Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 July 6 July >

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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Gon' E-Choo! (video game)

Gon' E-Choo! (video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to establish notability. Game lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) The1337gamer ( talk) 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

What more sources do you think are needed? Examples? Jsaiya ( talk) 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The problem at the moment is establishing notability. That source, along with the one on the article aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It would be more appropriate for you to improve the article in the Draft namespace in case this is an example of WP:TOOSOON. Then it can be reviewed and submitted later. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
That Italian site looks like a blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. We should only revisit this once the game is covered by vetted video game sources. –  czar 00:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

ASIQUAL

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

Wholly advertismal, reads like a press release and plenty of time has been given to fix it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) MJ94 ( talk) 07:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Port City International University

Port City International 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)

No context, although much time has been given to provide it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability seems to have been established. The original author of the article at one time retracted his deletion request, under the condition that his version be kept, but it has been pointed out that that is contrary to WP:OWN. It shows that the G7 request was not made "in good faith" as the guideline requires, but was done to get the upper hand in an edit war. Please take the content dispute to the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

John F. Harvey

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

Courtesy nomination on behalf of User:Hoestermann, who has attempted to have the page speedy deleted. The text of his request follows:

The "editors", particularly User:Roscelese, have changed the text to such an extent that it appears that certain ideological positions have been imposed on the original content. I am not a specific admirer of the subject, but I am well versed enough in Catholic theology, and the temperament of Fr. Harvey, to know that neither the Church, the memory of Fr. Harvey, nor the public at large, would be served by the words, expressions, and terms contained in the "edited" content. I am the sole author. By Wikipedia rules, i have the right to have the page deleted. Thank you. Hoestermann 22:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

At this time, I do not express an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article; my nomination is procedural to open up a discussion on whether the article merits retention, as Hoestermann feels it does not. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

    • I am the only author. Others were merely "editors". None contributed additional or relevant material. They slashed a whole lot, more than 75% of the original content, then changed a few words here and there. No other person contributed original content. Review edit history and this assertion will be proven. Per criteria for speedy deletion, as the sole author, I have the right to request speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — User:Hoestermann ( talk) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Procedural note User:Hoestermann is, as far as I can tell, indeed the "only or substantially the only" author, and should he desire to do so, no AfD is needed, he may simply affix {{ Db-g7}} to the page.
I think this would be a shame since the subject appears to be notable, and the article has taken considerable effort. Disagreements over content could be resolved at the talk page, and a sensible solution found. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC). reply
    • Just to summarize on certain objectionable edits on original article.
  1. Roscelese keeps reverting to LGBT language. The Catholic Church admits to no identity politics. Neither did Fr. Harvey. The Catholic Church uses the terms "homosexual" and "same-sex attraction." Of the two, Courage International prefers the latter. The principle behind this? That the person is not solely defined by his sexuality, but that he is a complex, independent creature made in the image and likeness of God, and deserving of care and affection just as all men and women are. (Before you get into a conniption on my usage of "he" and "his", remember that customary English orthography uses the masculine pronoun as the equivalent of the neuter.)
  2. There is no rule prohibiting the inclusion of journal articles in a Wikipedia page on a person. Roscelese keeps deleting the list of journal and scholarly articles written by Fr. Harvey. Why? Perhaps her comments about the "notability" of the subject reveals a certain prejudice. It's as if she wishes to obliterate the memory of Fr. Harvey, and his work on the moral theology of same-sex attraction. Is she the authority on the Catholic Church's pastoral work on people of same-sex attraction? If not, why does she presume to question the work of Fr. Harvey and of Courage International? Why does she wish the public not to know of the vast writing of Fr. Harvey on the subject? Hoestermann 23:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article that Hoestermann wants to write doesn't seem to be compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I agree with him and Rich that there's nothing preventing the use of G7 here. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Of course you would. What better than not to be "triggered" by topics with which one is not in agreement? See Jean-Pierre Faye's Langages Totalitaires. [2] Reminds me of Kristallnacht and the Taliban eviscerating the Buddhist shrines. Despite sanctimonious encomiums on "netruality" one wonders if certain personal prejudices have not indeed crept into the wholesale deletions. There is a vast difference between quoting a work by a subject and opinions of a writer on the subject. If one were to review the original page, it would be apparent that the writer made no personal opinions. He merely quoted third-party, secondary sources, and words of the subject gathered from his books, articles and interviews. The original text was no more objectionable than those contained in:
  1. Catholic Church on Marriage
  2. Catholic Teachings on Sexual Morality
  3. Catholic Theology of the Body
  4. Courage International
  5. Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
  6. Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination
  7. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
  8. Theology of the Body of John Paul II Hoestermann 04:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The deletions on the John F. Harvey page made by Roscelese were made without regard to this distinction between quoting a work by a subject and the opinions of a writer on the subject. Hence, a commentary on personal prejudices is apt, here in the "talk" space. I would prefer to have the page on Fr. Harvey remain on Wikipedia, but without the noted prejudices imposed, and without the legerdemain with which it was treated by Roscelese. A review of the revision history will reveal that no suggestions to changes were made by Roscelese. Hoestermann 06:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • REDIRECT to Courage International, I guess. Although it is kind of a shame we can not find some sort-of compromise between LGBT-approved and Catholic-approved language here. Maybe an acknowledgment he preferred "same-sex attracted" and others, or critics even, prefer a different terminology. (Some chaste LGBT Catholics do use the terms "lesbian" or "gay" as I'm pretty sure Eve Tushnet does. Others feel that language is too culturally specific or defining by sexuality. Interestingly I read an article on, dang I can't remember now I thought maybe Slate, of some actively gay men not wanting to use the word "gay" because they feel it has cultural or definitional connotations they don't relate to. Terminology is often a matter of debate among many groups and thus a headache here. Like what do you do with people who self-identified as a midget?) The topic of same-sex-attracted or LGBT chaste Catholics has grown a bit, I think the Washington Post had a profile on it, so again a bit of a shame if we can't find a way to speak of it without offending either side.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 08:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Reply to T. Anthony. Thank you for your comments. I'm afraid there is no compromise to be had. Please note the following text which was deleted by Roscelese: [Fr. Harvey asserted] the teaching of the Church that same-sex acts are "intrinsically evil," that same-sex inclination was an "objective disorder," and that "these truths are a fundamental part of the Church's doctrine." If these theologically technical terms seem "pastorally insensitive" . . . they are indeed not, "if they are clearly explained." He adds, "documents from Roman Congregations must use exact language dealing with the issue at hand to the persons for whom they are meant." [1] (Most of the foregoing terms are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and they are liberally quoted in /info/en/?search=Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Overview_in_the_Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church). I might add that nowhere in Catholic teachings does the Church condemn persons with same-sex attraction. In fact, as in all situations, the Church says hate the sin, but love the sinner. Hoestermann 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rev. John F. Harvey, "Response of Courage to the Nugent-Gramick Matter,"Original, July 30, 1999. [1] Retrieved 2015-06-29
  • Speedy delete as a G7. Whilst I think they might be notable, a G7 deletion is valid here IMO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • RETRACTING DELETION REQUEST— If there are no more edits arising out of personal prejudices, I am happy more or less with the version as at 11:50, July 6, 2015‎. Please comment. Hoestermann 11:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Response to Roscelese's comments. No proof given for the above accusations re: "keep adding poor sources, personal commentary and inappropriate language". By "people", a neutral observer can only take it to mean Roscelese. Because no one, but she, has taken an exception the likes of which she has demonstrated by her wholesale deletions. Besides, how, precisely, are the following innocuous phrases describable as having no merit, are tendentious or objectionable?:
  1. "Throughout the years, Fr. Harvey regularly traveled to New York City to meet the Courage group there on Saturdays."
  2. "Fr. Harvey lived at the Wills Hall student residence, with his fellow Oblate priest, Fr. Peter Leonard, O.S.F.S., where they ministered to the pastoral, spiritual and intellectual needs of the students there." (Scroll down in the John F. Harvey revision history. You will see that Roscelese thought that as he lived at the student residence hall, she dismissed him as an "undergraduate". Do the math. Fr. Harvey lived at Wills Hall between the ages of 72 and 92 years. I don't know where she went to college, but where I did, we had RA's. At Catholic universities, they did better — they post priests; the better to guard the moral virtues of students.)
  3. "Fr. Harvey had already been teaching moral theology for 30 years, while also providing spiritual guidance to seminarians and priests struggling with same-sex attraction when, in November 1978 . . ."
  4. "Fr. Harvey was a moral theologian by training and was a student of the teachings of the Church, especially as reflected in the works of Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He wrote more than a dozen books and scores of scholarly articles."
  5. "Christoper Damian states that book Homosexuality and the Catholic Church do not present a comprehensive picture of the Church’s understanding of, and approach to, same sex attraction, for it fails to give due consideration for the statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "the psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
They are factual and are from independent, verifiable sources, which are properly cited and referenced. Please see the most recent John F. Harvey revision history and my "edit summary" explanations. Please also see Talk:John_F._Harvey. I dare say someone has come unhinged. I am waiting for Roscelese to substantiate her accusations. Hoestermann 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AfD is not a place to extend an edit war. Where material is not suitable for inclusion in an article, it is important to explain by example, especially to newer editors, what the reasons are. Conversely there is no value in attacking other editors, established or not, avoid phrases like "do the math" and "someone has come unhinged". As for the language, you both need copious helpings of good faith here, to establish whether these are terms of art, or dated phraseology, and what explanation should be given if they are used. It really needs to be taken one step at a time, on the article talk page. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC). reply
    Use of "Dated" phrasing is often the only way to fairly present scholarship from the past, the porpler approach is to put old-fashioned therms of art in quotations, rephrasing using contemporary terms obscures the nature of arguments form other eras. We may not approve, but the job of encyclopedia writers is to illuminate, not to recast and distort older meanings amnd arguments form another era, as Rosecaleese has attempted to do here.. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am no expert on gender politics, however, since the article claims that "The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care" is a notable work by Harvey, I ran a couple of searches on it and it is obvious that this was a serious work in its era and that it was discussed in a serious way by supporters and critics both. [[User:Roscelese] appears to have political issues with the work (in fact, most of us would with a work of this sort - Harvey's is hardly a popular stand) but editors ought not to politicize AFD. Roscaleese should also be reprimanded, perhaps topic banned, for POV editing of this article, but that is not an issue for AFD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As President of a Seminary for 12 years, I would have thought he was notable. POV editing is a form of vandalism. The culprit should be warned and his/her activities restricted or the article should be edit-protected. If there are RS for the POV, that can be dealt with in a separate section. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

