wikipedia. Restrict web searches to before 2015, and you can build a similar case for kokumi ( [34], [35], [36], [37], etc.), carbohydrates ( [38], [39], [40], [41]), and so on ( [42], [43]). You could have a separate article for each, claiming that it is the sixth flavor, and leave readers with different impressions depending on how they got to Wikipedia; or you can put them all together in one article and let the reader see all the claims together, as well as the common criteria for what constitutes a taste. I think that would be more encyclopedic. RockMagnetist( talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Americans in the Venona papers. And perhaps briefly merge some content subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Emma Harriet Joseph

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She is only mentioned once in the cited source, and that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people who were mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the body of the text. Her name appears in a couple of other sources, but usually only as part of a similar list of people mentioned in the cables. This does not meet the threshold for significant coverage in reliable sources which is required to make someone notable - it's simply a passing mention. More generally, having been a communist, having worked for OSS, or having been a Soviet contact does not in itself make her notable, especially absent significant coverage in RS.

The second paragraph of the article appears to be OR, and is drawn from a primary source (the one cable that mentions her).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi. Just curious. Is this a reliable source? Pbly not. Quis separabit? 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rms125a@hotmail.com:, I'm not sure it matters - the "Emma Joseph" referred to there is a fictional character, not the same person this article's about. Note that the play's script puts her at age 26 in 1999 (that's when the play is set). Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This person is already listed in the List of Americans in the Venona papers article. As for the play, it's discussed above - the "Emma Joseph" in that play is a fictional character, completely un-related to the subject of this article. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It is false that "She is only mentioned once in the cited source, and that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people who were mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the body of the text." That sentence links to appendix pages 353 and 388. However the sentence is false: she is covered in the main text of The Verona Secrets in passage over pages 294-295.
  • It is false that "The second paragraph of the article appears to be OR, and is drawn from a primary source (the one cable that mentions her)." The second paragraph material is directly supported by the main text in pages 294-295.
Incorrect premises of nomination ---> we reject the nomination. -- do ncr am 01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: Huh? The "premise" of the nomination is that the subject is not notable, and nothing that you write here changes that. You are confused on a number of points. First: she really does appear only once, in the appendix, of the cited source (the cited source being this book). That is the only source cited in the article. You are correct that she also appears to be mentioned briefly in a totally different book called The Venona Secrets. But that source is not cited in the article. (Although it should be, and I can see that it does in fact support the second paragraph). But again, the coverage is a passing mention of her - very far from the significant, in depth coverage that is required for someone to be notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Update: I added the additional source for the 2nd paragraph and removed the OR tag. I still don't think this person is notable though - being mentioned in passing in 1 book, and listed in the appendix of the other is not nearly enough coverage to make her notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not much participation here, but after two relistings with no one advocating keeping the article, the time seems ripe for such a closure. Deor ( talk) 10:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

BlackMotor Corporation

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

Non-notable company because all my searches found nothing all and although someone added the company was actually not closed, the listed website is still closed and the LinkedIn-listed website is also closed. The closest relevant thing I found was this and some Books searches found results for a company from the 1960s and 1970s and since it seems this company was founded in 2009, it must not be that one and finally there are no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I edited the article a little further. It needs a further search for references; I found some using the keywords "black motor" AND drones, but havent gone through them yet. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Warren Slocum

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

WP:BLP of a county supervisor, written extremely like a campaign brochure (my new worst thing ever: politicians whose articles give the names of their pets in the family section) and parked on abysmal sourcing. Almost everything here is a primary source, and a lot of them are deadlinked at that — and the closest thing to a reliable source is a single PBS Newshour piece (reduplicated as sources #4 and #7 for no apparent reason) in which he gets passingly namechecked as a soundbite provider in a report where he is not the subject. Actually, forget the dog and the cat: new even-worse thing ever, this actually tries to get away with sourcing to an internet talk radio stream in ref #16 (and not to any archive of that stream's content by which we can verify what was said, either, but just to the fresh live stream.) All of which means that nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to make him eligible for an article under WP:NPOL #3. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 03:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 07:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Stephan Rich

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. His name is only mentioned in passing in the cited source, that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the text itself. Simply being mentioned one time in the cables does not confer notability, especially when there's basically zero coverage in any other RS that I can find. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Timothy Harlan

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

My searches found nothing outstandingly good to suggest improvement, here, here, here, here and here. There's never been any significant improvement and from the signs of it, there isn't any anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I found a more recent book and added it--a book which seems much more important, or at least much more widely held, than his earlier ones: There seem to be a fe minor reviews for it. Overall, it might be a notable career. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the idea of a New Orleans internist who moonlights as a chef called Dr. Gourmet charmed me enough to do a little search. Not on his name, but on "Dr. Gourmet" on news google. results here: [44]. This article is a keeper. Even though it needs editing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jorge Vargas González. Early close. This will not be kept, even author seems to agree. Merge is an appropriate outcome for a non-notable album. Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Heredero de tu Amor

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

Album by a small-town (pop. 13,000) politician that has no notability, just a one-time mention in a national newspaper ( El Mercurio) and one mention in a tabloid ( La Cuarta). Thus appearance in national media is limited not only to two newspapers but also temporarily limited to 2004 when the artist runned for Mayor in a local election. Sietecolores ( talk) 13:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Upjav ( talk) 14:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Politician has no nobility as a musician, and the coverage is unsatisfactory for notability. It lacks long-term coverage post-2004 as well. Don't see why this would merit its own article. Upjav ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Istituto Marangoni

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

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFA Paris, this appears to be another unaccredited fashion school; sources are variously unreliable and vague mentions. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Disclaimer: I did a bit of work on this last year after removing some major copyright violations there, and added a number of references. I did so because I was sure it would be found to be notable if sent to AfD – it had already survived once. I don't care one way or the other whether it is kept, but I'm certain it's notable; here's the Manchester Guardian describing it as "one of Europe's leading design schools" and saying that it "has played a pivotal role in the growth of the Italian fashion industry". It has innumerable passing mentions, and in-depth coverage in a number of independent reliable sources, a couple of which I have now added to the page. It's not clear to me whether or how it is able to award degrees in Italy, as it is not recognised by the Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca (in common with many other private schools; state recognition is a high bar in Italy). In England it is a listed body, and is listed as such by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Correction: checking the talk page, I find that it survived WP:PROD, not AfD. The WP:COI problems appear to be under control. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was easily able to find news articles in Italian newspapers, some of which I added to the article - and they support the reputation and individual facts about the institute. I can also find spreads in Italian and French fashion magazines. I don't think it functions as a truly academic institution, being more like a private art school. I can add more links later since I'll be in Italy in 10 days and from there a search should turn up more sources. LaMona ( talk) 03:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY: enough RS to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone 05:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ekobingsho

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

Non notable and sources are not reliable. Just passing mentions etc. Arr4 ( talk) 15:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Alex De Rakoff

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

Delete: as non-notable writer (also non-notable actor). Quis separabit? 18:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Machine Intelligence Research Institute

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

The Machine Intelligence Research Institute is hard to find wp:reliable sources for, while according to the appropriate category ( Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), at least 2 relevant sources, having the organization as its prime subject, are needed. In addition to my own (unsuccesful) search for sources, the links on this page are dead, link to its own page, to advertisements or to directory-like websites L.tak ( talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Not sure why it was nominated, it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Check. Especially see: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.
But yes the article probably needs some cleanup. Going to fix all the dead refs tomorrow or so. -- Fixuture ( talk) 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Those cites are mostly not actually about MIRI at all, but about Elon Musk's new organisation in the same field, and we do need cites actually about MIRI - passing mentions really aren't enough. Nor about general concerns about AI risks which are already covered in other articles - David Gerard ( talk) 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ben Harrison (Music Producer)

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

WP:BLP of a music producer, sitting entirely on primary (webpage of his record label, SoundCloud) and unreliable (a blog entry that contains no information about him, or indeed about anybody at all, and looks from what I can tell to have been a simple test post) sources. He has enough of a claim of notability that he might pass WP:NMUSIC with a properly sourced article, but that's not what this article is. Also looks to have been created by the subject's brother, thus also a WP:COI. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• There is zero intended bias and/or "promotionalism" going on here. Let's consider the facts for a moment: Benjamin Harrison is a record producer with hits for some of the biggest performers in the world to his credit as artists, a line up that includes the very FIRST - and therefore crucial to the artist's status as becoming established - credits of all for, among others, Rita Ora, Emeli Sandae and Tini Tempa. So thinking laterally here in response to the hostile objection of the inclusion, in order to arbitrate this dispute appropriately and avoid deletion, if Jay Z sent Wikipedia a letter personally offering his support of this page would this resolve? If so, this can be arranged - just provide a Wiki editor's e mail address where to have the letter / e mail sent to. The fact is, people DO come up and they DO become important at different times and Wikipedia should be the FIRST place to compile such information, not stick with a broad range of mainstream info that one can get from any web search anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nope. Our rules are that we should not be the "first" place to compile information about a person — our role is to follow media coverage that already exists, not to participate in trying to create someone's media presence. And no, a private letter of "support", no matter who it's from, doesn't help boost a person's notability if the media coverage isn't already there. Bearcat ( talk) 22:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Look, I completely get it, and personally I hate how news and PR are conflated today. I hate it. That said, sometimes it is fairly obvious that an entry (such as this one) has a valid cause for being up, because it does represent information that is reliable about a source that is interesting and critical at some level to the development of something in popular culture. It may not be helpful to keep shooting it down with "delete" comments everywhere. Maybe it's worth thinking about the validity of this entry from a broader standpoint, that is all. Still, I appreciate that is what this page is for in the first place and by and large the editors here could teach those working in newsrooms a thing or two, so I shall not try and barge in too strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, since your username strongly implies that you're the subject's brother, I need to advise you to read our conflict of interest rules. They don't mean you're not allowed to edit an article about him at all, but they do mean that (a) you shouldn't be the creator of it (or of the one about yourself, either), and (b) you're not allowed to claim any special right to an exemption from our content and sourcing rules just because you have insider knowledge about him that may not be reflected in any verifiable coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat ( talk) 15:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• For the record, I am not the brother of nor am I in any way connected or related to Daniel Mark Harrison or Benjamin Harrison (Music Producer). I have no conflict of interest in either case with the individuals concerned, financial or otherwise. I am an ex-BBC producer as well, so I am aware of the danger of this stuff. If you need I can verify for you, Still, I am fascinated by this discussion and the editing process in general here on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Josh Jr Mangila

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

Initially unsourced bio and proposed for deletion sources have now been added. One is merely a photo of subject, [48], one is a mention among other Filipinos, [49] and the other three from http://the-media-network.com/ bare the resemblance of press releases. "Josh Mangila" or "Josh S. Mangila" appears to be better search terms than "Josh Jr Mangila", but I fail to find significant coverage in multiple, reliable, published sources. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Bogdan Christian Stanache

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

Proded and endorsed, and deprodded by article creator. I fail to find sources that subject meets the notability guidelines. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Saundz

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

Promotional article about non-notable software. Suspected undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 11:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Indian stock market crash

2015 Indian stock market crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redudnant, unsourced. Kernosky talk2me! 09:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Found sparse sources. Those sources appeared to be trigger-happy sources (unreliable) who jump on every market movement, trying to be the "first". I sincerely doubt it is notable. Jcmcc ( Talk) 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • My vote depends on one question; are there reliable sources we can cite to verify the article's content? After all, this article may be worth keeping, but there needs to be reliable sources to verify the information.-- OfficerAPC ( talk) 00:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ OfficerAPC: There are plenty of refs to verify the content but being unsourced was not the only reason this was nominated.[ [50]], [ [51]], [ [52]]. In fact I've just noticed the entire article is a copyvio of this NDTV profit source,[ [53]] so have rewritten it with this edit. [ [54]]. Cowlibob ( talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by Billinghurst (Moved from talkpage > Part of checkuser blocks. Also crosswiki abuse and conflict of interest edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)) reply
– Davey2010 Talk 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Younsgter Nayak

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:ENT. Multiple pages created for the same person ( Youngster Nayak). I had tagged both for CSD which was removed by a SOCK (presumably) and hence taking this for AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Restored AfD... The Banner  talk 09:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete of course as another classic case of my first searches instantly finding only self-generated media such as social websites and this may be another case of misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (this is not MySpace where you can make a personal page). SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This artist appears to be just starting out, and it's a 'too soon' kind of case. As well, the article as it's written right now is pretty bad due to its lack of reliable sources. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 04:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by Billinghurst (Moved from talkpage > Part of checkuser blocks. Also crosswiki abuse and conflict of interest edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)) reply
– Davey2010 Talk 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Youngster Nayak

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:ENT. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Organize, Inc

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

Unfortunately, my searches simply found nothing for this article from July 2008 with this probably being the best I found. As an orphaned article and the sources not being better, there's not much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Longevity myths. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of people reported to have lived beyond 130

AfDs for this article:
List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list. There's no evidence that "people above 130" or "people below 130" or any other page is a distinguishing characteristics other than the current oldest person ever was 122 so this is all claims that are eight years more (and I'm presuming as said to be not real). The contents are basically a merger of an assortment from Longevity myths and Longevity claims. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Maybe delete as although this is a challenging one, this is not a widespread and confirmed topic with most of these occurring thousands years ago and there's not even much information here. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere although I can imagine someone eventually suggesting a separate article. It seems most of the previous AfD commenters are not active so I'm notifying the only still active one Robofish. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Cruz Hernández

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

I don't think there's sufficient notability from being a mere pretender or just being a holder of a claim of longevity. The talk page shows the other problems with these articles which is namely the massive COI factor between the alleged subject and the arguable researcher studying the matter. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Of the two sources in the article, one's dead, and the other makes it clear that, even at the time of the report, no one seemed to believe she was the oldest person, which it turned out she wasn't. More from the WOP fancruft walled garden. EEng ( talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete When I was reviewing the stand-alone articles on extreme longevity claimants, I was on the fence about whether or not there were sufficient sources to meet the notability requirements at WP:N so I did not nominate this for deletion but, on the balance, I think that the criteria for inclusion are not met here. Canadian Paul 17:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What am I, chopped liver? EEng ( talk) 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Elsie Thompson

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

This woman's entire notability is that she was mistaken for being the oldest living American but in fact was the oldest living Floridian at her death. Regardless of the sourcing (mostly related to who was or wasn't the oldest person), any information about separate living is summarized in the biography section at the page for Ronald L. Thompson, her husband. Delete but at best, redirect to her husband's page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The prior discussion went for a weak keep (or more likely a delete or redirect) until the claim was made that she was the world's oldest American, a claim which as discussed is now considered false (showing the precise "scientific" nature of this longevity "studying"). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the sources used demonstrate significant coverage or notability. Source 1 is a mention in a GRG list. Sources 2, 5 and 6 are from the Tampa Bay Times which suggests no major coverage outside her local area. Sources 3 (requires a subscription to read) and 4 (the 1900 census) are unreliable and shouldn't be used. Sources 7 and 8 shouldn't be on this article because they are about her husband and Jeralean Talley respectively, and don't mention Thompson at all. Would also support a redirect to either List of supercentenarians from the United States or her husband's page. CommanderLinx ( talk) 13:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to Ronald L. Thompson. There aren't enough independent sources to establish notability and she's already listed in her husband's article. Ca2james ( talk) 18:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge or Redirect as per above editors, particularly Ricky81682. Onel5969 TT me 16:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or merge. I usually respect Cunard, but this time he's mistaken about the notabilty of the topic. The only sources shown is the Tampa Bay Times, which is local and routine coverage, considering Thompson retired to the area, while the rest of the coverage is about her age and its general interest news stories. This is wp:blp1e material, as her only claim to notabilty was her age. Pokerkiller ( talk) 19:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - This was meant to have been closed ages ago! ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 12:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizaveta Boyarskaya