FIIOB

FIIOB (  | 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 general notable guidelines or WP:WEB CutOffTies ( talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep

This should must be kept as of what are my views as this page is about a organization that's even registered under Non-profit org. section of Indian Societies act. So my only request is that, that there are more than a 100,000 people who know about this organization in India and support it too. So this page must be included in here for being quite a famous and money spending organization. There have been several articles published in newspapers about this organization too [1] [2]

No one can now disagree the fact that this has no such significance or its not verified from trusted sources. Realmmb Con. Talk 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ article about FIIOB world cup in indian branch of global daily The Telegraph
  2. ^ article about FIIOB in Indian daily Hindustan Times
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - sources noted above indicate a reasonably significant level of coverage in reliable sources. Article needs expanding to include content from these rather than relying on primary sources. Fenix down ( talk) 07:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Looking at things now I have a bit more time on my hands, those are basically the only sources that I can find that discuss the activities of the organisation in detail. there looked like there were a number of other items, articles such as this and this only mention the organisation tangentially. Fenix down ( talk) 07:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets neither general nor author notability standards in the English Wikipedia project at this point in time. It does not help that Spanish Wikipedia has no entry on this individual either. -- Avi ( talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Enrique Santos Molano

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG; WP:Notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tommy Kool

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

First, from the link and from the talk page post, Tommy Kool refers to a fictional character with the backstory described, not a real person. Second, even if the article were changed to reflect that, I do not believe that said fictional character is notable. There is one review of the production in the Orlando Sentinel, a mention in Timeout [3] but no further coverage. Agtx ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This was originally tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. On a search I found the Orlando Sentinel article so I concluded it was not a hoax and declined speedy, leaving open the possibility of AfD. I cited the reference and then trimmed away about two-thirds of the article - most of the outrageous/unbelievable/uncited biographical claims, as well as the TMI listing of all his podcasts. However, what remains IMO does not meet GNG either as an invented character or as the portrayer of that character. BTW the article was authored by the person himself. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I have modified the lead to make it clearer that Kool is a fictional character. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dungeons & Dragons deities. Any (small amount of) content that would merit to be merged is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 14:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hruggek

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage in independent sources. (All the article's references are to the same publisher's game manuals, and I couldn't locate any significant coverage by third parties.) Psychonaut ( talk) 19:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
as noted above, your suggestion for the merge target is also lacking in third party sources that would establish the larger topic as notable. (and your "keep" !vote is based on what policy?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, there are two such sources for that one, Dicing with Dragons and Heroic Worlds. BOZ ( talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
You mean the book by Lawrence Schick the guy who worked for TSR many many years and is still making royalties on his work for them and the one by Ian Livingstone who led the company that was the official distributor of D&D products in England? - those "independent" sources at the suggested merge target? And those two sources support only 2 sentences out of the entire 41,215 byte article , when We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
What do you mean, "per"? BOZ didn't offer any rationale, policy-based or otherwise, for his !vote. — Psychonaut ( talk) 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; per WP:LISTN, paraphrasing, the individual entries at the list do not have to be independently notable, as long as the general subject grouping is; the two sources pointed out above would discuss the redirect target subject in general. Lawrence Schick only worked for TSR for 3 years, from 1979-1981; since his book was published by an unrelated publisher in 1991, I would consider that to meet the standard for an independent source with respect to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. I would also suggest that since anything Schick designed during his tenure at TSR is long since out of print, it is unlikely he is making any royalties on anything he designed during his 3 years at TSR. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; small amount of material could be retained as brief description. I agree with @ TheRedPenOfDoom: about reliable source support ... but this is endemic among fiction-related articles throughout wikipedia (sigh). Realistically, this is a part of the D&D world, has multiple mentions in in-world materials, and deserves a mention as part of the overall world description - albeit small mention. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. I think Vulcan's Forge makes a good point about Schick's work being enough to qualify as an independent source here. That said, as Ceyockey said in his !vote, the mention should be small. Inks.LWC ( talk) 19:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Belly cast

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

There's plenty of google hits for this, but they're mostly blogs and YouTube videos. The article itself seems like a mix of neologism and how-to essay. Been tagged for reference improvement for three years. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I think notability is debatable, but there is some coverage that might qualify as reliable sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. But I wonder about merging to plaster cast - I don't think this is really more notable than penis casts or casts of other body parts, and the main article could be expanded to be more useful rather than having a lot of little articles. Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Maybe not the most talked about topic over dinner, but it does carry a lot of weight. I simply went to Google books and you can see from this link [10] that it is talked about in numerous books. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 00:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Simon Bass

Simon Bass (  | 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 biography fails to give worthwhile references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact asserted, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage

This is, pretty much, an advert for a borderline notable musician, one who is on the incorrect side of the border. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Erica Frank

Erica Frank (  | 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 real notability, fails WP:GNG, references to her on the web are largely primary sources and M.D. listings or faculty listings. References in the article are primary, unrelated to her professionally, a wedding announcement, and one dead link. Article seems to be written from WP:COI, to boot. Lots of puffery and bloat, nothing that makes the article subject notable or encyclopedia worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC on a number of counts. For some examples, look at the following criteria: 1) her research has made a big impact 2) she has received several prestigious awards from national bodies 5) she holds a university research chair 8) she was co-editor chief of Preventive Medicine from 1994 to 1999. Yes, the references need some work but even from the current sources available, her notability is very clearly established. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 23:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Canada Research Chair is enough for WP:PROF#C5 and enough to convince me that she has been found notable by a body with access to much more detailed information about Frank's contributions than we have. Her top Google scholar citation count is 1276 and she has 14 pubs with over 100 citations each, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And Drchriswilliams makes a strong case for #C8 as well. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF as outlined above. PianoDan ( talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 'The Lancet' offers plenty of primary sources to confirm her notability. Toffanin ( talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Skeg. Obvious consensus to delete article, plausible to redirect to Skeg via the NOAA link. Not a common redirect, but they are free. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bug shoe

Bug shoe (  | 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 sure whether this is a hoax or not, but I can't find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors. Can't find anything on Google Books either. Adam9007 ( talk) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an apologetic withdrawal of the nomination. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

5 Sides of a Coin

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NFILM. I can find only one major review of the film. Everything else seems to be screening announcements or trivial mentions. Jbh Talk 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator
I really messed this one up. I did not even think of Rotten Tomatoes. I will remember it in the future. Four reviews in major papers, even if no longer on line, is more than enough to keep. No point in running out the clock. Jbh Talk 11:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It has four reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and an additional one through Variety, which is enough to keep the movie. I also note that it was listed in this academic text, but that's mostly just an aside. In any case, I get the impression that there was more coverage out there but it has pretty much dropped off of the Internet due to the passage of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Robin L. Hutton

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are primarily advertising for the book - Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. A couple of secondary, but does not seem to be enough to support the article. reddogsix ( talk) 01:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It is borderline. I agree the amazon citations are no good. User talk:jumplike23 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, I put the page together from a suggestion on a list of 'Articles to Start'.

I've replaced most of the Amazon links -I've only kept one for the About the Author information and am working on finding a better source. However, I completely understand that that doesn't address other concerns about the article. Out of curiosity, would adding more information about the different projects she's engaged in to bring awareness to Sergeant Reckless help or would the article still seem not notable? Thank you. ([[User:Filterkaapi71|Filterkaapi71]]&#124[[User talk:Filterkaapi71|t]] )([[User:Filterkaapi71|COI]]) ( talk) 19:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Debapriya Mukhopadhyay

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

Optometrist who appears to lack notability as per WP:ACADEMIC, article also lacks suitable references Drchriswilliams ( talk) 12:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Private railroad car. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Survivor (Railroad Car)

The Survivor (Railroad Car) (  | 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 of notability. The article topic is a single railroad car, which isn't presumptively notable. The Smithsonian article, the only real reference, is more concerned with private car ownership in general and has little to say about the Survivor. The car appears to be a one-off so there's no merge target. The article was proposed for deletion in 2014 but this deletion was declined. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 08:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Others to be put up for deletion/merge include: Juliet (PRR) and Westmoreland (railcar). - Bethayres ( talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Bethayres: I think it is a good to nominate those three railcar articles for deletion. Instead of accusing your fellow wikipedians of needing disproportionate amounts of explanation, it is more fruitful to find further sources that verify the notability of this railcar if you wish this article remains a standalone. AadaamS ( talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Mark MacLeod

Mark MacLeod (  | 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 radio programming consultant with no strong claim of notability under any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules, and no strong reliable sourcing to support it — other than his own self-published résumé on ZoomInfo, all of the "sourcing" here is to the published programming guides of radio stations he was working for, making them primary sources. In addition, there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was originally created by User:Markloud. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist — notability must be demonstrated via the use of reliable, independent sourcing, but that's lacking here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Pino Concialdi

Pino Concialdi (  | 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 artist, sources are blogs and passing mentions. Ref #2 has a bit more coverage, but is an exhibition annoucement without author info. Google search turned up only those references and a few more passing mentions. As the article was created by a confirmed sock, it should be WP:SALTed if the discussion ends with a "Delete". GermanJoe ( talk) 18:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 06:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative delete unless it can somehow be improved with good Italian sources but my searches found nothing aside from this and various browser links. The Italian wiki article was deleted for promotionalism, not exactly for notability per se, but I'll leave to any Italians familiar with this to improve it there and then maybe it can be moved to English. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvement. LibStar ( talk) 02:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Cheng Ho Cultural Museum

Cheng Ho Cultural Museum (  | 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:ORG. Another tiny museum that only gets references as a tourist attraction. If someone wants cite the book "Museums, History and Culture in Malaysia" they better check the book actually refers to this museum rather than recycling AfD arguments LibStar ( talk) 15:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
all it gets is a tiny one line mention. You'll have to demonstrate a lot more coverage than that. LibStar ( talk) 13:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I really wonder if you think people are naive to think a one line statement in a book makes this entity notable. But that's what happens when you go on a keep at all costs spree. LibStar ( talk) 13:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Also found this article from JSTOR about the political dispute underlying the museum's opening (pp. 202-203). Altamel ( talk) 20:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
thanks Atamel for making a genuine effort to find sources. LibStar ( talk) 22:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 15:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Reginald Finger