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

Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Profiles / move lists don't count towards notability, I think there was one source that was fine but the rest were either movie lists or reviews so I don't notability's there atm. – Davey2010 Talk 06:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nope, references 1 and 3 are aggregators of articles about her in respective newspapers and 5 and 6 are articles. There are a lot of articles about her lately in yellow press. It's a kitsch and yellow, but still culture, even being low one. I will add more references later. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 07:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
References
  1. ^ http://7days.ru/stars/bio/elizaveta-boyarskaya.htm
  2. ^ http://ruskino.ru/art/3800
  3. ^ http://www.eg.ru/daily/theme/157
  4. ^ http://www.dni.ru/showbiz/2012/10/12/241894.html
  5. ^ http://bravo.israelinfo.co.il/announce/23926
  6. ^ http://www.dp.ru/a/2015/08/13/JA_za_ljuboj_kipezh_vo_imja_s/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per sk1. Notability does seem to be there after all, Lord knows why I never came across these!, Anyway thanks Arthistorian1977 for managing to find some. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 06:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yuliya Borisova

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

Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References
  1. ^ http://www.1tv.ru/news/culture/279878
  2. ^ http://www.mk.ru/culture/2015/03/16/yuliya-brisova-koroleva-gulyayushhaya-sama-po-sebe.html
  3. ^ http://www.tvc.ru/news/show/id/63761
  4. ^ http://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/130182/
  5. ^ http://www.vakhtangov.ru/persones/borisova
  6. ^ http://ruskino.ru/art/754
  7. ^ http://www.russkoekino.ru/books/star/star-0039.shtml
  8. ^ http://radiovesti.ru/article/show/article_id/162945
  9. ^ http://ria.ru/spravka/20100317/214886702.html
  10. ^ http://visualrian.ru/en/site/lightbox/53867/
  11. ^ https://books.google.co.il/books?id=CcVciO--PkgC&pg=PA357&lpg=PA357&dq=yuliya+borisova+actress&source=bl&ots=SrI8uoJv6h&sig=R6BF1LvXp3BS9f9WYZZri0OzGb0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjFkIjR1NLHAhXvjtsKHYjGDKs#v=onepage&q=yuliya%20borisova%20actress&f=false
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK1, Notability does seem to be there after all, Lord knows why I never came across these!, Anyway thanks Arthistorian1977 for managing to find some. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 06:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Iya Arepina

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

Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References
  1. ^ http://www.calend.ru/person/1312/
  2. ^ http://www.peoples.ru/art/cinema/actor/arepina/
  3. ^ http://ruskino.ru/art/1100
  4. ^ http://www.amur.info/news/2015/07/02/96261
  5. ^ http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2520710
  6. ^ http://izvmor.ru/news/view/2485512
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

39/20 Alliance

AfDs for this article:
    39/20 Alliance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No third party sources beyond news indicating notability, no similar alliances to establish precedent. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Organization of purely local notability, with little substance beyond cursory documentation of its existence, and not nearly enough sourcing, to suggest any reason why an international encyclopedia should maintain an article about it. Of the sources cited here, half are primary sources which cannot confer notability, and the other half are local community newsweeklies that aren't widely distributed enough to satisfy WP:GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing. An organization like this might clear the bar if it accomplished something that was getting it into the Calgary Herald, The Province, the Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail on a regular basis — but if the Leduc Rep is your strongest possible source, then you just haven't satisfied Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Kool Moe Dee–LL Cool J feud

    Kool Moe Dee–LL Cool J feud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is trivial WP:FANCRUFT. Koala15 ( talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 03:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Nina Alisova

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

    Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Yekaterina Volkova (actress and singer)

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

    Non notable actress, Been unsourced since creation and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete, can be recreated if she passes WP:NSKATE at some point.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Elizaveta Nugumanova

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

    Clearly fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei ( talk) 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Tatyana Vasilyeva

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

    Non notable actress, Been unsourced creation and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy no consensus. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Svetlana Toma

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

    Non notable actress, Been unsourced since creation and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Yulia Takshina

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

    Non notable actress, Been unsourced for 4 entire years and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Elena Proklova

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

    Non notable actress, Can't anything notability-wise in English or Russian, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • As far as I'm aware they're not, This was BLP-Prodded last year - You deprodded it and haven't improved/sourced it since, So there's apparently "plenty of references" yet you've added nothing!, If you can find anything notability wise I'd be more than happy to withdraw. – Davey2010 Talk 03:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Ekaterina Nosik

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

    Non notable actress, Been unsourced for 4 entire years and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG– Davey2010 Talk 03:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was keep ( non-admin closure). Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    B. Alan Wallace

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

    Does not meet GNG. The article had a large number of unsourced statements and long lists of articles, lectures and publications, but no supporting sources attesting to the notability of this person, and thus deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Please clarify what you mean by unsourced and notability prior to the 'thus' part of your comments. This would be of interest here. It does though hark back to when the article was first placed, e.g. all work on the 'mindfulness introspective' properly progressed by definitions when Wallace took on his responsibilities early on for the improvement of dialectics from a central study centre in Switzerland onwards. There did not appear to be any discepancies of the nature you imply so why do you not cite precise examples as well to back your statements.This talk seems so highly esoteric it will not include any views but what Wallace calls 'static representations' that are a primary source in fact of confusion.-- DynEqMin ( talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Note and keep This article was reduced very substantially in size (by over 90%) before being listed here. I much prefer the "too long" version being what we see as a rule. Notability seems clearly present - many books of his have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal etc. Scholar.google.com shows his works are widely cited (when I see a figure for well over 300 cites on one book, and a half dozen more are fairly widely cited, the books are likely notable per se.) Mentioned briefly in news articles on meditation [55] etc. Basically he meets author notability by virtue of number of works cited by others. And cutting to a single sentence is simply a poor way to prepare for any AfD. Collect ( talk) 19:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Even with that wall to wall of unsourced content, the author does not meet any notability criteria. Passing mentions non withstanding. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Um -- attacking me does not change the following:
    Mental balance and well-being: building bridges between Buddhism and Western psychology. BA Wallace, SL Shapiro - American Psychologist, 2006 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Clinical psychology has focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disease, and only recently has scientific attention turned to understanding and cultivating positive mental health. The Buddhist tradition, on the other hand, has focused ...
    Cited by 306 Related articles
    The Buddhist tradition of Samatha: Methods for refining and examining consciousness BA Wallace - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999 - ingentaconnect.com [opening paragraph]: Buddhist inquiry into the natural world proceeds from a radically different point of departure than western science, and its methods differ correspondingly. Early pioneers of the scientific revolution, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, ...
    Cited by 191 Related articles
    [BOOK] Contemplative science: Where Buddhism and neuroscience converge BA Wallace - 2009 - books.google.com Science has long treated religion as a set of personal beliefs that have little to do with a rational understanding of the mind and the universe. However, B. Alan Wallace, a respected Buddhist scholar, proposes that the contemplative methodologies of Buddhism and of ...
    Cited by 183 Related articles
    [BOOK] Choosing reality: A Buddhist view of physics and the mind BA Wallace - 2003 - books.google.com For centuries scientists and philosophers have pondered the relationship between scientific theory and reality. Analyzing two major positions, the author points out the many assumptions required to adopt the realist view, and nihilism implicit in the instrumentalist ...
    Cited by 118 Related articles
    And so on. All from scholar.google.com. [BOOK] The taboo of subjectivity: Toward a new science of consciousness cited by 171, [BOOK] The attention revolution: Unlocking the power of the focused mind cited by 178, BOOK] Buddhism and science: Breaking new ground cited by 120, [BOOK] Hidden dimensions: The unification of physics and consciousness cited by 67, Intersubjectivity in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism cited by 58, [PDF] 2 The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West cited by 49, etc. Sourced, please note. He is not Agatha Christie in popularity, but the only issue here is whether he meets notability within his field, and is well-cited within his field. He is. Collect ( talk) 22:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    His doctorate from Stanford was specifically deleted - I am barred from making any further edits at all on the article, but someone should wonder if removing something which is so easily shown at [56] actually reduces his notability one iota. Collect ( talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    How is a doctorate at Stanford, as described in a self published source an RS? Despite these google scholar hits, I see no good quality sources upon which an article on this person can be constructed. We need good quality secondary sources that attest to this person's notability. I could not find any, thus this AFD. (and btw, no one is attacking you) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Has it occurred to you that a source from Stanford ("Stanford.edu" is a teensy bit of a clue that the website is at Stanford) is a reliable source for Stanford? Do you think he somehow conned a Stanford site to list him as having a PhD from Stanford in the field about which the entire page is centered? [57] "Philpapers.org" then lists his dissertation - and is not an SPS by Wikipedia definition. [58] lists the paper as a PhD dissertation -- guess that is SPS? American Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship Christopher Queen, Duncan Ryuken Williams; Routledge -- sorry I do not buy that Routledge is an SPS by the way. [59] yet another strong Stanford University direct source. How many sources do you actually need? And I assure you Stanford is not an SPS for the person <g>. Collect ( talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Red herring. A doctorate from Stanford is not in itself notable, neither is a dissertration. If this was a notable individual, his work and accomplishments will be reported on reliable and secondary sources, including his doctorate and dissertation. Otherwise by your criteria, every single PhD holder will have an article in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Moving target? You asserted that the PhD was from a "self-published source" - it wasn't. Notability for academics is gauged frequently by whether their works are often cited by others. His are. Most PhD holders are not cited a great deal by others in their field. He is. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) has the criteria generally used. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Meets, per cites by by others. Collect ( talk) 12:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I was initially swayed by Collect's argument that the number of citations he had showed a significant impact on his field. I am less sure now. Citation numbers are relative and depend on the field of study. I looked at two of his co-authors Richard Davidson [60] who has 10 publications with over 1000 cites and 61 which are over the 300 of the subject, and Emilio Ferrer [61] who only has 3 over 300. Looking further I fing Ned H. Kalin who is Chair of Psychiatry and Hedberg Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison he has one pub with 1310 cites listed and 6 over 300. From this, admitedly ad-hoc exploration I must conclude that a single publication with over 300 citations does not indicate a major contribution to the field. Other RS are needed for notability.

      That said I do not see any real issue with using a Stanford resource to support the date of his doctorate but that does nothing to contribute to his notability. Jbh Talk 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      • Perhaps the following will evince notability: The Dalai Lama wrote "Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism." Translation by B. Alan Wallace, Thupten Jinpa. Afterword by Wallace. Note that the Dalai Lama is generally considered notable per se. Also note that in "Tibetan Buddhism in Diaspora: Cultural Re-signification in ..." isbn=1317572815; Ana Cristina O. Lopes. "- there are multiple multiple mentions of Wallace.
    To me this all shows notability in the field of "Tibetan Buddhism" . And the aggregate number of cites are certainly enough if one looks at prior AfDs of academics. Collect ( talk) 13:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note also Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity B. Alan Wallace; published by Columbia University Press.
    "Contemplative Science" also published by CUP.
    And so on. A bunch of his books are published by CUP, which is a respected RS publisher. This alas is a tad ludicrous - I had never heard of Wallace before, but it is crystal clear that he is an authority in his field, recognized as such. Collect ( talk) 12:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note we do have a BLP on Richard Davidson who is, indeed, notable. Collect ( talk) 14:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Davidson's work has been covered by [[Scientific American] and The New York Times. That means we have secondary sources that attest for his notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Davidson was apparently given to claim that a major author was "red-linked." I showed that implication was inapt. Wallace has several books published by Columbia University Press, a reputable university publisher. Having multiple books published by a major academic publisher generally is allowed to show the person is notable in a field at AfD. What more does one need? Collect ( talk) 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete There are inadequate secondary sources to establish notability. Having his books cited does not establish notability unless they discuss him and his views. I note that the article does not explain what Wallace's theories are, let alone provide a critical assessment, so it serves no function. TFD ( talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    His "views" are not key - he is expositive of Tibetan Buddhism precepts, the precepts of the Dalai Lama, and the intersection of those precepts and science, among other religious/philosophical discussions. The current article here is absolutely not great - but the issue here is whether the person, a known expert in the field, is "notable". I had never heard of him until I started noticing in the sources just how well-regarded he seems to be within that specialized area. Collect ( talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep There is sufficient biographical material in the many reviews of his books to support an article and he is considered notable enough that several of his books have been reviewed by multiple sources. For example: [1] [2] His is also quoted in in this Science article. [3] There is a lot more material out there, I just got tired of cutting and pasting material into refcite templates. If more is needed for notability I will dig it up. He passes WP:GNG

    References

    1. ^ Heffern, Rich (June 26, 2009). "Book Review: MIND IN THE BALANCE: MEDITATION IN SCIENCE, BUDDHISM, AND CHRISIANITY". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved Sept 01, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= ( help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)
    2. ^ Bracken, Joseph A. (June 22, 2010). "B. Alan Wallace, Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism. and Christianity.(Book review)". Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Retrieved Sept 01, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= ( help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)
    3. ^ Barinaga, Marcia (Oct 03, 2004). "Studying the well-trained mind: Buddhist monks and Western scientists are comparing notes on how the mind works and collaborating to test insights gleaned from meditation.(Buddhism and Neuroscience)". Science. Retrieved Sept 01, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= ( help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

    Jbh Talk 19:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Lois Cahall

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

    I'm not entirely sure if she's solidly notable (at least to Wiki standards) and my searches found no outstandingly good sources here, here, here and here. Depending with the severity, COIs aren't always a huge concern for me as they are sometimes good faiths contributions but this one has hardly hard any other edits (article was started by subject in February 2011 and article has continuously been edited since). Pinging tagger Joe Decker. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was deleted. Materialscientist ( talk) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    José Edward Ramos

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

    Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER. Noticed CSD removed four times, bringing to AFD for definitive deletion (expecting this to be recreated in the near future.) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Mouse Run

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

    Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Safiyah Mirsberger Tolson Hong

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

    Possible hoax, subject not mentioned in references Bamyers99 ( talk) 01:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete article does not make sense... Refs are wrong and/or irrelevant. Web search comes up with only social media references and possible self-published articles. I think it's serious rather than being a hoax. However, subject is not notable. New Media Theorist ( talk) 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Note, previous AfD was under a different title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqas Ahmed -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    2012 Paros (Greece) rape