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

Probably autobiography by Rfinger. The article has no sources other than the subject's personal website. bender235 ( talk) 14:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The references have the subject quoted as a source of opinion -- very particular and political opinion. That doesn't attest to biographical notability. Instead, this makes for a political voice for the cultural right. However, it's not accurate to say that there are no sources. Hithladaeus ( talk) 12:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not notable. A small-scale controversialist whose views have been reported purely as part of discussions of HPV policy. No indication that he himself has done anything of note, and no in-depth coverage of him or his work in reliable sources. Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing to demonstrate notability. This article was created in 2006 after the subject of the article was quoted in the New Yorker. This forms that bulk of the initial version of the article and the initial editing may have been autobiographical. Further edits addd more descriptions of controversial opinions around whether introducing certain vaccines would have an effect on the sexual behaviour on parts of the population. Some of the references and the descriptions of controversy were subsequently edited out in December 2009 by an IP editor (despite attempts to undo the deletions). Most of the other references that I turned up are primary sources. The subject of this article has worked in a number of academic and policy settings. The coverage where his name appears does however seem to revolve around the opinion that he was voicing, on behalf of the faith-based organisations that he had links with. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 12:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - run-of-the-mill university professor and government advisor, article is pure self-promotion (including promotion of his views). Although there are some sources, the subject still fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline. Kraxler ( talk) 17:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - short published opinion statements fail to establish notability. A 1-liner quote is not significant coverage. The rest of the article is just standard biographical information with no specific claim of encyclopedic notability. No other independent in-depth coverage found (just a few additional passing mentions and some self-published information). GermanJoe ( talk) 11:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

TunnelBear

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

Just another virtual private network. Does it establish its notablity? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus per WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Quintana Roo Dunne

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

She has two claims to fame, having notable parents and a notable uncle, and being a main subject in her mother's memoirs. This is inherently all a violation of the rules against inherited notability. There is no evidence that she is notable, and any need to cover her can be achieved in either the article on her father, or on the book that mentions her. She may have a major role in the book, but I think the article on the book is a much better place to discuss her. She was in her late 30s when she died, but the article says nothing about her doing anything in her life. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Gene Fisher

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

Not notable. He won two small tournaments many years ago. Reliable sources have not written about him and thus by definition he is not notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Another inappropriate nomination. The "two small tournaments" are two World Series of Poker championships, and Yahoo Sports for one is a source to sustain notability. 2005 ( talk) 06:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
"championships" -- I guess it is you who added that word to all of these articles. They are called bracelets, not championships. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, two !votes without citing a guideline. Can be speedily renominated, provided nominator does WP:BEFORE. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 18:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bob Ciaffone

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

Not notable. Never even won a bracelet. Nothing in reliable sources. None of this stuff in this article is sourced other than the small tournament cashes from over 25 years ago. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Omak Aviation

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

A totally unnecessary dab page. At best, there's only one Omak Aviation, and that's a defunct flight school that's barely mentioned in passing in Omak Airport, so I doubt that that's even worth a redirect. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments given by the persons !voting "delete" are quite compelling and policy based. The !vote by I.Wont.Give.In, although keep, actually argues against notability, because it suggests that future coverage is needed to establish notability, implying a lack of notability at this point. Randykitty ( talk) 14:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Patty Walters

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial secondary support. "References" consist of Primary sources and YouTube videos. reddogsix ( talk) 03:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Regretfully delete, or at least cut back to a stub. The subject has one good interview, but the writer of this article has decided to pad it out with non-Notable and Original research. I wouldn't rule it out for the future, however. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 03:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Walters is a notable individual, especially because of his work on YouTube. His work as a solo artist is sufficient in that his music YouTube channel has well over 25 million views and 459 thousand subscribers, which has made him featured as a solo artist in various magazines, including a recent an article about him in Popstar!, in addition to the many different articles which have been written about him alone; he was also featured on the cover of Rock Sound Magazine by himself representing As It Is with no other members of his band pictured. Also, the majority of the sources in the article are secondary sources, including web articles from reputable sources and three printed journal articles. A few sources are pages automatically created by YouTube which are used for statistical purposes only. Additionally, only a few of the sources on the article are self-published by Walters, each of which is considered acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines because they are related only to him and mention no outside parties. Additionally, two of the references from YouTube are interviews with Walters, both of which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines.~ Peter Dzubay ( talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I agree it appears there is a desperate attempt to make this notable by piling on more websites that have mentioned this artist. Most that are in external links are really 'iffy' to be here. See WP:ELPEREN. (two for youtube, one facebook, one twitter, one instagram and even tumblr (!!)) We have 36 sources for a barely 'start class' article. That being said, there are some notable press sources. I am a fan of Kerrang. Keep article and trim. I dislike seeing a row of citation numbers after statements. One good one is better than four non-notable sources... Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Wait, Fylbecatulous--you mean this article from Kerrang? But that's one single paragraph with an announcement of the As It Is tour. It offers no in-depth discussion of anything; one could argue that it's nothing but a quote with a headline. In addition, if it adds to notability for anything, it would be for the band, not for our subject. Drmies ( talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Eh...--for now, delete. I'll say "keep" if I see three or four decent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in any kind of depth. I tried looking for good sources, but stuff like this (three paragraphs in an alternative paper), this (two paragraphs and a thousand videos in an online magazine), this (an interview on a blog), and this (another interview on a blog, where the writer managed to write no more than four or five short sentences) just don't cut it. The rest of the plethora of links are just that, links--primary, unreliable, silly. I mean, what is this supposed to add to the article? And what do the six External Links, all to our subject, signify but "fan page"? Drmies ( talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Each source in the article is acceptable to cite for information, though a few may of them not add notability to Walters (but still provide valid information). Firstly, I'd like to point out that there are many sourced articles about Walters from online magazines and newspapers (such as Alternative Press and Kerrang, to name a few) in addition to three different printed journal articles (including articles in Rock Sound and Alternative Press) which are, with no doubt, reputable and acceptable. Each of the few social media sources in the article, though they are not preferred, are considered valid sources per WP:SELFSOURCE, and are used only for things such as his full name, birth date, and quotations. Each interview is an acceptable source per WP:Interviews. Also, the external links simply serve as links to Walters' social media because he has no official website. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk) 4:01, 22 June 2015
    • No it is not. I asked for a few sources; you provide nothing. What you're basically feeding us (in this AfD and the reader of the article) is "it's verified so it should be in here"--including fan chatter like his own announcements about his own work. That it's "his" article so it should get a quotebox with some of his famous dictums is nonsense as well. Mind you, what you did in this edit does not mean the article should be deleted--it just means you show no sense whatsoever of editorial discretion. And let's face it: we're talking about someone who makes videos on YouTube and isn't written up, let alone discussed in significant depth, in reliable sources--it's just chatter in ezines, as far as I can tell, and your downplaying of the amount of "social" and self-sourced content is nothing but fluffery. Whether this article stays or goes, it will be trimmed. Drmies ( talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • There are many valid sources in the article. A few of these I mentioned above by publisher, which are very reputable and are good sources including three printed journal articles (Biddulph, Andy (May 2015). "Reviews". Rock Sound (199): 75., "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., and Richman, Jesse (June 2015). "AP Recommends". Alternative Press 29 (323): 33.) and articles and interviews in reputable online sources (such as this, this and this); the "chatter in ezines" which you mention make up only a few of the sources and are articles which come from reputable publishers and contain the information which is being cited in the article. Also, OnRecordMag and TenEightyMag are valid news sources and not blogs, and other sources which you specifically mentioned, such as this, are legitimate and contain the information that they source in the article. I have taken your suggestions and removed the less reputable sources, sources less focused on Walters, and sources which were part of source lists after certain sentences. Also, to mention one of my edits and say that I "show no sense whatsoever of editorial discretion" is rather ridiculous considering that, first of all, in that edit I specifically explained why I did what I did while linking it to Wikipedia guidelines, and second of all, I only reworked two of the edits that had been made- I had not undone all of them. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk) 23:36, 22 June 2015
      • Well, Wellz Street Journal is just another music blog, as is On Record. You are welcome to take this to WP:RSN and try to establish that we should accept these WordPress-generated blogs without clear editorial policies as reliable sources. The Alternative Press article you linked spends no more than half a sentence on our subject ("and Patty Walters will be doing vocals for the Sunrise Skater Kids songs"). So none of this adds up to notability. Sorry. Drmies ( talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Per Wikipedia:Interviews, both of the interviews which you specifically mentioned are considered acceptable because of the articles' interviewee and subject; there is not any doubt that those interviews were legitimately with Walters. There are also other reliable interviews from which information is drawn such as this one with DSCVR. Also, whether or not articles such as the Alternative Press article that you mentioned go in-depth on Walters or not, the information in the Wikipedia article that is sourced with these is present in them; there is not a single claim made in Walters' article without a source that specifically supports it. In that example, the sentence in the article states that Walters is the vocalist of the satirical rock band Sunrise Skater Kids which that source specifically states. And, again, you are failing to acknowledge the journal articles that I've mentioned (Biddulph, Andy (May 2015). "Reviews". Rock Sound (199): 75., "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., and Richman, Jesse (June 2015). "AP Recommends". Alternative Press 29 (323): 33.), some of the sources which establish notability. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk)
          • This is an AfD. We're talking about notability here, not about whether something can be said to verify some statement or other. The three sources you just mentioned, as far as I can tell they're all about "As It Is" (AP, for instance, recommends As It Is, not Patty Walters), not about Patty Walters--and so this fails WP:BAND quite spectacularly (see the final note in that section). Drmies ( talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Walters is a notable individual; he has done a lot in addition to being the frontman of As It Is. Most significantly, he is a well-established solo artist because of his work on Youtube. Through YouTube, he has generated 25 million views, 460 thousand subscribers, several viral videos, and a large following as an individual. His work as a solo artist has been caused him to be featured in various articles about him alone (such as this one and this one, and the majority of "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., which, while also about As It Is, is focused mostly on Walters' work on YouTube). Additionally outside of As It Is, he is the vocalist in Sunrise Skater Kids and has done things such as collaborating with The Vamps and other YouTube celebrities to raise funds for cancer treatments and co-hosting Transmitter. He does significant work outside of As It Is; he does not fail WP:BAND. Also, while the Rock Sound and Alternative Press articles, unlike the Popstar! article, are focused more on the band than Patty, they specifically discuss his solo work, and this discussion does, in fact, count towards his notability. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk)
              • Well, I could believe this, maybe, if you could give me one of these articles that say this. We've already looked at these two short paragraphs in a zine and these three sentences in an alt paper. We just don't accept stuff like that as significant discussion in reliable (preferably printed) sources. Everything you've provided so far has been either a. unreliable and non-notable; b. incredibly brief and uninformative; c. not about him; or d. all of them at the same time. Not a single article about him in a print journal or magazine? Strange. Or not: since I have come to believe even more strongly that this guy is not notable. Someone please write up As It Is and give the singer's YouTube career three sentences. Drmies ( talk) 00:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
                • You keep referring back to the fact that those two references (out of many) are short which is irrelevant to this discussion; their length has nothing to do with the information that they serve to source in the article.
                • In response to your statements: a. There is not a single source in his article which is not accepted under Wikipedia guidelines; I have specifically explained why the ones which you mentioned above as unreliable are accepted. b. There are various sources which are in-depth, like the journal articles about Walters and his band, the online articles about Walters and his band, and the interviews, all of which are legitimate sources. Also whether or not an article is brief does not matter as long as it contains the information it is used as a reference for. c. The only article that was not directly related to him was about a band that he is a part of and has since been removed.
                • There are articles about him in the journals which I listed; they serve no less as points of notability because they also discuss a band which he is a part of. Additionally, Walters had a printed four page spread about him alone in Kerrang! issue 1564 (Hickie, James (15 April 2015). "Will the Real Patty Walters Please Speak Up?". Kerrang! (1564): 25.) which discusses his career and his life in-depth.
                • His YouTube career should not be compressed into "three sentences" and thrown into his band's article as you have suggested because it would be irrelevant; Walters' life outside of his band is just that: outside of his band. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\  talk / 06:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Due to the fact of his youtube popularity, rising notableness of his band, and valid sources we have of him I say keep for now. But if he drops of the face of the earth and only does his band and never returns to youtube then we might need to re-open this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Wont.Give.In ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pegasus Award. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ohio Valley Filk Fest

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

Seemingly NN gathering of filkers. The Dissident Aggressor 07:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton ( talk) 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tahera Ahmad

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

Trivial event. NOT NEWs DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

User:DGG, I'm not sure you did the due diligence on this one.
Those cover the range of 2011-2015 aside from the coke can incident. She's been featured on public tv,radio and print. She's been cited as the first female reader of the quran in public at the largest american muslim convention. She was also honored at the white house during woman history month in 2014. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 09:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

FYI I am intending on coming back to fix this up a bit. I had previously left messages on a few places enlisting help to improve it but it was mostly ignored. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 10:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: (Per my talk page comment) She's not notable in the least and neither is that coke can event. The notability guideline stresses that events must have some lasting historical impact. There was some buzz in the media, the airline apologized, and the story faded. -- Veggies ( talk) 14:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Veggies You are fixating on that one event, above I show additional ones prior to that event for SEVERAL years. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I found what appear to be two seperate times she was featured on public tv, [ [21]] Is from New Hampshire Public Tv and [ [22]] is from PBS. If you take the time they are both different times she has been featured for reasons of her faith. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
As I said, she isn't notable. She hasn't received substantial secondary-source coverage nor has she been recognized for some historic contribution. Not sure what your reasoning is, here. -- Veggies ( talk) 15:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The event at ISNA was a first for America thus it would be historic. I would like to ask specifically where the guidelines say that their impact has to be historic. I've shown she was featured in a tv series on national tv, I can show she has at least 10 articles above she is either featured in or used as an expert. She's been featured in print, radio, tv and online and not for a flash in the pan time, but 4+ years. A couple of those links above like the womens voices one and one other which title escapes me also describes her activites in reciting it "ground breaking" Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 16:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:PEOPLE is where the guidelines are. Not everyone who is mentioned in an article or has their face on TV is notable. -- Veggies ( talk) 19:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
User:CorporateM thank you for that, I believe we actually have an account by that name in the article history whether that was her is anybodies guess. I personally don't think a page just about the incident is nec. She is notable for other things too and I think the coke can incident as an article would be a little WP:UNDUE. She does not have Michael Jackson intense coverage but she has been in the paper or other media across the country so I thought it would count as "significant" Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the list of links provided by Hell in a Bucket comes down to dead links, primary sources, blogs and trivial mentions. Plus a run-of-the-mill "discrimination incident" the coverage of which has petered out long ago. She's certainly struggling to get some attention, but did not attain notability yet. Kraxler ( talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Links # 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are either dead (error message) or removed content (not anymore available). Kraxler ( talk) 20:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Richard Young (actor)