    2012 Paros (Greece) rape (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:GNG. An utterly horrendous crime, no lasting significance. An encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant. As User:Huldra most eloquently wrote on the previous discussion "Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a Muslim did something very bad"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it?" Spot on. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep As noted in previous AFD (just 3 weeks ago) this has been a major national news story with continuous coverage in Greece for over 3 years where the rape of a local 15-year old by an illegal immigrant became a highly charged signifier at a time of burgeoning political tensions about the enormous wave of illegal immigrants arriving in Greece. Searches on America-based engines can underestimate the impact of events in Europe, especially when transliteration of spellings in different alphabets (Greek, Urdu) is an issue, as it is here. Similarity to Shooting of Kathryn Steinle was also noted in recent AFD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • comment Article is over-sourced because of the recent AFD. Anglophone editors who want to see the sort of place this case occupies in the Greek political conversation can look at this column in [67] Kathimerini a leading Greek newpaper somewaht equivelant to the place th eNew York Times holds in the U.S. (when in Greece, if you pick up the international NYTimes, the English version of Kathimirini comes folded inside). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The previous AFD resulted in no consensus and a procedural keep, not keep and was fundamentally damaged by your disruptive behaviour of significantly changing the title and content, from a BLP to an event without even bothering to seek consensus. In 2014 24,043 rapes against both men and women were recorded by police forces in England and Wales, with a much higher figure when including unreported rapes and UK wide figures. I don't see you scrambling to create an article for each case. This proves that this article has always been about the immigrant Muslim side. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    We cover the rapes which pass WP:GNG. R v Evans: Ched Evans is not a Muslim, but an international footballer, whose case also involved controversy on intoxication and consent. I guarantee that 99% of rapes by "normal" people of any colour were not covered as much as Evans'. Strawman burned. '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    AFD referred to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqas Ahmed. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Technically, the disruptive article move is the equivalent of article blanking while under AfD. Shame. Shame.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Sustained press coverage and impact make this article more than a news item. Dimadick ( talk) 15:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: We're not here to right great wrongs about what crimes are covered extensively in political debate. This one was. Should we delete the Delhi gang rape, because rapes are also done by white people? Or is there no room for the "I'm the real victim card" when the woman who was raped was also from South Asia? Ridiculous logic. '''tAD''' ( talk) 22:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Can you imagine the uproar if I AFD'd Alan Kurdi, saying
      • " WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:GNG. An utterly horrendous death, no lasting significance. An encyclopaedia cannot cover every child drowning even if it is *gasp* a "refugee" (your scaremarks on "illegal" suggested you were considering Ahmed to be the persecuted victim, when he was in fact a criminal in many ways; this is as bad as doubting whether someone is a legitimate refugee). As (insert name here) most eloquently wrote on the previous discussion "Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a non-white person went through hardship"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it?" Spot on"."
      • — the exact point the rape on Paros is notable is because the island is taking in migrants, making it a political issue when it turns out that unscreened people aren't all wonderful people. While kids drown every single day, Alan Kurdi is notable because his death became a political issue because it was part of the migration crisis. Bloody hell, trying to point to a rapist as the victimised one, critical theory has reached critical mass '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • May I also point to the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. Of all the rapes in Japan, was this one just chosen to fit a "America did something wrong" agenda, or is it because it had an actual socio-political effect over whether an island should still house Americans? Like that, this article is notable for a socio-political effect about whether an island should still house migrants. We're not here to "right great wrongs". '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    User:The Almightey Drill, I am not going to dignify your disgusting outburst. I will simply say I take extreme exception to your comments suggesting I am an apologist for rapists, which are a most serious violation of WP:NPA AusLondonder ( talk) 05:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Further see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide regarding the POV-Pushing of this editor and the false nature of their smears. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    That's it mate, no rebuttals, just "wow...I can't even". Your main reason for nominating this was a straw man that there aren't articles on other rapes, but there are per WP:GNG '''tAD''' ( talk) 06:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    AusLondoner when you assert "this article has always been about the immigrant Muslim side", nominate it for deletion on the flimsy WP:OSE assertion that "encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant." And do it in the course of simultaneously nomination for deletion, an article about an Islamist terrorist attack, and an article about a SeaGlass Carousel created by an editor who worked on the other two articles. It is not unreasonable to surmise that your are targeting editors and material giving attention to crimes that, yes, were committed by Muslims. I and other editors think that the standard by which crimes should be judged is WP:GNG. As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015 I'm all about sources. If the topic is well-supported, it stays. Even when, as with Jeremy Corbyn, I , personally, do not like his politics. You are not required to write articles about Islamist gunmen who lay in ambush to murder any Jewish family that happens to drive past. Or about a brutal rape on a Greek island. You are obliged, WP:BEFORE starting an AFD. Likewise, while you are not obliged to work at AFD, when you do, your are obliged to give policy-based reasons and when offering an opinion on deletion, to go by the sources, not by whether you find the article politically congenial E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I'd also like to point out, on political terms, that the situation fluctuates like a weather-vane depending on the article. Zeiter died at the hands of Israeli agents at a border crossing. Shittabey was attacked by Irish criminal thugs. Goforth's victimization is largely unclear, perhaps having no cause other than that some anti-cop psychopath felt like hurting someone. Chin seems to have run into anti-Asian racists. You can make of each thing whatever you want ideologically. The point is notability. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Baldahar, Bangladesh

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

    I'm unable to find sources that mention this place besides census books. There are also websites that provides the coordinates of this place like 24°52'0" N 89°7'60" E from getamap.net but it's not in the center of Bangladesh. From the original version, the now-blocked author of this article said it's "possibly the location of Sodom from the Bible." Don't know about ancient cities being two centuries old today. TheGGoose ( talk) 00:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep.  Sandstein  17:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush

    2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTNEWS. The matters relating to the Arab Bank belong in the Bank article, which already has a significant amount of coverage of such matters. A relatively minor incident in the Palestine-Israel conflict. No lasting significance. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Which relates to the Arab Bank angle, best included in the Arab Bank article. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    You seem confused (again). I didn't "back down" on any PROD. As I have said to you countless times, I did not WP:PROD the carousel article. I placed a WP:SPEEDY tag which was removed without explanation by another editor, not me, as the page history makes clear. I will certainly not withdraw this or the Paros rape article AFD's. I understand why you wish for me to withdraw the AFD from the Paros article, as, putting aside your disruptive behaviour at the previous AFD, the article would have been deleted. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, as User:CoffeeWithMarkets states, this was a terrorist attack that was widely covered when it occurred, that has had ongoing coverage in the years since it occurred (now well over a decade) and that has played a widely-covered role in a series of law suits impacting international banking. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Arab Bank - As usual, existence is not notability, and not every terrorist attack is notable. There is nothing stated in the article claiming, for example, retaliatory action by the IDF or settlers or whomever, nor is it shown to be referenced in other attacks (both of which would show longer-term impact). What I do see, however is a long-term lawsuit, but it's not against the Israeli government, the Palestinian government, Hamas, or anyone who could be considered directly involved; it's a suit against the Arab Bank, and that's the notable and long-term part, as it's been in court for over a decade and recently settled. Therefore, the notability isn't separable from the lawsuit, and it's also not the only one against the bank for terrorism. Therefore, this would be much better suited as its own heading in Arab Bank incorporating all pertinent material from here. That is SOP for articles that aren't really standalone notable. MSJapan ( talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    As requested by MSJapan, I have now added the immediate IDF response to this attack, which was the killing of the senior Hamas militant commander in the area. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Also at MSJapan's prompt, I sourced multiple reliable newspapers describing this murder as a disruption og Colin Powell's peacemaking negotiations. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I'm still not seeing anything that would go against WP:WITHIN. More sources from newspapers in the same week is still WP:NOTNEWS, and doesn't establish notability, especially because it is not necessary to use four separate sources for one sentence. The overcitation alone diminishes the credibility of the article, like "it's got to be notable because it was in 109 newspapers." Notability is not established on quantity of sources in the short-term. Not everything needs an article, and this is a paragraph's worth of content, regardless of how many sources you find that repeat the same information. Notability is not inherited; Powell was in Israel at the time, and this incident didn't "disrupt the peace process" in 2003, because in hindsight, Powell was actually trying to get support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Whatever "peace process" was going on didn't get to the release of the Road Map for Peace until six months later, and it failed. The lasting effect is still the lawsuit coverage, and that really belongs at the bank because there were 49 other parties in the suit, not just these victims. This is one piece of a much larger story, and it needs its context. MSJapan ( talk) 22:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    By the way, adding articles to other articles doesn't automatically make them notable by being linked. There's probably going to be a real question at that article whether this incident mattered in the long-term, but I've at least fixed it so June 20 doesn't happen before May 18. MSJapan ( talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Enduring notability is not required for an article to pass WP:GNG. Although teh enduring impact of this terrorist attack contributes to its notability, notability is not temporary WP:N#TEMP, As demonstrated in article, this incident was notable in 2003. And that is sufficient. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Note The event was notable at the time it happened, according to major international newspapers that:
    1. covered it in detail
    2. wrote that it had an impact on the peace process underway at the time it happened
    It has continued to be notable since then in part because of the series of lawsuits, and in part as a human interest story about the impact of terrorism on individual lives.
    Rolling into the Arab Bank would not only give this particular terrorist attack undue weight in that article, it would be problematic because the Goldsteins have been parties to several lawsuits against banks accused of enabling terrorism by transferring funds to terrorists. It is more logical (and quite normal WP practice) to have this discrete article about this particular attack, and allow other article to link here for the details of this particular ambush of a civilian vehicle by a terrorist organization. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    If there's undue weight for something to be included in another article, a standalone article is certainly even more so, because it means that the event was notable. The notability keeps rolling back to the subsequent lawsuit, and thus to the bank. The 2003 coverage, limited to one month) is textbook NOTNEWS. There's also only one real contemporary source that says this evvent "disrupted the peace process", and that process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event. In fact, this was only one of several attacks in the same relative timeframe according to the roadmap article. This attack wasn't even mentioned in the roadmap article until you put it there. MSJapan ( talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I have also removed all citations regarding Qawasmeh. The first Haaretz source said he was being looked for for two years previously, and did not link him to this attack, so that action was not related to this incident and the Israeli media didn't say so either. Four sources to cite this item is also COATRACK. Speaking of UNDUE, I have also tagged the "disruptive to peace" sources as unverified, as in no source does it indicate this is this attack alone cited - there were a series of incidents, and three or four are mentioned. The interpretation seems to be that of the reporter, not the government. Powell urged peace in the wake of several incidents, not just this one. MSJapan ( talk) 03:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Caution, MSJapan, about removing relevant material during SFD, and while claiming that an incident is not noteworthy. Replaced Qawasmeh material. The articles on this targeted assassination of Qawasmeh. who was the Hamas terrorism commanded in the Judean Hills/Hebron area at the time of this murderous ambush discuss the ambush in which Tzvi Goldstein was killed and other injured as part of the increase in Hamas capacity, will, and intention to commit acts of terrorism in this region which led to the decision to designate him for assassination. I try to report what sources say, not to base my editing on my personal opinion that "process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event," as MSJapan does above. Moreover, News articles in Haaretz the Philadelphia Inquirer and other reputable papers are not merely the "reporter's" "interpretation" , thees papers have editorial processes and reporters have to back their assertions up with sufficient evidence to satisfy editors. Not a perfect process, but the best we've got. So, let's try to keep relevant articles on the page and rely on them - mot our personal opinions - to record the events as they happened and were responded to in 2003. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    You want to caution me, I've got a whole ANI thread where you can go say whatever you want in your defense. Make the case that the material's relevant, if you want. No one else seems to think so. MSJapan ( talk) 17:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_31&oldid=1142626574"
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    < 30 August 1 September >

    Purge server cache

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

    The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Marita Isobel Solberg

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

    Tagged for notability since February, and still no evidence that it meets WP:ARTIST. Also, most edits seem to have been made by several WP:SPA, both user accounts and IP's, so I suspect WP:CONFLICT Derek Andrews ( talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. North America 1000 04:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Raymond Cambefort

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

    No evidence that this is a notable bio. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Let's see... He wasn't even a supercentenarian (i.e. didn't even reach 110). The French government doesn't recognize him as a WW1 infantryman. Even if he were, he wasn't the oldest infantryman, just one of the last to die. And the one (one!) source in the article, which is in French, is marked unreliable source?. EEng ( talk) 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Even if he did, it could be argued that any encyclopedic information could be included elsewhere, on one of the many longevity-related lists. Canadian Paul 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. North America 1000 04:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    DisCleaner

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

    No indication of notability or external sourcing ViperSnake151  Talk  23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ignoring the SPAs, consensus is clear. I'm also going to salt to prevent recreations from editors with COIs Courcelles ( talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Brian Boxer Wachler

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

    After removing selfpublished and misinterpreted sources there are no sources left. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Delete No third-party evidence indicating how this person meets WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Strong Keep Dr. Wachler has been widely covered in the media as originally indicated in the sources. Additionally, a simple Google news search reveals he is often in the news https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+boxer+wachler&oq=brian+b&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.2422j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=%22boxer+wachler%22 This person meets the criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennydarko ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Bennydarko ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    Strong Keep. Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler is a well-known corneal specialist. All sources of media including TV and newspaper articles listed below are from verified sources which I confirmed by performing a Google news search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffray2 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Cliffray2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    Strong Keep. I reviewed the page here ( https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164409/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boxer_Wachler) There is a claim to notoriety here, in that Dr. Boxer Wachler treated the vision of Olympic gold medalist Steven Holcomb, featured in NBC news coverage ( http://www.today.com/news/olympic-bobsledder-overcomes-depression-eye-disorder-create-lasting-legacy-2D11837794). This and related television coverage, establishes Dr. Boxer Wachler’s notoriety as an authority in eye surgery, specifically for keratoconus. He is also a recurring medical contributor on the national television program, The Doctors, and has appeared in segments on NBC Nightly News, Good Morning America, CNN, and in other news sources such as New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Huffington Post. He is also a TED Fulbright Speaker ( http://www.tedxfulbright2015.com/#!boxer/c1oyc)

    I counted, of the 216 total sources listed ( https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164409/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boxer_Wachler), 10 are self-published which should be deleted:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR00x0Shq9s&list=PLSX2cKGbtvMz1PkxtBmckDauwuCFjab3B&index=6, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdJtYwT7bA0&list=PLSX2cKGbtvMz1PkxtBmckDauwuCFjab3B&index=8, Credentials http://www.boxerwachler.com/credentials/index.htm , Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler's Curriculum Vitae http://www.boxerwachler.com/BBW%20CV.pdf, Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients. http://www.boxerwachler.com, Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients. http://www.boxerwachler.com, News segments can be viewed in Media Player n practice website http://www.boxerwachler.com/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WLIyoPtW3A#t=14, Boxer Wachler receives letter from Department of Defense for contribution and mentoring to ophthalmologists in military http://www.keratoconusinserts.com/mamc.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFept_kyHosand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adubbins1 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Adubbins1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    "Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients". really. That sock/meatpuppet does not understand Wikipedia a whit. My goodness. Jytdog ( talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep I believe that edits to the page on August 31 were akin to vandalism BECAUSE the objection raised was over self citing and the edits gutted the page entirely. I think the page should be kept and the edits suggested by one of the other users should be made and a discussion then had with the relevant mods on other revisions. My research indicates the doctor is noteworthy (a simple google news search combined with a google scholar search reveals that, and the page serves an important purpose. I'd be happy to help suggest edits to the mods. There is a very real interest in this doctor's work because it is unique and therefore noteworthy. If only 10 sources were poorly cited, to gut an entire page seems inappropriate. Aren't we supposed to be focused on working together to get pages right? The solution isn't deletion, it's editing. Jf3300 ( talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    About the relentless PROMO pressure - see the COI tags at Talk:Brian_Boxer_Wachler, and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scubadiver99/Archive. And it is going on, even here, with all these WP:SPA !votes. Jytdog ( talk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Started another SPI here [1] Had not seen the previous one. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I disagree on noterity he meets WP:BIO criteria - I think edits should be made, and I'd welcome a dialogue on that. Jf3300 ( talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Note to reviewing admin Interesting to note how users who haven't edited for a year or more keep coming out of hibernation to !vote on this... OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - There's no unaffiliated coverage besides the one source left in the article. No one can seem to point to any substantial coverage locatable outside of the doctor's own pages or self-published content. His professional position alone does not confer notability. MSJapan ( talk) 21:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete and encourage recreation It will be necessary to remove the promotional history, and it's so pervasive that the way to do that is deletion. However, I do think he's notable, just as I did in 2007. Notability as a scientist is determined by WP:PROF, for which the key standard is being recognized as an authority in his subject. We normally determine this by looking at citations to his published works. The standard varies by field, which is why the guideline attempts no exact definition. In clinical biomedicine, the literature density is rather high, but multiple papers with citations over a 100 is always enough for notability. Google Scholar shows [2] counts of 216, 202, 137, 106 ... Looking at papers on Keratoconus, [3], he's one of the 10 most cited scientists. In doing the re-creation the material mentioned by Adubbins1 is some of it so minor that it should not even be mentioned in the article--it serves rather as the example of the sort of promotionalism we need to avoid. Not every doctor who treats a notable patient is notable. Perhaps when we create the new article, we will need to semi-protect it, to prevent what seems to be the expected promotional COI editing. And the SPI should be reopened to check the accounts that have been commented keep here. My priority when I !voted keep in2007 was to get even moderately notable articles into WP; my priority now is to keep promotionalism out. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • delete the article is not notable (however all these socks are)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 07:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • delete-- agree with nom and others need independent sources. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 12:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    this was unencyclopedic fluff and i removed it. Jytdog ( talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Speaking generally here, I know a lot of doctors, and in my experience, among the various practices, ophthalmology has the strongest culture of selling their practices. I don't know how many emails I have gotten from my local medical group's Lasik practitioners. There are actually PR companies that offer services to ophthalmologists like this, and the AAO reminds its members to be aware of their online presence. Jytdog ( talk) 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I was about to add his books, but I see that How We Conquered Keratoconus is published by the Boxer Wachler Vision Institute, and I also see that Mastery of Holcomb C3-R® Crosslinking for Keratoconus & Other Disorders is a magnificently self-promotional work which looks like a website put to print, published by a minor medical publisher which seems to be willing to publish almost anything. He is, however, a co-author of Refractive Surgery 2010-2011, published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Hyperopia and Presbyopia, published by T&F. I'd agree with User:DGG on this one. -- Slashme ( talk) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete. Speedy deletion as promotional DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Toscano Classico

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

    No indication of any significance of this product, no sign of it meeting the general notability guidelines. Of the two sources given, one lacks the word "classico" altogether, and the other has it in a blurb, not as part of the phrase "toscano classico". So this specific cigar isn't mentioned in either work. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Comment I'd already scanned the article several times but only on the last occasion did it occur to me that it should probably just be merged into, and then redirected to, Toscano (cigar), because it says clearly that "Toscana Classico" is just a new name for the same thing. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete There simply isn't enough content about these different cigar products to have separate articles for them. The same editor ( User:Juliettatano) has now created two separate articles for Toscano cigar types that are already listed on the Toscano (cigar) page. (Other one is Toscanello_Caffe). It would probably be best to stop this now before there are many more of these. The "specific features" on these pages are too detailed and seem to function as filler. Other information can be integrated into the Toscano cigar page. LaMona ( talk) 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    The Seldith Chronicles

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

    Non-notable book series. Books are self-published by the author, and I can find no discussions or detailed treatment of them in reliable sources. Some limited discussion on small blogs, that's it. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Lolo Loren

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

    Highly promotional in tone; remove the fluff and very little is left. Does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity ( talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    I have no login or registration, but please delete this article not, because I am coming a lot to Ibiza and found this article interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.115.65 ( talk) 21:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    We added this article and just took text coming from the source White Ibiza en from a book published about the artist. Look at the text of other artists like Cornelis le Mair - which is actually also an artist but also does not have any reference. And we noted that from an art historical perspective that artist is also under discussion while his article is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilegalandart ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    I could not find "Cornelis le Mair" in Wikipedia. If such an article exists, please provide a wikilink, as it sounds like it should be deleted too. Wikipedia is not a directory for listing artists. Notability must be demonstrated using reliable, independent sources, and I could not find these for Lolo Loren. It is certainly true that there are many articles here which should not be. You can help Wikipedia by proposing them for deletion when you see them. ubiquity ( talk) 13:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Municipal elections in San Fernando de Henares

    Municipal elections in San Fernando de Henares (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal elections in Conil de la Frontera, which was recently deleted. Delete Pokerkiller ( talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 10:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Vadne (ferry)

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

    Other than some trivial listings showing that ship did exist, searches on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing which would show notability. Onel5969 TT me 17:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Apologies in advance if this lacks coherency - it's a bit difficult at the moment. I have seen 'Solent Enterprise' and several other former or current Gosport ferries have articles of their own, and appear to have no issue with notability. Vadne is shown on the SimplonPC website (at http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/PortsmouthHFC.html#Vadne ), which may help here or may not, but the same source is cited in several other ferry articles. This particular vessel was of some local notoriety, featuring in the regional newspaper after a collision with a warship and the death of a passenger - whether any of the Gosport ferries have notability on a level outside Hampshire, I don't know, but Vadne seems to be just as well-placed, in that department, as the others. Dan ( talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Comment - Hi Daniel Karmy - That's an argument based on WP:OSE (other stuff exists), and that criteria alone doesn't merit keeping an article. In order to show notability, there must be "substantial coverage" from independent, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:GNG to see what constitutes substantial coverage. This ship simply does not seem to meet that. Onel5969 TT me 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep This was a fairly prominently known vessel in its working life. As a wreck it's quite well known today as the best-known 'flagship' of the Forton Lake hulks. I'm not local to the South Coast, but of people who pay any attention to wrecks like this in other parts of the country, Vadne is a recognisable name.
    No objection though to a well-done merge into Forton Lake. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • For my part, I don't mind either way - were this a long article and an arduous task, I may have felt differently, but I've nothing against the merge with Forton Lake either. I would perhaps keep it for the ship's archaeological significance - although I was surprised to learn Vadne is well-known elsewhere in the country! There again, fellow ferries of that era, for instance Vita and Ferry Queen, don't have articles here, and if they're not quite enough for pages of their own, it follows that neither is Vadne. Merge seems fair enough, and in that case, I'd add sections on several other prominent wrecks in the lake (over time). Dan ( talk) 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep This is well-known vessel today as a wreck that, when active, was notable for naval service on two continents and for a rare collision resulting in loss of life. I have no doubt that she is covered by other books and that the collision in particular was the subject of more extensive news coverage in 1967 - but I do not have access to them at present. Google tests are not very helpful in these circumstances. If merged, should be with Forton Lake as part of a series on the individual vessels, rather than with Gosport Ferry which is not at present structured to cover the historic fleet. Davidships ( talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Regarding the collision with HMS Redpole in July 1957 - I have several images of newspaper clippings published in the aftermath of the incident in the Portsmouth News. I can upload those here and, whether Vadne has a section or an article of her own, should really add something about that collision (edit - have just checked article again. My apologies). As David and Andy mention, it was almost a notable occurrence in and of itself, especially as it resulted in the only fatality in the ferry company's 130-year history. Dan ( talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation. -- Kinu  t/ c 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Fuel saving gear

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

    Violation of WP:NOTGUIDE ABCDEFAD ✉ 17:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Deor ( talk) 10:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Georgios Spanoudakis

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

    Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Almost all of these are routine transfer announcements, which do not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    A lot of these sources AREN'T transfer announcements. It also isn't routine for Sport (Spanish newspaper), El Mundo Deportivo (newspaper), Daily Mail, Daily Star (British newspaper), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Rheinische Post or Sport Bild to write an article about the transfer of a 9 year or 15 year old football player. Thaht's only because he's considered as wonder kid. These newspapers don't write ANY article about 99 percent of all players at the same age. -- Yoda1893 ( talk) 09:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Yoda1893: Just because he has been labelled as a 'wonder kid' isn't to say that he will have a professional career in the sport. To do so would be WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isn't meant to host articles for youth footballers who possibly might be the next big thing. Spiderone 20:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    What if the coverage calling him a wonderkid meets WP:GNG? That would make WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant. I note above that Sir Sputnik notes that almost all of the references are routine - wait, that implies that some are non-routine. Nfitz ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Nfitz, please do not twist my words into something that I very obviously didn't mean. Or would you like me to infer from your use of the conditional that you think the answer to your "what if" question is no. It would be equally absurd. Just because explicitly express an opinion on some of these sources doesn't mean you get to twist my silence into whatever opinion happens to take your fancy and present it as mine. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I haven't had opportunity to review the sources. The choice of your normally carefully chosen words though caught my attention. Which sources did you think weren't routine? Surely anytime that WP:GNG is met then WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant; I don't see how the conditionality has any impact on that. Is WP:GNG met - I have no opinion on that, not having reviewed any sources. Nfitz ( talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Numerically, it's a little marginal to declare a consensus, but most of the keep !votes fail to cite any policy-based reason.

    Should be listed in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    2015 Iraqi Air Force F-16 crash

    2015 Iraqi Air Force F-16 crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Tragic but not notable military aviation accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Keep, I think this accident was notable in Iraq. Media discussed this event and there are a lot of Iraqi websites mentioned it. Probably it is not notable in Kenya or Uruguay but as Iraqi Wikipedian, it's important accident in my view. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 23:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Delete or perhaps create List of fatal Iraq Air Force crashes and include it there.We have not kept articles, in general, about each and every military airplane crash in the history of military aviation. Two news articles as refs? Still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Edison ( talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    try to search for (douglas f-16 crash) and you'll find dozens of news articles. I just selected 2 references as all sites gives the same details. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 06:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    To search about the pilot in Arabic: write (راصد محمد صديق) and you'll find many Iraqi pages and news about him and his death. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 13:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    This is English Wikipedia. If you want to use Arabic references then write the article on Arabic Wikipedia!-- Petebutt ( talk) 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Petebutt: I'm surprised you said that..! WP:NONENG reads, Citations to non-English sources are allowed. I'm not sure on what grounds you made that comment. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 08:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    As an in-line citation yes, but not the major source of information for an entire article, surely!-- Petebutt ( talk) 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Actually, I didn't mention what was written in Iraqi websites or discussed in media that they think it was deliberated and it was not an accident. There are many references for it:

    These are some of major news websites mentioned the crash. Mahmoudalrawi ( talk) 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    For accidents involving ... any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

    • The accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
    • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
      — WP:AIRCRASH
    Also WP:NOTNEWS WP:PERSISTENCE Also (last one I swear) The inclusion or lack thereof on other language wikipedias is moot. This is English Wikipedia. We use the inclusion guidelines for English Wikipedia.-- Savonneux ( talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and Expand - I have found coverage by Air Force Times, CNN, Russia Today, Fox News, Associated Press and other Arabic sources (which I am sadly unable to read), and the deceased appears to be a flag officer as well; the death of the flag officer I believe tips the scale in favor of notability. Furthermore, foreign language sources can be used in the English Wikipedia. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Expand what precisely? "Plane crashed. Pilot died. Cause unknown." Literally the reason we have articles like List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). Also since there isn't even a cause yet, even more reason why WP:NOTNEWS applies.-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Once again, there are Arabic language sources that I cannot read. We should have a language expert and subject matter expert collaborate in incorporating those sources into this article. In addition, the pilot was a flag officer. According to WP:MILNG, flag officers are notable by that criteria alone. As the crash resulted in the death of a flag officer, a person entitled to having an article about them to begin with. Per WP:AIRCRASH "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia", hence the crash itself is notable. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    WP:SOLDIER says:

    In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:# Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour;# Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour multiple times; or# Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
    — WP:SOLDIER

    Notice the almost always, not always, just almost always. Here is an arabic search of the pilot's name for pages from 8/2006 to Dec 31 2014, i.e. before he died: [18] 10 hits, one relevant which is a passing mention about meeting a US official. Brigade General is usually barely notable in and of itself, they aren't quite the same as full generals.-- Savonneux ( talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    That's not even what I was referring to though. It is a one pilot, one plane crash. No matter how you write it it's going to be. "Plane crashed -> Effects of plane crashing" aside from the pilot dying and a few bushes in Arizona getting torched there is nothing else.-- Savonneux ( talk) 15:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    T. K. Abdullah

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

    Lacks notability and reliable sources ScholarM ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Haymarket Line

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

    Proposed railway line still in premiliary stages for the next two years, clearly fails wp:crystal delete Pokerkiller ( talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    TestBird

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

    Contested PROD by article creator. Non-notable product. I cannot find WP:RSes that meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Product shares a name with another product for GIS software. I see a number of sources in Chinese but cannot determine if they are RSes or not. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Life Is Full of Possibilities. Courcelles ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    (This Is) The Dream of Evan and Chan

    (This Is) The Dream of Evan and Chan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Couldn't find much in the way of sources (except this Pitchfork review), and it doesn't really have any info that isn't already in the Life Is Full of Possibilities article anyway. StewdioMACK ( talk) 14:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Suggest merge of info and redirect to album page, if the active contributor cannot improve the subject article until a certain period. I haven't researched the subject that much, but it appears to me that the song was "instrumental" to the band's creation. I found few notable mentions (in retrospect) such as in Billboard 1, Billboard 2, Entertainment Weekly, and MTV. -- Efe ( talk) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to album. I don't think it would have been contested even without a discussion. Reviews generally put the single in context of Possibilities or of the Postal Service's founding, but there's little in depth on the EP or track itself enough to warrant its own page besides AllMusic, Pitchfork, and Brainwashed. Billboard notes it as the standout track on Possibilities. AllMusic agrees. BBC calls it the "indie single of the year". And Pitchfork ranks it within the top 250 tracks of the decade. A.V. Club passing mention. Anyway, best off merged unless someone can dig up more reviews (especially in offline sources)! –  czar 15:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to album. WP:NSONGS does not grant automatic notability to every song that exists at all — rather, to qualify for a standalone article rather than simply being discussed in the article on the album from whence it came, a song has to meet certain specific criteria (such as verifiable status as a charting hit, etc.) which haven't been demonstrated, or even really claimed, here. Bearcat ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America

    AfDs for this article:
    List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The topic is extremely narrow in relevance, which seems to fail to meet WP:Notability and to violate WP:Overcategorization. There is also some confusion about the criterion "accredited." The U.S. Department of Education accredits the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), [1] which is then independently tasked to accredit naturopathic programs. Therefore, to reflect this reality, the title should be changed to reflect that they are accredited by CNME. This would make the article even more overcategoried. There is also a separate accreditation offered by another naturopathic organization, The American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board, which has accredited seven schools in the U.S. and Canada. [2] I do not think it is relevant to have a page dedicated to naturopathic programs accredited by any organization. Trhermes ( talk) 14:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    References

    1. ^ "About the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education". CNME.org. Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
    2. ^ "Accredited Member Schools". American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board. American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. WP:Overcategorization has nothing to do with lists or anything else in article space; it is relevant only to categories. postdlf ( talk) 03:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete — There are several problems with this article. First things first, the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNMD) claims that their accredited schools offer an education equivalent to medical school programs; that is a lie, since CNMD's recognition isn't based upon the scientific validity of what is taught at the accredited schools — for more information on the topic, see this article from Stephen Barrett, M.D. Secondly, all the naturopathy schools accredited by CNMD receive much of their financial support from companies that market dietary supplements and homeopathic products (read: quackery sponsored by sellers of quackery products). On top of that, naturopathic services are not covered by US Medicare, or most world-wide insurance policies, since U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) recommended against of naturopathy due to its pseudo-scientific nature. Finally, all the CNMD's accredited schools account for a total of less than 1,000 graduates per year (approximatively ~200 graduates per school); those low numbers don't corroborate WP:N. An entire WP article dedicated to any naturopathic accrediting agency is too narrow in relevance to be included in WP. Toffanin ( talk) 08:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not against naturopathy my self, but this is little more than WP:LISTCRUFT. It has only passing mentions and listings as sources. If it's not improved, I would have to go along with delete. Bearian ( talk) 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Den Klyuev