Richard Young (actor) (  | 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. He's had many small roles, but there are no reliable sources to base this article on, and he's never had a major role. The closest, I think, was a recurring role on a short-lived NBC soap opera. Pburka ( talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Reviewing my previous PROD, I forgot that he did star in Eye of the Widow. I still don't think this is sufficient, though. Pburka ( talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Incredibly weak keep. His part in the opening of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is really memorable, plus he got fifth billing in An Innocent Man. Throw in some minor roles in major films and starring roles in minor ones, and I think he may just barely squeak by. Then again, it wouldn't pain me too much if this was deleted. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluveitie. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Merlin Sutter

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

Musician with little notability to be found. Either a delete or a redirect to the band would be the best. (was not sure to do a afd or a prod but went with this in the end) Wgolf ( talk) 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

2014 Cavan Senior Football Championship

2014 Cavan Senior Football Championship (  | 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 sporting event. Per the lead, this is a preliminary contest several layers below national championships. Nominating as a test balloon, will likely nominate other similar articles in the category Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

PANDEAN diet

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

I couldn't establish that this is a WP:NOTABLE product Boleyn ( talk) 11:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the three links in the article are dead, web searches turn up links to pet food sites, no independent coverage. Fails WP;GNG. Kraxler ( talk) 20:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most likely spam. (Ironically, Spam sounds like the exact opposite of what this diet claims.) I could find no published information about this supposed diet anywhere. Searching Google finds one pet food company (the same one which is the source of the dead links in the article). Nothing at all at Google News, Books, or Scholar. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. overall consensus is ot keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 05:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Kidd (rapper)

Kidd (rapper) (  | 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: insufficiently notable musician Quis separabit? 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Heraldry in Sub-Saharan Africa

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

OR, unreferenced for 6 years, nothing encyclopedic Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 07:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: "Heraldry" relates to the medieval European convention of nobility in the courts of Europe. Sub-Saharan Africa did not have European courts in the medieval and early Renaissance periods. That European families are there now is undoubtable, but that's "family crests and heraldry used by Europeans in Sub-Saharan Africa." If you mean flags and signals used by kings of any sort, then that's not "heraldry." Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Heraldry is not only about "medieval European convention of nobility in the courts of Europe" and "medieval and early Renaissance periods" but is in use today. Even if it was introduced by European colonialists, it is still heraldry, is it not? What is this if not heraldry? [25] KiwikiKiWi ( talk) 09:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Then your subject is just plain heraldry used by families in sub-Saharan Africa. That means you're forking either for a genealogical purpose or to redefine the concept to cover flags and tribal markings. The former is not allowed by policy, and the latter is an unattested neologism. Is there something unique about the way European families in the sub-Saharan region perform heraldry? Hithladaeus ( talk) 13:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article is a definition rather than an encyclopedia article, and it's an incorrect definition at that, as it defines heraldry as tribal and ethnic markings and flags. It otherwise suggests that coats of arms for sub-Saharan families are distinct from general coats of arms. No indications of notability, references lacking, and improper focus. Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Whether we need an article (why "Sub-Saharan Africa" rather than just "Africa"?) of this scope is (perhaps) debatable but the article, as it stands, is hardly even a stub and actually not better than nothing. It would not make it through the WP:AFC process and, as the proposer noted, is uncited and devoid of any facts whatsoever. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - unsourced, no indication of any possible content related to the subject of the supposed article, just a vague definition of heraldry connected to a random vague geographical location. Kraxler ( talk) 20:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not too impressed by the arguments that Heraldry specifically refers to something that happens (happened?) in Europe. For all I know, that may be true, but if so, it simply means the article needs a better title. Maybe Tribal symbols in Sub-Sahara Africa?. But, the bottom line, there's no real article here. It's a cross between a six year old stub and a dictdef. If somebody really wants to write on this subject, they can always create a new article (perhaps under a better title). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 15:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Deepan Budlakoti

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

WP:BLP of a person who, as sad and unfortunate as the story is, has not been adequately referenced to enough reliable sourcing to earn a BLP on Wikipedia. There are just two sources here (#4 and #9) which pass muster as reliable sourcing — the other sources are the website of an activist campaign with an inherent conflict of interest, a discussion forum which doesn't count as a reliable source, a newspaper's editorial (which is not the same thing as neutral coverage in the news section), or primary source confirmation of the texts of relevant documents (e.g. citizenship law, human rights declarations) which fails to actually constitute coverage of him. Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations database to help activist groups publicize their campaigns, worthy though they may be — the level of reliable source coverage which is specifically about him is simply not sufficient to make him an appropriate encyclopedia topic (and even if better sourcing can actually be shown to exist, the article would still need to be significantly rewritten from where it is now.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing about Budlakoti or the sources passes notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Budlakoti v Canada 2014 FC 855 2015 FCA 139 is notable because, as a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, it satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal are binding on the Federal Court: [26] [27]. Indeed, a case can only get to the Federal Court of Appeal if the judge of the lower court certifies that the case raises a question of general importance: [28]. A search for "Budlakoti v Canada" brings up a report of the case in the Law Times and coverage from Queen's University.
  • Comments. (1) Whether a newspaper's editorial is neutral does not affect its reliability. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to report relevant opinions as well as facts. (2) The CCLA reference in the article is a deadlink, but he is mentioned on their website here. (3) I am not sure what the nominator means by "an inherent conflict of interests". WP:COI is a behavioural guideline for editors. It has nothing to do with the independence or reliability of sources and has, therefore, no effect on notability. Independence is not neutrality. Simply having an opinion and expressing it publicly doesn't affect the independence of a source. I don't think that expressing it in a letter to the relevant minister affects it either, as I don't see much difference between expressing it there and expressing it in a newspaper for all to read. Representing him in a complaint to the UN Human Rights Commission might have an effect if it involves taking instructions from him, or the like, but it isn't "inherent". I can't see anything like that on the Amnesty International site.
  • Keep. I think the coverage in the news sources in the article, and in the fifty or so sources in GNews and Highbeam, and the other sources, satisfy GNG. Note that this is sustained coverage over a number of years. We might want to rework the article so that it is specifically about the dispute over his nationality. James500 ( talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for the subject: It meets WP:BASIC; there is a lot of coverage. WP:BLP1E may apply; however the case (event) is notable: there is a lot of coverage of the case, it is ongoing, it has reached a national audience, and it has raised questions and significant opposition on the Canadian immigration system. Esquivalience t 02:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Strictly speaking, a case (as opposed to a trial) isn't an event. It can be defined as the written memorandum of a dispute. The thing known as the judgement or opinion (these things: [29] [30]) is actually a document or text. Likewise the precedent created by the decision is a rule of law, rather than an event. That is what is primarily meant when one speaks of "Budlakoti v Canada" or any other case. James500 ( talk) 04:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 08:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the case has been going on since 2009, without an end in sight, it has attained national (several metro newspaper stories) and worldwide (Amnesty International) attention, and was subject of several rulings by high courts in Canada, possibly becoming a cause célèbre. Several reliable sources independent of the subject are there. Passes WP:GNG Kraxler ( talk) 14:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ancien Pont Bridge