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

    Non-notable martial artist. Essentially a biography written by a near relative. The only source is the subjects own website. The list of titles which at first glance look impressive are not supported by any reliable references and are only from a particular branch of karate. High rank is not an indicator of notability but the subject is only a 2nd degree black belt - not that impressive. This was up for a BLPPROD but was declined since at the time I proposed it there was a source (reliable or not). Should have gone a different route. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I haven't been able to find notable, or significant coverage about the person, just a YouTube video and his Facebook page. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete BLP with no independent sources or significant coverage of any kind. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Despite a seemingly impressive record, there are no independent sources to support any of the claims so WP:GNG is not met. I'm also concerned about the accuracy of the claims. For example, the article claims he won a medal at the WKF world championships in 2013 but the WKF holds its world championships in even numbered years and I found no mention of a special shito-ryu division at the WKF website. Papaursa ( talk) 03:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep - withdrawn. ukexpat ( talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Malcolm Gordon

    ( non-admin closure) - Withdrawn. -- ukexpat ( talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    Non-notable school hockey coach - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat ( talk) 14:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Inducted into US Hockey Hall of Fame in 1973, among the very first class of inductees (see [25] "The game had been earlier introduced at St. Paul’s from Canada, but Malcom Gordon is regarded as the individual who helped formalize the game by putting down on paper what is regarded as the first set of rules in the United States. " [26] also. [27] obit in New York Times. " Malcolm Kenneth Gordon, who taught history and hockey to boys 75 years ago — and gave his final lecture only last year —died yesterday at his home here. He was 96 years old." I suggest a person in a notable hall of fame is notable - and the fact is he made the NYT. [28] NYT: "When Malcolm Kenneth Gordon, 87 - year - old master of history at the Malcolm Gordon School here, talks about hockey, he really dips into the past. " 1955. NHL Official Guide & Record Book (2006)"Gordon, Malcolm K. 1973 ", etc. In short - easily shown to be quite notable. Collect ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Happy to withdraw if someone edits this 11-year old unreferenced article to add even a single reference.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MER-C 07:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Nahas Ahmed Khalil

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

    Does not meet the notability guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 01:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Baghdad of Peace

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

    I'm not exactly inferring this is fabricated but my searches found nothing at all, there's no Arabic Wiki and there are no linking articles (orphan) so I'm not seeing any possible improvement here but maybe it's simply the country and language barriers. Notifying author Soman. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MER-C 07:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Jason Binn

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

    Long-troubled article that, whether intended or not, looks more like a personal page, and my searches found nothing to suggest meaningful improvement here, here, here, here and here. Although he's accomplished quite a few things, he would probably be best mentioned elsewhere but there's no target (orphan). SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete; I can see nothing particularly notable about this business person. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. It's been more than a year since I noted that the article was a puff piece with few sources. I had planned on stubbing this down to the two sentences that are reliably sourced, but figured I'd hold off until I could justify it by a year without the issue being addressed. But frankly, I don't even see notability here, so, delete. TJRC ( talk) 18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. There's quite a bit of in-depth coverage in the mainstream press, and no real argument for deletion has been put forward by any of the !voters. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Mysmartprice

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

    Another startup whose coverage is limited to the fact they received funding, in media that covers that. Claims like "ranked 16th in list of 25 best" and "9th Asian startup" and so on are just scraping the bottom of the notability barrel. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.250.157 ( talk) 19:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Added links on the page to news sources that are entirely about the start-up and not at all about its funding. Check them out and see if they satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH:

    http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-31/news/55631406_1_price-range-users-sulakshan-kumar

    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/shop-smart-let-this-online-platform-get-you-the-best-price/article6258025.ece

    http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/mysmartprice-aims-to-double-gross-merchandise-value-from-next-year-114091500387_1.html

    I think they do, but I could be wrong. 49.205.250.157 ( talk) 20:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Uncertain but ultimately draft & userfy for now (delete for now) - This has gotten considerable, searches here (starts fading by page nine but these are the best results of all), here, here, here and here. I thought of "weak keeping" but all in all, this may still be incidental coverage and we can wait until there's a little better. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    *Keep The startup gets as much coverage online as is possible here in India and does feature quite a bit on paper. It might also be worth considering that the website is the top price comparison website in India and is much more popular (ranked 95th on alexa in India) than closest competitor Jungee (291st on alexa in India) by Amazon.com. So considering this and the reasonable amount of coverage online, I'd still suggest to keep the page. 49.205.250.157 ( talk) 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Spaceman Spiff 11:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Sadkhin Complex

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

    Inadequate evidence for notability. One article is USA today is not enough for a fad diet. There are a number of press releases in /Google News, but none of them would help. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I found two sources via HighBeam. Have no idea if these are reputable sources.
      Los Angeles Sentinel, 2002: [29]
      Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week, 2002: [30]
    Until these are evaluated, I don't have an opinion on notability. Brianhe ( talk) 02:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The Los Angeles Sentinel is a mainstream newspaper and as such it should be considered a reliable non-academic third-party source. I never heard about Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week and I really doubt it has a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy like academic and peer-reviewed publications. For sure, none of those two newspapers could be considered a scientific literature, or an authority in the scientific field of nutrition. An example of reliable source, on the topic of diets, is the medical journal Nutrition. Toffanin ( talk) 09:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I've been looking for sources. It's actually a franchise, so there are franchise disclosure documents and other reports available. None indicate notability. The actual business names are The Sadkhin Complex, Inc. and Sadkhin Franchising Company, LLC. I can't find anything on this business that indicates notability and isn't promotional. Manta (business directory) says "Categorized under Weight Reducing Clubs. Our records show it was established in 2005 and incorporated in New York. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of 110000 and employs a staff of approximately 2" [31]. That fails WP:CORP. John Nagle ( talk) 04:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I have searched for sources but could only find poor-quality advertorial pieces with zero coverage in books or journals. For a diet that has been around since 1989 it would suggest that it is not notable. SmartSE ( talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete — Despite the claim to be a well established diet since 1989, I was not able to find peer-reviewed publications on PubMed, or other prominent scientific databases, about Sadkhin Complex. No scientific literature exists about the use of acupressure to control hunger. The only sources mentioning this diet are secondary sources talking exclusively about alternative medicine and pseudo-scientific diets. In absence of valid evidences, Sadkhin Complex should be considered quackery, and the WP page shoud be treated according to WP:OR. Toffanin ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Jennifer E. Flanagan

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

    Paid press release. No notability except with respect to Actua, which is mildly notable, and the bulk of the material here duplicates the material there. This sort of duplication is a hallmark of promotional editing.

    The material is what one would expect in a press release: praise of the organization, unsourced adjectives of praise , appeals to the intrinsic social value of the work, the typical jargon . Long sections of just where she has presented lectures -- and presenting lectures not only doesn't show notability but is usually not even mentioned if the person is actually notable. List of board memberships, which again is not usually worth mentioning. List of organizations where she has volunteered. All of this is essentially puffery . If the person were actually highly notable, the puffery could be removed, but in this case there would be nothing much left.

    The refs are mainly about her organization, not her, and most of them are in any case press releases or mere mentions.

    There are thousands of articles like this in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower. It may take a long while for us to remove them, but the least we can do is not add to them. Do you want your organization to be a good example, or another bad example? DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I started going through the references. A number of them have no mention of her, and some do not even mention the company. What I did find with her name was the usual "executive quote" or a name-check. To truly analyze this article all of the irrelevant references would need to be removed so that it would be possible, with a reasonable amount of time invested, to see if there are any reliable sources. I definitely didn't find any. LaMona ( talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete or redirect to Actua -- this ain't LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 01:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan)

    AfDs for this article:
    Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This college is clearly fake. I couldn't find a single reliable source, and it doesn't appear to be listed on the Higher Education Commission website. [32] Several previous articles with similar names were deleted; their websites are suspicious, such as this vague location page. [33]

    I am also nominating the following related page because it's a disambiguation page with only one link:

    Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Benny White ( talk) 21:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    I've converted that "dab page" into a redirect (stops it being reported as of interest to the Disambiguation WikiProject). If the article on the college survives deletion it should be moved to the base name as there is no need for disambiguation. Pam D 11:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Automated BuildStudio

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

    Clearly the least notable SmartBear Software product being promoted on Wikipedia. Cited only to SmartBear and I can't see any evidence of it being profiled in any reliable secondary sources. There's no claim of it even winning the most minor tech award. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only non-company ref is to softpedia, which as a download site is not entirely independent and in any case would not on its own be sufficient to establishing notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Software is discontinued so future RS coverage is unlikely. Dialectric ( talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete agree with reasons above. Old software that is no longer supported; of dubious improtance to users other than developers. References are self-published by maker of software. The article reminds me ofmthe old software manuals one sees at yard sales. Valuable imformation for perhaps one person in a million. New Media Theorist ( talk) 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Overview of RESTful API Description Languages

    Overview of RESTful API Description Languages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:LISTCRUFT personified. This is no overview, it is a cobbled-together list of disparate IDL languages ( REST is an irrelevance to these) that are cherry-picked because their back-end API might be RESTful.

    This article conveys nothing to the reader. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The list needs significant work, but no valid argument for deletion has been raised. Courcelles ( talk) 20:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    List of songs recorded by Snoop Dogg

    List of songs recorded by Snoop Dogg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Redundant to Snoop Dogg discography. Koala15 ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep: "List of songs..." and "... discography" articles are completely different in content, and one shouldn't be used as the others reasoning for deletion. If it were the case, lists like List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande would be deleted, instead of being granted featured list status. A large majority of the entries are not covered in the discography, and although the article is in dire state, the fact it's an unsourced article is not a viable reason for its deletion, merely a cry for help for a cleanup. Azealia911 talk 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    .450 Bonecrusher

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

    Non-notable firearm cartridge type. The only provided reference is an esay by the developer himself. I'm not finding any viable references that demonstrate WP:N, though the cartridge does appear in various publications of exhaustive lists of ammunition types. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete...Not notable, just one of countless obscure wildcat cartridges. I can't even find a major manufacturer that has ever made a gun chambered for it. I think the only guns ever made for it were the inventors prototypes.-- RAF910 ( talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Delivery drone#In healthcare. As the probably most acceptable variant of the outcome of not keeping this as a separate article.  Sandstein  17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Let's fly wisely

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

    This event, originally described as a "history-making event" in which the first FAA-approved drone was used to make a delivery, appears more to be a research/demonstration event in the FAA's ongoing efforts to investigate the uses of drone technology. It was a single research demonstration event, not a "history-making breakthrough". As such, I don't believe it deserves its own stand-alone article. The event may merit mention in other articles on drones, such as delivery drone or Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles, but it does not merit its own article. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Card warp

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

    I cannot find any sources that discuss this in detail and are not solely in "how-to"... Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO... format. There are not even many of the latter. The sources already included in the article appear to be "how-to" material of that nature. One apparently reliable source describes it as a "classic" card trick (in a clause mentioning some other tricks), but has no other details. Significant coverage in reliable sources therefore does not appear to exist. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    DoItYourself.com

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

    Does not establish notability per the general notability guideline in that it fails to provide (multiple) reliable source(s) covering the entity in detail. A brief GNEWS search found nothing but trivial mentions and SEO-type referral links. The previous AFD in 2010 made no assessment of this specific page. Izno ( talk) 14:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete The important facts in this article are that it was created by someone and then acquired by someone else, and those facts are unreferenced. I think its inclusion on the list of companies on the internet Brands page is more than adequate. The best source for anyone interested in the article subject is probably the page itself... Its history is minimally notable. New Media Theorist ( talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University

    Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Highly promotional and at best borderline notable. (It might be possible to merge a single short paragraph to the university, but the merge was objected to.) The refs are notices or PR--even the article in theTelegraph is essentially a press release. Promotional language and unsourced adjectives of phrase throughout; long list of their services, extensive use of jargon. Note that this is not Oxford University , but the school formerly known as Oxford City Technical School. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Unsure but maybe redirect to Oxford Brookes University#Specialist Study where it is mentioned - I wanted to hear from other people until commenting but my searches didn't find much sources here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - The nominator includes one distinctly bad reason for deletion and, in my opinion, rather overstates his main reason. Whether a British university was already a university before 1992 or was, like Oxford Brookes University, up until then (or later) a polytechnic or college can still correlate fairly well (though not totally) with their current standing - but what they were called in or before the 1960s is effectively irrelevant. In league tables, Oxford Brookes tends to come through slightly below average for all British universities and among the better former polytechnics. And even borderline notability should trump promotionalism - provided that the article not only can be, but is, rewritten to show that notability without any of the promotionalism. Having said that, it comes nowhere near saving this article. The best research centres at an average British university would probably be considered to be average or somewhat below at Oxford University (and be rather unlikely to be notable enough for a standalone article) - but a check on Research Excellence Framework results and Oxford Brookes's own webpages suggests that it does not even come close to this. It is apparently one of three research centres within Oxford Brookes's Faculty of Health and Life Sciences - but the Faculty seems to have completely ignored it when making its REF submission (which itself was not one of the best from Oxford Brookes). While it might be possible for Oxford Brookes to have a research centre notable enough for a standalone article, this clearly isn't it. PWilkinson ( talk) 09:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist( talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Antigng ( talk) 03:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Eye of Agamotto

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

    This may well be important inside the particular fictional world, but there is no secondary sourcing for this article, and whatever I saw in the less fictional world of Google was either primary stuff or fan stuff--nothing we could call in-depth discussion in reliable sources. I'll settle for a redirect, of course. Drmies ( talk) 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Keep. A core artefact in the Doctor Strange mythos, and thus both mentioned and discussed in all evaluations of the Ditko/Lee reimagining of sorcery; the article is over-stuffed with in-universe detail and under-referenced, but I have added three sample references to it in independent discussions of the material. Also Cat Yronwode's prominence in the field should be noted in weighting the reference to her that was already present. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Notable enough for it's own article, it's been in the comics since 1963, has appeared in direct-to-TV films and animated movies, and TV shows (including the 1994 Spider-Man show, The Super Hero Squad Show, and Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme). That definitely qualifies it for notability, and Yngvadottir has already added references. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 23:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. There seems to be enough editors who favor a merge, however, that it may be advisable to propose one at Talk:Taste; that would be a better place to decide whether this should be a stand-alone article or should be incoporated into that article. The consensus is that the information should appear on Wikipedia somewhere. Deor ( talk) 10:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Oleogustus

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

    Original article PMID  26142421 fails WP:MEDRS, all the sources here are pop-sci sources. Deletion or redirect to Taste#Fattiness. No content salvagable as all sources fail. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • It makes it clear that this is a "proposed" new taste. I do not see it as being undue. It is not making an effectiveness claim. Maybe merge to "taste"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Taste#Fattiness, which already has related content. Failing WP:MEDRS is irrelevant as this is a biology article, not a medical article. The citations are fine for a biology article. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      WP:SCIRS is pretty clear that whatever they are, it's not "fine". -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      The article cites the original research report, as WP:SCIRS allows in a situation like this. WP:SCIRS does not disallow news coverage, although it has advice on when and how to use it. The article needs improving in terms of how it uses citations, but that's not an argument for its deletion or not using the content in the article in a merge. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I'm saying delete because this concept has not received any independent critical coverage. There is no evidence that anybody will remember this term a year from now. I would not be opposed to having an article if the article could clearly state that the concept has not yet been validated, but Wikipedia's policies make that very difficult: it is impossible to find reliable secondary sources to substantiate the fact that there are no reliable secondary sources. Looie496 ( talk) 13:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Merge (was delete) per RockMagnetist, albeit severely trimmed. as there is not enough evidence this will become a widely used term. WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON obviously apply here, and merging/redirecting is moot at this point. The primary source is so recent it hasn't even been cited once for crying out loud! Wikipedia is not a news outlet. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • keep The sources are adequate to show the phenomenon as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. WP covers such hypotheses; they need to be recognized and discussed before we can cover them, but they don't have to actually be proven true, as long as the article correctly states the status. The sources for this are high ranking scientific journals, and that is all that is necessary for biology. There is however a problem with the terminology--I doubt very mush this will end upas the accepted term, but we need some place to keep the material. Just as Umami was for a long while referred to as the fifth taste until its nature became more defined, and it became accepted as corresponding to a preexisting Japanese term, I suggest sixth taste as a temporary place-holder. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • DGG Per your words: "WP covers such hypotheses; they need to be recognized and discussed before we can cover them". This is exactly what we don't have. There is a single study that has proposed this term, and it hasn't even been cited once (it was published last month; I exclude the Time article from my analysis because in the world we live today this sort of thing is easy and catchy reading {see this and this}). If the term is subsequently discussed in the literature, then of course Wikipedia could use an article about it. The fact of the matter is it is too new even to have been discussed appropriately. We can't include this at present per WP:FRINGE. As it stands, this is a single article summary; if there is significant coverage about it at a later point, then I'd gladly see it created again. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
        There's an inherent problem in this: in science, it takes time to write and publish a paper--normally at least 6 months. In contrast, for films or books, a review can come out the same day the item is published, if not earlier. But there are already news items about it: the article give Time and Science News; I see also NPR and the Guardian. Public interest in a hypothesis is just as significant forus as scientific interest (the special restrictions of MEDRS have their place, but this is human biology, not clinical medicine.) This is unlikely to be ignored--using common snese, there is fairly certain to be work either confirming or refuting it. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
        Should we have articles on beer goggles, neurotic people being more creative, autism and gluten, and cricket swings and weather? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I find it hard to classify this as a "science" article at all, and it has absolutely nothing to do with medicine. It's really no more scientific than Scoville scale or Pungency or Sweetness. I am unimpressed by the assertion that we should delete the article because the peer-review cycle is too slow to have already produced "discussions in the [scientific] literature" about what food tastes like. That's the biggest problem with this proposal IMO: this is being treated like it's some sort of medical project, and it's not. This is about eating. IMO these are acceptable sources for this point in time. Additionally, there is quite a bit here (e.g., the sourced history section) that could be merged to Taste#Fattiness, if we someday decide not to keep it as a separate article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep – Passes WP:GNG and also keep per WP:NTEMP. The topic has received international significant coverage in reliable sources. See this link for source examples. North America 1000 17:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    How does this pass NTEMP? I see no coverage previous to July 2015. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:NTEMP, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." North America 1000 07:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment In terms of WP:NTEMP/ WP:NEO concerns, the original academic journal paper builds on an existing literature, so one can build better article content using a variety of sources... but that literature is already covered at Taste#Fattiness. I see no point in having Oleogustus as it is separate from the material at Taste#Fattiness. Either merge Oleogustus into Taste (a simple cut'n'paste job), or take the Taste#Fattiness material out of Taste and merge it into Oleogustus. DGG, in terms of your suggestion for a sixth taste placeholder, while I like the idea, if you go to Taste, there is a lot of material already there about tastes beyond the traditional 5. Indeed, the more obvious candidate for a "sixth taste" is kokumi, so a fattiness taste would be a seventh taste! (There's more literature to support a full kokumi article than there is for oleogustus, I suggest, although those sources haven't been included in Taste yet.) WhatamIdoing: I'm not certain I agree with your argument that this is no more scientific than Scoville scale or Sweetness. This, and sweetness, are entirely scientific topics, like visual perception or hearing; and those are all much more scientific than Scoville scale. (I did my PhD on food psychology: I don't like to see the subject dismissed!) Bondegezou ( talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • I disagree. What food tastes like is a fundamentally human topic, about which science can provide some interesting and valuable information. Non-science (e.g., aesthetics, aka "does it taste good?") also plays a role here. Refusing to engage in the overmedicalization of food is not dismissing the subjects: it's restoring them to their rightful (and broader) position. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The relation with medicines and MEDRS sounds really weird and I see no reason to delete this article on these grounds. The sources are adequate to show the phenomenon as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. The Banner  talk 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Taste#Fattiness. A subject may have enough sources to make it notable, but that doesn't mean that a separate article is the best thing for Wikipedia. Restrict web searches to before 2015, and you can build a similar case for kokumi ( [34], [35], [36], [37], etc.), carbohydrates ( [38], [39], [40], [41]), and so on ( [42], [43]). You could have a separate article for each, claiming that it is the sixth flavor, and leave readers with different impressions depending on how they got to Wikipedia; or you can put them all together in one article and let the reader see all the claims together, as well as the common criteria for what constitutes a taste. I think that would be more encyclopedic. RockMagnetist( talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of Americans in the Venona papers. And perhaps briefly merge some content subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Emma Harriet Joseph

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

    Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She is only mentioned once in the cited source, and that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people who were mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the body of the text. Her name appears in a couple of other sources, but usually only as part of a similar list of people mentioned in the cables. This does not meet the threshold for significant coverage in reliable sources which is required to make someone notable - it's simply a passing mention. More generally, having been a communist, having worked for OSS, or having been a Soviet contact does not in itself make her notable, especially absent significant coverage in RS.

    The second paragraph of the article appears to be OR, and is drawn from a primary source (the one cable that mentions her).

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Hi. Just curious. Is this a reliable source? Pbly not. Quis separabit? 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Rms125a@hotmail.com:, I'm not sure it matters - the "Emma Joseph" referred to there is a fictional character, not the same person this article's about. Note that the play's script puts her at age 26 in 1999 (that's when the play is set). Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    This person is already listed in the List of Americans in the Venona papers article. As for the play, it's discussed above - the "Emma Joseph" in that play is a fictional character, completely un-related to the subject of this article. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • It is false that "She is only mentioned once in the cited source, and that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people who were mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the body of the text." That sentence links to appendix pages 353 and 388. However the sentence is false: she is covered in the main text of The Verona Secrets in passage over pages 294-295.
    • It is false that "The second paragraph of the article appears to be OR, and is drawn from a primary source (the one cable that mentions her)." The second paragraph material is directly supported by the main text in pages 294-295.
    Incorrect premises of nomination ---> we reject the nomination. -- do ncr am 01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Doncram: Huh? The "premise" of the nomination is that the subject is not notable, and nothing that you write here changes that. You are confused on a number of points. First: she really does appear only once, in the appendix, of the cited source (the cited source being this book). That is the only source cited in the article. You are correct that she also appears to be mentioned briefly in a totally different book called The Venona Secrets. But that source is not cited in the article. (Although it should be, and I can see that it does in fact support the second paragraph). But again, the coverage is a passing mention of her - very far from the significant, in depth coverage that is required for someone to be notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Update: I added the additional source for the 2nd paragraph and removed the OR tag. I still don't think this person is notable though - being mentioned in passing in 1 book, and listed in the appendix of the other is not nearly enough coverage to make her notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Not much participation here, but after two relistings with no one advocating keeping the article, the time seems ripe for such a closure. Deor ( talk) 10:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    BlackMotor Corporation

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

    Non-notable company because all my searches found nothing all and although someone added the company was actually not closed, the listed website is still closed and the LinkedIn-listed website is also closed. The closest relevant thing I found was this and some Books searches found results for a company from the 1960s and 1970s and since it seems this company was founded in 2009, it must not be that one and finally there are no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I edited the article a little further. It needs a further search for references; I found some using the keywords "black motor" AND drones, but havent gone through them yet. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Warren Slocum

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

    WP:BLP of a county supervisor, written extremely like a campaign brochure (my new worst thing ever: politicians whose articles give the names of their pets in the family section) and parked on abysmal sourcing. Almost everything here is a primary source, and a lot of them are deadlinked at that — and the closest thing to a reliable source is a single PBS Newshour piece (reduplicated as sources #4 and #7 for no apparent reason) in which he gets passingly namechecked as a soundbite provider in a report where he is not the subject. Actually, forget the dog and the cat: new even-worse thing ever, this actually tries to get away with sourcing to an internet talk radio stream in ref #16 (and not to any archive of that stream's content by which we can verify what was said, either, but just to the fresh live stream.) All of which means that nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to make him eligible for an article under WP:NPOL #3. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 03:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MER-C 07:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Stephan Rich

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

    Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. His name is only mentioned in passing in the cited source, that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the text itself. Simply being mentioned one time in the cables does not confer notability, especially when there's basically zero coverage in any other RS that I can find. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Timothy Harlan

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

    My searches found nothing outstandingly good to suggest improvement, here, here, here, here and here. There's never been any significant improvement and from the signs of it, there isn't any anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep I found a more recent book and added it--a book which seems much more important, or at least much more widely held, than his earlier ones: There seem to be a fe minor reviews for it. Overall, it might be a notable career. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep the idea of a New Orleans internist who moonlights as a chef called Dr. Gourmet charmed me enough to do a little search. Not on his name, but on "Dr. Gourmet" on news google. results here: [44]. This article is a keeper. Even though it needs editing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Jorge Vargas González. Early close. This will not be kept, even author seems to agree. Merge is an appropriate outcome for a non-notable album. Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Heredero de tu Amor

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

    Album by a small-town (pop. 13,000) politician that has no notability, just a one-time mention in a national newspaper ( El Mercurio) and one mention in a tabloid ( La Cuarta). Thus appearance in national media is limited not only to two newspapers but also temporarily limited to 2004 when the artist runned for Mayor in a local election. Sietecolores ( talk) 13:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Upjav ( talk) 14:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Politician has no nobility as a musician, and the coverage is unsatisfactory for notability. It lacks long-term coverage post-2004 as well. Don't see why this would merit its own article. Upjav ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Istituto Marangoni

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

    Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFA Paris, this appears to be another unaccredited fashion school; sources are variously unreliable and vague mentions. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Comment. Disclaimer: I did a bit of work on this last year after removing some major copyright violations there, and added a number of references. I did so because I was sure it would be found to be notable if sent to AfD – it had already survived once. I don't care one way or the other whether it is kept, but I'm certain it's notable; here's the Manchester Guardian describing it as "one of Europe's leading design schools" and saying that it "has played a pivotal role in the growth of the Italian fashion industry". It has innumerable passing mentions, and in-depth coverage in a number of independent reliable sources, a couple of which I have now added to the page. It's not clear to me whether or how it is able to award degrees in Italy, as it is not recognised by the Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca (in common with many other private schools; state recognition is a high bar in Italy). In England it is a listed body, and is listed as such by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Correction: checking the talk page, I find that it survived WP:PROD, not AfD. The WP:COI problems appear to be under control. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I was easily able to find news articles in Italian newspapers, some of which I added to the article - and they support the reputation and individual facts about the institute. I can also find spreads in Italian and French fashion magazines. I don't think it functions as a truly academic institution, being more like a private art school. I can add more links later since I'll be in Italy in 10 days and from there a search should turn up more sources. LaMona ( talk) 03:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per WP:HEY: enough RS to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone 05:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Ekobingsho

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

    Non notable and sources are not reliable. Just passing mentions etc. Arr4 ( talk) 15:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Alex De Rakoff

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

    Delete: as non-notable writer (also non-notable actor). Quis separabit? 18:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Machine Intelligence Research Institute

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

    The Machine Intelligence Research Institute is hard to find wp:reliable sources for, while according to the appropriate category ( Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), at least 2 relevant sources, having the organization as its prime subject, are needed. In addition to my own (unsuccesful) search for sources, the links on this page are dead, link to its own page, to advertisements or to directory-like websites L.tak ( talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Not sure why it was nominated, it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Check. Especially see: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.
    But yes the article probably needs some cleanup. Going to fix all the dead refs tomorrow or so. -- Fixuture ( talk) 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Those cites are mostly not actually about MIRI at all, but about Elon Musk's new organisation in the same field, and we do need cites actually about MIRI - passing mentions really aren't enough. Nor about general concerns about AI risks which are already covered in other articles - David Gerard ( talk) 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Ben Harrison (Music Producer)

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

    WP:BLP of a music producer, sitting entirely on primary (webpage of his record label, SoundCloud) and unreliable (a blog entry that contains no information about him, or indeed about anybody at all, and looks from what I can tell to have been a simple test post) sources. He has enough of a claim of notability that he might pass WP:NMUSIC with a properly sourced article, but that's not what this article is. Also looks to have been created by the subject's brother, thus also a WP:COI. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • There is zero intended bias and/or "promotionalism" going on here. Let's consider the facts for a moment: Benjamin Harrison is a record producer with hits for some of the biggest performers in the world to his credit as artists, a line up that includes the very FIRST - and therefore crucial to the artist's status as becoming established - credits of all for, among others, Rita Ora, Emeli Sandae and Tini Tempa. So thinking laterally here in response to the hostile objection of the inclusion, in order to arbitrate this dispute appropriately and avoid deletion, if Jay Z sent Wikipedia a letter personally offering his support of this page would this resolve? If so, this can be arranged - just provide a Wiki editor's e mail address where to have the letter / e mail sent to. The fact is, people DO come up and they DO become important at different times and Wikipedia should be the FIRST place to compile such information, not stick with a broad range of mainstream info that one can get from any web search anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Nope. Our rules are that we should not be the "first" place to compile information about a person — our role is to follow media coverage that already exists, not to participate in trying to create someone's media presence. And no, a private letter of "support", no matter who it's from, doesn't help boost a person's notability if the media coverage isn't already there. Bearcat ( talk) 22:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Look, I completely get it, and personally I hate how news and PR are conflated today. I hate it. That said, sometimes it is fairly obvious that an entry (such as this one) has a valid cause for being up, because it does represent information that is reliable about a source that is interesting and critical at some level to the development of something in popular culture. It may not be helpful to keep shooting it down with "delete" comments everywhere. Maybe it's worth thinking about the validity of this entry from a broader standpoint, that is all. Still, I appreciate that is what this page is for in the first place and by and large the editors here could teach those working in newsrooms a thing or two, so I shall not try and barge in too strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Also, since your username strongly implies that you're the subject's brother, I need to advise you to read our conflict of interest rules. They don't mean you're not allowed to edit an article about him at all, but they do mean that (a) you shouldn't be the creator of it (or of the one about yourself, either), and (b) you're not allowed to claim any special right to an exemption from our content and sourcing rules just because you have insider knowledge about him that may not be reflected in any verifiable coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat ( talk) 15:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    • For the record, I am not the brother of nor am I in any way connected or related to Daniel Mark Harrison or Benjamin Harrison (Music Producer). I have no conflict of interest in either case with the individuals concerned, financial or otherwise. I am an ex-BBC producer as well, so I am aware of the danger of this stuff. If you need I can verify for you, Still, I am fascinated by this discussion and the editing process in general here on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Josh Jr Mangila

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

    Initially unsourced bio and proposed for deletion sources have now been added. One is merely a photo of subject, [48], one is a mention among other Filipinos, [49] and the other three from http://the-media-network.com/ bare the resemblance of press releases. "Josh Mangila" or "Josh S. Mangila" appears to be better search terms than "Josh Jr Mangila", but I fail to find significant coverage in multiple, reliable, published sources. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Bogdan Christian Stanache

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

    Proded and endorsed, and deprodded by article creator. I fail to find sources that subject meets the notability guidelines. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Saundz

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

    Promotional article about non-notable software. Suspected undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 11:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    2015 Indian stock market crash