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

Prod removed with no reason by an inclusionist. Bridges are not inherently notable, and there are insufficient sources to demonstrate GNG is met LibStar ( talk) 13:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a major bridge in the capital of Benin. The main complication in this case is that the bridge is in Francophone Africa and searching the French language sources across the internet isn't especially easy. We have adequate support for the current stub in sources such as this As our role includes that of a gazetteer, there's no case for deletion of this named, historic feature. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
all this source says is that the ancien Pont bridge spans water!! How does that even establish notability, it merely confirms what this bridge does like the vast majority of bridges, span water!! LibStar ( talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm now waiting for the good old WP:PRESERVE to be rolled out in a desperate attempt to cover up the shallowness of this source. LibStar ( talk) 13:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
please list sources that establish notability. Andrew Davidson provided a weak source. LibStar ( talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
a major Benin online newspaper has zero results for Ancien Port. LibStar ( talk) 07:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
major Benin newspaper La Nation (Benin) has nothing on Ancien Port. LibStar ( talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I think that's a flawed search site. The same newspaper has nothing on Obama.-- Oakshade ( talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

highbeam reveals an ancien port in Haiti. LibStar ( talk) 07:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This is the main artery between the two halves of Cotonou, Benin's largest city. It's unfair to claim no sources exist when a developing nation does not have online backlogs in the same way the United States or the United Kingdom do. This might be a case of systemic bias. I did find a French language source that shows only a preview but indicates it was built in 1928 and renovated in 1981. [31]-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't see how that source establishes notability. We wouldn't create an article for a bridge based on a source like that. LibStar ( talk) 04:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
If all people can claim it's a major artery it may be best to merge to Cotonou at best, I don't see how you can justify an article on that sole fact and no signficant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 04:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't be opposed to a merge without prejudice for re-creation if more topic-specific content is written and possibly the Cotonou article becoming too large.-- Oakshade ( talk) 04:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't support keep, but would support merge. LibStar ( talk) 06:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Isa dreams

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

Completing deletion nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The rationale given was

This article should be deleted for 2 reasons:

  1. It lacks notability. Isa dreams (very clumsily named) do not appear to have any real significance to Muslims. A web search appears to show this issue has non-existent notability among Muslims. This article appears to be a case of Christian propagandists telling Muslims they have a belief that they did not know of! (A belief which also, handily, benefits these Christian propagandists.)
  2. The article seriously lacks reliable sources. Looking at the 'Further reading', 'References' and 'External links' sections, the sources used are unreliable, highly biased, Christian propagandist books or websites. The only reliable sources, John C. Lamoreaux, The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002), 4 and The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 335 (reference numbers 3 & 5, respectively) are used to cite information in the article that has nothing to do with Isa dreams themselves; rather they cite info that talks about dreams in Islam generally.
    Also, note that the vast majority of references lack page numbers.

This article is clearly the product of a Christian propagandist using Christian propagandist sources. It also lacks notability for anyone other than these Christian propagandists—who have themselves contrived this issue.--58.106.251.124 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Reyk YO! 13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article needs work and may rely too heavily on biased sources. That said I think there is enough RS coverage to pass GNG. Just because a subject may get more coverage from sources unfriendly to a given group or faith identity doesn't make it non-notable. Also sources from outside of a given religious tradition are not automatically unreliable, though I agree with the nom that some of these do look suspect. This looks like one part legitimate content dispute and one part WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am going to tag it as needing improvement, but I think the topic exists and there is enough out there to warrant coverage in an article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't at all appreciate your implying that i have nominated this article partly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only thing that fired me up to nominate for deletion is because it is patently non-notable and has zero reliable sources where it matters (ie. in relation to dreams about Isa). I could similarly argue that you have ulterior motives for voting for a keep, due to your Orthodox Christian affiliation. You say you "think there is enough RS coverage"; could you please elaborate? Do a Google Books search of the topic and you will find zero reliable source coverage; you may find several books published by lulu.com!-- 58.106.224.138 ( talk) 02:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep- I think a deletion nomination needs to go beyond attacking so-called "Christian propagandists". IMO the sourcing is dubious in places and the article suffers from some WP:NPOV problems, but the sourcing does amount to substantial coverage. A merge would also be possible if a suitable target can be identified. Reyk YO! 07:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The only serious merge target i can think of is Jesus in Islam—assuming the article is kept.-- 58.106.224.138 ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not quite ready to vote delete yet, but to the two editors who said there are reliable sources: what are they? To me it looks like some decent sources were cited for tangential supporting statements, while the main points are sourced to some very BS-looking websites. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 03:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My analysis is the same as Sammy's: There are reliable sources for the first paragraph, which cites the Muslim name for Jesus and the fact that dreams can be regarded as important sources of inspiration or even prophecy by Muslims. But the second paragraph is pure propaganda, sourced to either to books which we can't evaluate since they are offline, but whose titles make clear that they are Christian treatises promoting Muslim conversion (sample: Muslims’ Miraculous Journey to Jesus) or else to promotional Christian websites (sample: This is a thrilling time in our history! This isn’t history past, this is happening right now. Pray to discern your part in this story and He will speak to your heart. You are one of the faces of hope.) As such they cannot be regarded as independent or authoritative, and without them, the article has no significant content. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of any evidence that "Isa dreams" are a concept in Islam, or even that they are notable as a Christian theory of what Muslims dream about. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the concerns above. The first paragraph appears to be synthesis - citing material on the general significance of dreams in Islam to argue that dreams about Isa are of particular importance. The second paragraph is close to propaganda, and should have no place in Wikipedia. We don't cite proselytisers for one faith as reliable commentators on another faith entirely... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even without the disruption from what appears to be puppets of some sort, the arguments put forward for keep are not really based in any policy, and the deletion rationales, particularly of User:ScrapIronIV and User:MelanieN are persuasive. That said, and without singling anyone in particular out, the advice of "don't bite the newbies" is good advice that we should keep in mind, especially in processes like AFD. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Belén Fernández