    2015 Indian stock market crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Redudnant, unsourced. Kernosky talk2me! 09:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Found sparse sources. Those sources appeared to be trigger-happy sources (unreliable) who jump on every market movement, trying to be the "first". I sincerely doubt it is notable. Jcmcc ( Talk) 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • My vote depends on one question; are there reliable sources we can cite to verify the article's content? After all, this article may be worth keeping, but there needs to be reliable sources to verify the information.-- OfficerAPC ( talk) 00:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ OfficerAPC: There are plenty of refs to verify the content but being unsourced was not the only reason this was nominated.[ [50]], [ [51]], [ [52]]. In fact I've just noticed the entire article is a copyvio of this NDTV profit source,[ [53]] so have rewritten it with this edit. [ [54]]. Cowlibob ( talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Deleted by Billinghurst (Moved from talkpage > Part of checkuser blocks. Also crosswiki abuse and conflict of interest edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)) reply
    – Davey2010 Talk 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Younsgter Nayak

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

    Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:ENT. Multiple pages created for the same person ( Youngster Nayak). I had tagged both for CSD which was removed by a SOCK (presumably) and hence taking this for AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Restored AfD... The Banner  talk 09:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete of course as another classic case of my first searches instantly finding only self-generated media such as social websites and this may be another case of misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (this is not MySpace where you can make a personal page). SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - This artist appears to be just starting out, and it's a 'too soon' kind of case. As well, the article as it's written right now is pretty bad due to its lack of reliable sources. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 04:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Deleted by Billinghurst (Moved from talkpage > Part of checkuser blocks. Also crosswiki abuse and conflict of interest edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)) reply
    – Davey2010 Talk 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Youngster Nayak

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

    Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:ENT. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Organize, Inc

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

    Unfortunately, my searches simply found nothing for this article from July 2008 with this probably being the best I found. As an orphaned article and the sources not being better, there's not much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Longevity myths. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    List of people reported to have lived beyond 130

    AfDs for this article:
    List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Indiscriminate list. There's no evidence that "people above 130" or "people below 130" or any other page is a distinguishing characteristics other than the current oldest person ever was 122 so this is all claims that are eight years more (and I'm presuming as said to be not real). The contents are basically a merger of an assortment from Longevity myths and Longevity claims. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Maybe delete as although this is a challenging one, this is not a widespread and confirmed topic with most of these occurring thousands years ago and there's not even much information here. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere although I can imagine someone eventually suggesting a separate article. It seems most of the previous AfD commenters are not active so I'm notifying the only still active one Robofish. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Cruz Hernández

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

    I don't think there's sufficient notability from being a mere pretender or just being a holder of a claim of longevity. The talk page shows the other problems with these articles which is namely the massive COI factor between the alleged subject and the arguable researcher studying the matter. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Of the two sources in the article, one's dead, and the other makes it clear that, even at the time of the report, no one seemed to believe she was the oldest person, which it turned out she wasn't. More from the WOP fancruft walled garden. EEng ( talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete When I was reviewing the stand-alone articles on extreme longevity claimants, I was on the fence about whether or not there were sufficient sources to meet the notability requirements at WP:N so I did not nominate this for deletion but, on the balance, I think that the criteria for inclusion are not met here. Canadian Paul 17:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    What am I, chopped liver? EEng ( talk) 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Elsie Thompson

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

    This woman's entire notability is that she was mistaken for being the oldest living American but in fact was the oldest living Floridian at her death. Regardless of the sourcing (mostly related to who was or wasn't the oldest person), any information about separate living is summarized in the biography section at the page for Ronald L. Thompson, her husband. Delete but at best, redirect to her husband's page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Comment The prior discussion went for a weak keep (or more likely a delete or redirect) until the claim was made that she was the world's oldest American, a claim which as discussed is now considered false (showing the precise "scientific" nature of this longevity "studying"). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the sources used demonstrate significant coverage or notability. Source 1 is a mention in a GRG list. Sources 2, 5 and 6 are from the Tampa Bay Times which suggests no major coverage outside her local area. Sources 3 (requires a subscription to read) and 4 (the 1900 census) are unreliable and shouldn't be used. Sources 7 and 8 shouldn't be on this article because they are about her husband and Jeralean Talley respectively, and don't mention Thompson at all. Would also support a redirect to either List of supercentenarians from the United States or her husband's page. CommanderLinx ( talk) 13:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Delete or Redirect to Ronald L. Thompson. There aren't enough independent sources to establish notability and she's already listed in her husband's article. Ca2james ( talk) 18:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Merge or Redirect as per above editors, particularly Ricky81682. Onel5969 TT me 16:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Delete or merge. I usually respect Cunard, but this time he's mistaken about the notabilty of the topic. The only sources shown is the Tampa Bay Times, which is local and routine coverage, considering Thompson retired to the area, while the rest of the coverage is about her age and its general interest news stories. This is wp:blp1e material, as her only claim to notabilty was her age. Pokerkiller ( talk) 19:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - This was meant to have been closed ages ago! ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 12:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    Elizaveta Boyarskaya

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

    Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Profiles / move lists don't count towards notability, I think there was one source that was fine but the rest were either movie lists or reviews so I don't notability's there atm. – Davey2010 Talk 06:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Nope, references 1 and 3 are aggregators of articles about her in respective newspapers and 5 and 6 are articles. There are a lot of articles about her lately in yellow press. It's a kitsch and yellow, but still culture, even being low one. I will add more references later. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 07:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    References
    1. ^ http://7days.ru/stars/bio/elizaveta-boyarskaya.htm
    2. ^ http://ruskino.ru/art/3800
    3. ^ http://www.eg.ru/daily/theme/157
    4. ^ http://www.dni.ru/showbiz/2012/10/12/241894.html
    5. ^ http://bravo.israelinfo.co.il/announce/23926
    6. ^ http://www.dp.ru/a/2015/08/13/JA_za_ljuboj_kipezh_vo_imja_s/
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep per sk1. Notability does seem to be there after all, Lord knows why I never came across these!, Anyway thanks Arthistorian1977 for managing to find some. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 06:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Yuliya Borisova

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

    Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    References
    1. ^ http://www.1tv.ru/news/culture/279878
    2. ^ http://www.mk.ru/culture/2015/03/16/yuliya-brisova-koroleva-gulyayushhaya-sama-po-sebe.html
    3. ^ http://www.tvc.ru/news/show/id/63761
    4. ^ http://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/130182/
    5. ^ http://www.vakhtangov.ru/persones/borisova
    6. ^ http://ruskino.ru/art/754
    7. ^ http://www.russkoekino.ru/books/star/star-0039.shtml
    8. ^ http://radiovesti.ru/article/show/article_id/162945
    9. ^ http://ria.ru/spravka/20100317/214886702.html
    10. ^ http://visualrian.ru/en/site/lightbox/53867/
    11. ^ https://books.google.co.il/books?id=CcVciO--PkgC&pg=PA357&lpg=PA357&dq=yuliya+borisova+actress&source=bl&ots=SrI8uoJv6h&sig=R6BF1LvXp3BS9f9WYZZri0OzGb0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjFkIjR1NLHAhXvjtsKHYjGDKs#v=onepage&q=yuliya%20borisova%20actress&f=false
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. per SK1, Notability does seem to be there after all, Lord knows why I never came across these!, Anyway thanks Arthistorian1977 for managing to find some. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 06:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Iya Arepina

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

    Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    References
    1. ^ http://www.calend.ru/person/1312/
    2. ^ http://www.peoples.ru/art/cinema/actor/arepina/
    3. ^ http://ruskino.ru/art/1100
    4. ^ http://www.amur.info/news/2015/07/02/96261
    5. ^ http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2520710
    6. ^ http://izvmor.ru/news/view/2485512
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

    39/20 Alliance

    AfDs for this article:
      39/20 Alliance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      No third party sources beyond news indicating notability, no similar alliances to establish precedent. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      • Organization of purely local notability, with little substance beyond cursory documentation of its existence, and not nearly enough sourcing, to suggest any reason why an international encyclopedia should maintain an article about it. Of the sources cited here, half are primary sources which cannot confer notability, and the other half are local community newsweeklies that aren't widely distributed enough to satisfy WP:GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing. An organization like this might clear the bar if it accomplished something that was getting it into the Calgary Herald, The Province, the Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail on a regular basis — but if the Leduc Rep is your strongest possible source, then you just haven't satisfied Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Kool Moe Dee–LL Cool J feud

      Kool Moe Dee–LL Cool J feud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The article is trivial WP:FANCRUFT. Koala15 ( talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 03:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Nina Alisova

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

      Non notable actress, Unfortunately can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

      The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Yekaterina Volkova (actress and singer)

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

      Non notable actress, Been unsourced since creation and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

      The result was delete, can be recreated if she passes WP:NSKATE at some point.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Elizaveta Nugumanova

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

      Clearly fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei ( talk) 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Tatyana Vasilyeva

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

      Non notable actress, Been unsourced creation and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

      The result was speedy no consensus. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Svetlana Toma

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

      Non notable actress, Been unsourced since creation and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

      The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Yulia Takshina

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

      Non notable actress, Been unsourced for 4 entire years and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

      The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Elena Proklova

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

      Non notable actress, Can't anything notability-wise in English or Russian, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 03:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      • As far as I'm aware they're not, This was BLP-Prodded last year - You deprodded it and haven't improved/sourced it since, So there's apparently "plenty of references" yet you've added nothing!, If you can find anything notability wise I'd be more than happy to withdraw. – Davey2010 Talk 03:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Withdrawing as another editor's managing to find sources so wrapping all these up. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Ekaterina Nosik

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

      Non notable actress, Been unsourced for 4 entire years and I'm assuming that's because like myself no one can find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG– Davey2010 Talk 03:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

      The result was keep ( non-admin closure). Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      B. Alan Wallace

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

      Does not meet GNG. The article had a large number of unsourced statements and long lists of articles, lectures and publications, but no supporting sources attesting to the notability of this person, and thus deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Please clarify what you mean by unsourced and notability prior to the 'thus' part of your comments. This would be of interest here. It does though hark back to when the article was first placed, e.g. all work on the 'mindfulness introspective' properly progressed by definitions when Wallace took on his responsibilities early on for the improvement of dialectics from a central study centre in Switzerland onwards. There did not appear to be any discepancies of the nature you imply so why do you not cite precise examples as well to back your statements.This talk seems so highly esoteric it will not include any views but what Wallace calls 'static representations' that are a primary source in fact of confusion.-- DynEqMin ( talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      • Note and keep This article was reduced very substantially in size (by over 90%) before being listed here. I much prefer the "too long" version being what we see as a rule. Notability seems clearly present - many books of his have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal etc. Scholar.google.com shows his works are widely cited (when I see a figure for well over 300 cites on one book, and a half dozen more are fairly widely cited, the books are likely notable per se.) Mentioned briefly in news articles on meditation [55] etc. Basically he meets author notability by virtue of number of works cited by others. And cutting to a single sentence is simply a poor way to prepare for any AfD. Collect ( talk) 19:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Even with that wall to wall of unsourced content, the author does not meet any notability criteria. Passing mentions non withstanding. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Um -- attacking me does not change the following:
      Mental balance and well-being: building bridges between Buddhism and Western psychology. BA Wallace, SL Shapiro - American Psychologist, 2006 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Clinical psychology has focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disease, and only recently has scientific attention turned to understanding and cultivating positive mental health. The Buddhist tradition, on the other hand, has focused ...
      Cited by 306 Related articles
      The Buddhist tradition of Samatha: Methods for refining and examining consciousness BA Wallace - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999 - ingentaconnect.com [opening paragraph]: Buddhist inquiry into the natural world proceeds from a radically different point of departure than western science, and its methods differ correspondingly. Early pioneers of the scientific revolution, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, ...
      Cited by 191 Related articles
      [BOOK] Contemplative science: Where Buddhism and neuroscience converge BA Wallace - 2009 - books.google.com Science has long treated religion as a set of personal beliefs that have little to do with a rational understanding of the mind and the universe. However, B. Alan Wallace, a respected Buddhist scholar, proposes that the contemplative methodologies of Buddhism and of ...
      Cited by 183 Related articles
      [BOOK] Choosing reality: A Buddhist view of physics and the mind BA Wallace - 2003 - books.google.com For centuries scientists and philosophers have pondered the relationship between scientific theory and reality. Analyzing two major positions, the author points out the many assumptions required to adopt the realist view, and nihilism implicit in the instrumentalist ...
      Cited by 118 Related articles
      And so on. All from scholar.google.com. [BOOK] The taboo of subjectivity: Toward a new science of consciousness cited by 171, [BOOK] The attention revolution: Unlocking the power of the focused mind cited by 178, BOOK] Buddhism and science: Breaking new ground cited by 120, [BOOK] Hidden dimensions: The unification of physics and consciousness cited by 67, Intersubjectivity in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism cited by 58, [PDF] 2 The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West cited by 49, etc. Sourced, please note. He is not Agatha Christie in popularity, but the only issue here is whether he meets notability within his field, and is well-cited within his field. He is. Collect ( talk) 22:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      His doctorate from Stanford was specifically deleted - I am barred from making any further edits at all on the article, but someone should wonder if removing something which is so easily shown at [56] actually reduces his notability one iota. Collect ( talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      How is a doctorate at Stanford, as described in a self published source an RS? Despite these google scholar hits, I see no good quality sources upon which an article on this person can be constructed. We need good quality secondary sources that attest to this person's notability. I could not find any, thus this AFD. (and btw, no one is attacking you) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Has it occurred to you that a source from Stanford ("Stanford.edu" is a teensy bit of a clue that the website is at Stanford) is a reliable source for Stanford? Do you think he somehow conned a Stanford site to list him as having a PhD from Stanford in the field about which the entire page is centered? [57] "Philpapers.org" then lists his dissertation - and is not an SPS by Wikipedia definition. [58] lists the paper as a PhD dissertation -- guess that is SPS? American Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship Christopher Queen, Duncan Ryuken Williams; Routledge -- sorry I do not buy that Routledge is an SPS by the way. [59] yet another strong Stanford University direct source. How many sources do you actually need? And I assure you Stanford is not an SPS for the person <g>. Collect ( talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Red herring. A doctorate from Stanford is not in itself notable, neither is a dissertration. If this was a notable individual, his work and accomplishments will be reported on reliable and secondary sources, including his doctorate and dissertation. Otherwise by your criteria, every single PhD holder will have an article in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Moving target? You asserted that the PhD was from a "self-published source" - it wasn't. Notability for academics is gauged frequently by whether their works are often cited by others. His are. Most PhD holders are not cited a great deal by others in their field. He is. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) has the criteria generally used. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Meets, per cites by by others. Collect ( talk) 12:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I was initially swayed by Collect's argument that the number of citations he had showed a significant impact on his field. I am less sure now. Citation numbers are relative and depend on the field of study. I looked at two of his co-authors Richard Davidson [60] who has 10 publications with over 1000 cites and 61 which are over the 300 of the subject, and Emilio Ferrer [61] who only has 3 over 300. Looking further I fing Ned H. Kalin who is Chair of Psychiatry and Hedberg Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison he has one pub with 1310 cites listed and 6 over 300. From this, admitedly ad-hoc exploration I must conclude that a single publication with over 300 citations does not indicate a major contribution to the field. Other RS are needed for notability.

        That said I do not see any real issue with using a Stanford resource to support the date of his doctorate but that does nothing to contribute to his notability. Jbh Talk 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

        • Perhaps the following will evince notability: The Dalai Lama wrote "Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism." Translation by B. Alan Wallace, Thupten Jinpa. Afterword by Wallace. Note that the Dalai Lama is generally considered notable per se. Also note that in "Tibetan Buddhism in Diaspora: Cultural Re-signification in ..." isbn=1317572815; Ana Cristina O. Lopes. "- there are multiple multiple mentions of Wallace.
      To me this all shows notability in the field of "Tibetan Buddhism" . And the aggregate number of cites are certainly enough if one looks at prior AfDs of academics. Collect ( talk) 13:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note also Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity B. Alan Wallace; published by Columbia University Press.
      "Contemplative Science" also published by CUP.
      And so on. A bunch of his books are published by CUP, which is a respected RS publisher. This alas is a tad ludicrous - I had never heard of Wallace before, but it is crystal clear that he is an authority in his field, recognized as such. Collect ( talk) 12:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note we do have a BLP on Richard Davidson who is, indeed, notable. Collect ( talk) 14:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Davidson's work has been covered by [[Scientific American] and The New York Times. That means we have secondary sources that attest for his notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Davidson was apparently given to claim that a major author was "red-linked." I showed that implication was inapt. Wallace has several books published by Columbia University Press, a reputable university publisher. Having multiple books published by a major academic publisher generally is allowed to show the person is notable in a field at AfD. What more does one need? Collect ( talk) 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Delete There are inadequate secondary sources to establish notability. Having his books cited does not establish notability unless they discuss him and his views. I note that the article does not explain what Wallace's theories are, let alone provide a critical assessment, so it serves no function. TFD ( talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      His "views" are not key - he is expositive of Tibetan Buddhism precepts, the precepts of the Dalai Lama, and the intersection of those precepts and science, among other religious/philosophical discussions. The current article here is absolutely not great - but the issue here is whether the person, a known expert in the field, is "notable". I had never heard of him until I started noticing in the sources just how well-regarded he seems to be within that specialized area. Collect ( talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Keep There is sufficient biographical material in the many reviews of his books to support an article and he is considered notable enough that several of his books have been reviewed by multiple sources. For example: [1] [2] His is also quoted in in this Science article. [3] There is a lot more material out there, I just got tired of cutting and pasting material into refcite templates. If more is needed for notability I will dig it up. He passes WP:GNG

      References

      1. ^ Heffern, Rich (June 26, 2009). "Book Review: MIND IN THE BALANCE: MEDITATION IN SCIENCE, BUDDHISM, AND CHRISIANITY". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved Sept 01, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= ( help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)
      2. ^ Bracken, Joseph A. (June 22, 2010). "B. Alan Wallace, Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism. and Christianity.(Book review)". Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Retrieved Sept 01, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= ( help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)
      3. ^ Barinaga, Marcia (Oct 03, 2004). "Studying the well-trained mind: Buddhist monks and Western scientists are comparing notes on how the mind works and collaborating to test insights gleaned from meditation.(Buddhism and Neuroscience)". Science. Retrieved Sept 01, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= ( help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

      Jbh Talk 19:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Lois Cahall

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

      I'm not entirely sure if she's solidly notable (at least to Wiki standards) and my searches found no outstandingly good sources here, here, here and here. Depending with the severity, COIs aren't always a huge concern for me as they are sometimes good faiths contributions but this one has hardly hard any other edits (article was started by subject in February 2011 and article has continuously been edited since). Pinging tagger Joe Decker. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was deleted. Materialscientist ( talk) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      José Edward Ramos

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

      Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER. Noticed CSD removed four times, bringing to AFD for definitive deletion (expecting this to be recreated in the near future.) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Mouse Run

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

      Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Safiyah Mirsberger Tolson Hong

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

      Possible hoax, subject not mentioned in references Bamyers99 ( talk) 01:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Delete article does not make sense... Refs are wrong and/or irrelevant. Web search comes up with only social media references and possible self-published articles. I think it's serious rather than being a hoax. However, subject is not notable. New Media Theorist ( talk) 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. Note, previous AfD was under a different title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqas Ahmed -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      2012 Paros (Greece) rape

      2012 Paros (Greece) rape (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:GNG. An utterly horrendous crime, no lasting significance. An encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant. As User:Huldra most eloquently wrote on the previous discussion "Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a Muslim did something very bad"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it?" Spot on. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Keep As noted in previous AFD (just 3 weeks ago) this has been a major national news story with continuous coverage in Greece for over 3 years where the rape of a local 15-year old by an illegal immigrant became a highly charged signifier at a time of burgeoning political tensions about the enormous wave of illegal immigrants arriving in Greece. Searches on America-based engines can underestimate the impact of events in Europe, especially when transliteration of spellings in different alphabets (Greek, Urdu) is an issue, as it is here. Similarity to Shooting of Kathryn Steinle was also noted in recent AFD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • comment Article is over-sourced because of the recent AFD. Anglophone editors who want to see the sort of place this case occupies in the Greek political conversation can look at this column in [67] Kathimerini a leading Greek newpaper somewaht equivelant to the place th eNew York Times holds in the U.S. (when in Greece, if you pick up the international NYTimes, the English version of Kathimirini comes folded inside). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      The previous AFD resulted in no consensus and a procedural keep, not keep and was fundamentally damaged by your disruptive behaviour of significantly changing the title and content, from a BLP to an event without even bothering to seek consensus. In 2014 24,043 rapes against both men and women were recorded by police forces in England and Wales, with a much higher figure when including unreported rapes and UK wide figures. I don't see you scrambling to create an article for each case. This proves that this article has always been about the immigrant Muslim side. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      We cover the rapes which pass WP:GNG. R v Evans: Ched Evans is not a Muslim, but an international footballer, whose case also involved controversy on intoxication and consent. I guarantee that 99% of rapes by "normal" people of any colour were not covered as much as Evans'. Strawman burned. '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      AFD referred to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqas Ahmed. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Technically, the disruptive article move is the equivalent of article blanking while under AfD. Shame. Shame.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Keep Sustained press coverage and impact make this article more than a news item. Dimadick ( talk) 15:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Keep: We're not here to right great wrongs about what crimes are covered extensively in political debate. This one was. Should we delete the Delhi gang rape, because rapes are also done by white people? Or is there no room for the "I'm the real victim card" when the woman who was raped was also from South Asia? Ridiculous logic. '''tAD''' ( talk) 22:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Can you imagine the uproar if I AFD'd Alan Kurdi, saying
        • " WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:GNG. An utterly horrendous death, no lasting significance. An encyclopaedia cannot cover every child drowning even if it is *gasp* a "refugee" (your scaremarks on "illegal" suggested you were considering Ahmed to be the persecuted victim, when he was in fact a criminal in many ways; this is as bad as doubting whether someone is a legitimate refugee). As (insert name here) most eloquently wrote on the previous discussion "Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a non-white person went through hardship"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it?" Spot on"."
        • — the exact point the rape on Paros is notable is because the island is taking in migrants, making it a political issue when it turns out that unscreened people aren't all wonderful people. While kids drown every single day, Alan Kurdi is notable because his death became a political issue because it was part of the migration crisis. Bloody hell, trying to point to a rapist as the victimised one, critical theory has reached critical mass '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
        • May I also point to the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. Of all the rapes in Japan, was this one just chosen to fit a "America did something wrong" agenda, or is it because it had an actual socio-political effect over whether an island should still house Americans? Like that, this article is notable for a socio-political effect about whether an island should still house migrants. We're not here to "right great wrongs". '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      User:The Almightey Drill, I am not going to dignify your disgusting outburst. I will simply say I take extreme exception to your comments suggesting I am an apologist for rapists, which are a most serious violation of WP:NPA AusLondonder ( talk) 05:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Further see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide regarding the POV-Pushing of this editor and the false nature of their smears. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      That's it mate, no rebuttals, just "wow...I can't even". Your main reason for nominating this was a straw man that there aren't articles on other rapes, but there are per WP:GNG '''tAD''' ( talk) 06:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      AusLondoner when you assert "this article has always been about the immigrant Muslim side", nominate it for deletion on the flimsy WP:OSE assertion that "encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant." And do it in the course of simultaneously nomination for deletion, an article about an Islamist terrorist attack, and an article about a SeaGlass Carousel created by an editor who worked on the other two articles. It is not unreasonable to surmise that your are targeting editors and material giving attention to crimes that, yes, were committed by Muslims. I and other editors think that the standard by which crimes should be judged is WP:GNG. As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015 I'm all about sources. If the topic is well-supported, it stays. Even when, as with Jeremy Corbyn, I , personally, do not like his politics. You are not required to write articles about Islamist gunmen who lay in ambush to murder any Jewish family that happens to drive past. Or about a brutal rape on a Greek island. You are obliged, WP:BEFORE starting an AFD. Likewise, while you are not obliged to work at AFD, when you do, your are obliged to give policy-based reasons and when offering an opinion on deletion, to go by the sources, not by whether you find the article politically congenial E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      I'd also like to point out, on political terms, that the situation fluctuates like a weather-vane depending on the article. Zeiter died at the hands of Israeli agents at a border crossing. Shittabey was attacked by Irish criminal thugs. Goforth's victimization is largely unclear, perhaps having no cause other than that some anti-cop psychopath felt like hurting someone. Chin seems to have run into anti-Asian racists. You can make of each thing whatever you want ideologically. The point is notability. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      Baldahar, Bangladesh

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

      I'm unable to find sources that mention this place besides census books. There are also websites that provides the coordinates of this place like 24°52'0" N 89°7'60" E from getamap.net but it's not in the center of Bangladesh. From the original version, the now-blocked author of this article said it's "possibly the location of Sodom from the Bible." Don't know about ancient cities being two centuries old today. TheGGoose ( talk) 00:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep.  Sandstein  17:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

      2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush

      2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      WP:NOTNEWS. The matters relating to the Arab Bank belong in the Bank article, which already has a significant amount of coverage of such matters. A relatively minor incident in the Palestine-Israel conflict. No lasting significance. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

      • Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Which relates to the Arab Bank angle, best included in the Arab Bank article. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      You seem confused (again). I didn't "back down" on any PROD. As I have said to you countless times, I did not WP:PROD the carousel article. I placed a WP:SPEEDY tag which was removed without explanation by another editor, not me, as the page history makes clear. I will certainly not withdraw this or the Paros rape article AFD's. I understand why you wish for me to withdraw the AFD from the Paros article, as, putting aside your disruptive behaviour at the previous AFD, the article would have been deleted. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Keep, as User:CoffeeWithMarkets states, this was a terrorist attack that was widely covered when it occurred, that has had ongoing coverage in the years since it occurred (now well over a decade) and that has played a widely-covered role in a series of law suits impacting international banking. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Merge to Arab Bank - As usual, existence is not notability, and not every terrorist attack is notable. There is nothing stated in the article claiming, for example, retaliatory action by the IDF or settlers or whomever, nor is it shown to be referenced in other attacks (both of which would show longer-term impact). What I do see, however is a long-term lawsuit, but it's not against the Israeli government, the Palestinian government, Hamas, or anyone who could be considered directly involved; it's a suit against the Arab Bank, and that's the notable and long-term part, as it's been in court for over a decade and recently settled. Therefore, the notability isn't separable from the lawsuit, and it's also not the only one against the bank for terrorism. Therefore, this would be much better suited as its own heading in Arab Bank incorporating all pertinent material from here. That is SOP for articles that aren't really standalone notable. MSJapan ( talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      As requested by MSJapan, I have now added the immediate IDF response to this attack, which was the killing of the senior Hamas militant commander in the area. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Also at MSJapan's prompt, I sourced multiple reliable newspapers describing this murder as a disruption og Colin Powell's peacemaking negotiations. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      I'm still not seeing anything that would go against WP:WITHIN. More sources from newspapers in the same week is still WP:NOTNEWS, and doesn't establish notability, especially because it is not necessary to use four separate sources for one sentence. The overcitation alone diminishes the credibility of the article, like "it's got to be notable because it was in 109 newspapers." Notability is not established on quantity of sources in the short-term. Not everything needs an article, and this is a paragraph's worth of content, regardless of how many sources you find that repeat the same information. Notability is not inherited; Powell was in Israel at the time, and this incident didn't "disrupt the peace process" in 2003, because in hindsight, Powell was actually trying to get support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Whatever "peace process" was going on didn't get to the release of the Road Map for Peace until six months later, and it failed. The lasting effect is still the lawsuit coverage, and that really belongs at the bank because there were 49 other parties in the suit, not just these victims. This is one piece of a much larger story, and it needs its context. MSJapan ( talk) 22:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      By the way, adding articles to other articles doesn't automatically make them notable by being linked. There's probably going to be a real question at that article whether this incident mattered in the long-term, but I've at least fixed it so June 20 doesn't happen before May 18. MSJapan ( talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Enduring notability is not required for an article to pass WP:GNG. Although teh enduring impact of this terrorist attack contributes to its notability, notability is not temporary WP:N#TEMP, As demonstrated in article, this incident was notable in 2003. And that is sufficient. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Note The event was notable at the time it happened, according to major international newspapers that:
      1. covered it in detail
      2. wrote that it had an impact on the peace process underway at the time it happened
      It has continued to be notable since then in part because of the series of lawsuits, and in part as a human interest story about the impact of terrorism on individual lives.
      Rolling into the Arab Bank would not only give this particular terrorist attack undue weight in that article, it would be problematic because the Goldsteins have been parties to several lawsuits against banks accused of enabling terrorism by transferring funds to terrorists. It is more logical (and quite normal WP practice) to have this discrete article about this particular attack, and allow other article to link here for the details of this particular ambush of a civilian vehicle by a terrorist organization. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      If there's undue weight for something to be included in another article, a standalone article is certainly even more so, because it means that the event was notable. The notability keeps rolling back to the subsequent lawsuit, and thus to the bank. The 2003 coverage, limited to one month) is textbook NOTNEWS. There's also only one real contemporary source that says this evvent "disrupted the peace process", and that process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event. In fact, this was only one of several attacks in the same relative timeframe according to the roadmap article. This attack wasn't even mentioned in the roadmap article until you put it there. MSJapan ( talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      I have also removed all citations regarding Qawasmeh. The first Haaretz source said he was being looked for for two years previously, and did not link him to this attack, so that action was not related to this incident and the Israeli media didn't say so either. Four sources to cite this item is also COATRACK. Speaking of UNDUE, I have also tagged the "disruptive to peace" sources as unverified, as in no source does it indicate this is this attack alone cited - there were a series of incidents, and three or four are mentioned. The interpretation seems to be that of the reporter, not the government. Powell urged peace in the wake of several incidents, not just this one. MSJapan ( talk) 03:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      Caution, MSJapan, about removing relevant material during SFD, and while claiming that an incident is not noteworthy. Replaced Qawasmeh material. The articles on this targeted assassination of Qawasmeh. who was the Hamas terrorism commanded in the Judean Hills/Hebron area at the time of this murderous ambush discuss the ambush in which Tzvi Goldstein was killed and other injured as part of the increase in Hamas capacity, will, and intention to commit acts of terrorism in this region which led to the decision to designate him for assassination. I try to report what sources say, not to base my editing on my personal opinion that "process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event," as MSJapan does above. Moreover, News articles in Haaretz the Philadelphia Inquirer and other reputable papers are not merely the "reporter's" "interpretation" , thees papers have editorial processes and reporters have to back their assertions up with sufficient evidence to satisfy editors. Not a perfect process, but the best we've got. So, let's try to keep relevant articles on the page and rely on them - mot our personal opinions - to record the events as they happened and were responded to in 2003. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      You want to caution me, I've got a whole ANI thread where you can go say whatever you want in your defense. Make the case that the material's relevant, if you want. No one else seems to think so. MSJapan ( talk) 17:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_31&oldid=1142626574"

      Videos

      Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

      Websites

      Google | Yahoo | Bing

      Encyclopedia

      Google | Yahoo | Bing

      Facebook




      Top Of Page

      Home • Search • Translate

      © CSE