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

No indication that Fernández is notable. No reliable sources dicsuss her in any detail. The article is heavily based on Fernández' own writings and on opinion pieces. Huon ( talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Fernandez does not meet standards for notability. The majority of references to her work are from small-ish blogs/sites with only a small readership and part of a small circle of freelance journalist types. Moreover, the article was originally created by the subject's mother and earlier versions were thus slanted in the extreme towards self-promotion. More recent versions have been less obvious, but retain a focus on adding entirely unnecessary praise for her work, and adding only a single critique from Pamela Geller in a way clearly designed to discount it's importance. It is clear that Fernande'z mother (User: Tower 1109) cannot hold a neutral position on this article, and she continues to edit in spite of this. Even if her edits were entirely neutral/acceptable, the basis of the article and the reason for its creation is discredited by her connection (not merely close, the closest possible!). Indeed, elsewhere she has noted how she has contacted Fernandez herself vis-a-vis this page (getting a picture). I can't see any real reason for this to remain. Certainly there are other pages for journalists, but they tend to have achieved something particularly notable. This does not apply here. 93.185.230.67 ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Anon — 93.185.230.67 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC). reply
  • ( refactored) Keep Subject is an upcoming journalist who is already listed in WikiProject Women writers and American woman journalists. An influential publishing house brought out her second book to considerable acclaim by renowned left-wing thinkers and writers (see delete history for specifics) and recommended by Truthout and Gawker. The book has been assigned in university courses. She analyzes regularly for influential alternative news outlet, including Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye, among others.Please let us focus on whether subject is notable. Tower1109 ( talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)— Tower1109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Strong Delete Simply writing a book is not a criterion for notability, if it were then wikipedia would have far more pages! Generally speaking, journalists have wikipedia pages when they have achieved something especially notable- not simply criticising another journalist in a book. This would include, for instance, a particularly influential story. Alternatively, people like Friedman are considered notable because of their notoriety if you will. Neither applies in this case. Moreover: please stop trying to distract from the fact that you are the mother of the subject of this article. It is not a minor issue, it is a massive one. Your continued efforts to maintain this page damage wikipedia's efforts towards neutrality. Moreover, the fact that you won't let this discussion go on without you shows the degree to which you cannot be trusted to be neutral. If are truly sure of your position (subject is notable, etc.) then please stop engaging in the debate- because you are mudding it with biased opinions- and hope that other people agree with your perspective. Also, 'second book' is misleading; first book was self-published. 93.185.230.67 ( talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Does not meet notability guidelinesfor either a journalist or author. Article is dependent upon questionable - and even biased - sources. Many are simply opinion pieces and blogs. There is a clear conflict of interest with the main contributor to this article, an editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia. Scr★pIron IV 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • ( refactored) Strong Keep After hours of more reading up on Wiki standards and protocols, I remain convinced that the subject meets WP:Basic: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Subject's work has been lauded by a number of sources and cited as exemplary journalism; some are referenced in the page, others were deleted to accommodate critiques of "self-promotion." Please see history of edits. As for the "editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia," let us heed the the standard of "please don't bite the newbie." Tower1109 ( talk) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Tower1109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
@ Tower1109: You can only !vote once per discussion. Mkdw talk 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete As per wikipedia cited above, this article contains principally only blog links, opinion pieces, and/or lower quality platforms for reference material. Tower 1109 should note the wording of the notability criteria: 'reliable' (blogs/opinion pieces/niche leftists sites are not reliable per se) and 'intellectually independent' (the only sources here are from a small group of left-wing leaning sites/bloggers/etc. that are naturally inclined to cite this kind of material occasionally), as well as 'independent of the subject' (many of these sites have connections with the author in one way or another). There is no evidence of real notability- simply one commercially published book. Please note, again, that Tower1109 is the mother of the subject of the article (note her language: "subject's work has been *lauded*" and other similar biases in her edits. It is relevant that the only page she has edited on wikipedia refers to her daughter. — 146.185.34.131 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Requesting review by Wikipedia administrators of potential sock puppetry WP:SOCK by the only three unsigned users who are editing this page and arguing for its deletion; 141.138.186.38, 93.185.224.196, and 146.185.36.67. All three have IP addresses from Beirut Lebanon and they all use the same tone, language, and arguments. The first 2 addresses have made no other contributions to Wikipedia besides their arguments against the page; the third has contributed to Path Solutions, which has been flagged as an orphan page and overly promotional. Tower1109 ( talk) 15:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Tower1109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I have placed {{ Not a ballot}} at the top of the discussion. I believe the reviewing administrator for this discussion will take these points into consideration. That being said, AFD discussions are not a ballot and the outcome is not based upon popular vote but rather policy based arguments. Mkdw talk 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note The participants of this discussion were unfamiliar with the format in how to sign their comments. I have refactored the discussion for readability and moved their signatures to the end of their comments as per common practice. Mkdw talk 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
P.S. See related report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.185.230.67/Archive. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 City University of Hong Kong. Consensus that the article should not exist and defaulting to a selective merge to City University of Hong Kong. Davewild ( talk) 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Student Residence Of City University Of Hong Kong

Student Residence Of City University Of Hong Kong (  | 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. No encyclopaedic content included, just irrelevant details about what's in the bedrooms and bathrooms. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 11:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 12:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Genetics of infertility

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for scientific journal entries. I dream of horses ( T) @ 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Oxana Kosteniuk

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

Not notable other than being Alexandra Kosteniuk's sister. Article highly unlikely to be substantial Jkmaskell ( talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources except for the FIDE rating. ruwiki doesn't seem to have an article about Oxana Kosteniuk either (which doesn't mean she's not notable, but it would have been a place to find Russian-language sources). QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, all three articles-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bangkok Gunners League

Bangkok Gunners League (  | 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 about a Thai youth association football league organization which fails WP:N. Checks mentioned at WP:BEFORE failed to produce any WP:RS.

Sorry that this has been taken to AfD; the article had been speedied on 20 May, but was re-created the day after, so deletion might not have been uncontroversial. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are league season articles of said competition:

Bangkok Gunners League May/Jun 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 Bangkok Gunners League Sep/Oct (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 09:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 09:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Straits Chinese Jewellery Museum

Straits Chinese Jewellery Museum (  | 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:ORG. Another tiny non notable museum from malacca LibStar ( talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this jewellery museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar ( talk) 15:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This museum is fairly new (2012) but it is easy to find more sources for this particular place such as this or that. As this is a significant cultural institution, we should certainly keep this too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Significant cultural yet not covered in books? Virtualmalaysia is not a reliable source , it's an advertorial site set up to promote the Malaysian tourism industry. LibStar ( talk) 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

and you thought your first post was enough to convince people even though it contained no source relating to the Jewellery museum. LibStar ( talk) 07:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Much more information regarding the museum have been added, especially on its street address, detail exhibition stuffs, architecture information, its chinese name, history of the building & collection, opening hour etc. Now there are 12 reference sources already for the museum, including Malaysia's online newspaper The Star. Bare in mind that this museum is barely 3 years old, not hundreds of years like the Louvre or Forbidden City, of course the legit information regarding the museum is still not that abundant over the Internet. Nevertheless, this museum showcases the culture of the Peranakan Chinese in Malacca and South East Asia in general, which is really an important factor for the region's culture. Chongkian ( talk) 23:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the sources Chongkian added from The Star and South China Morning Post, meets WP:GNG. Altamel ( talk) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Steroidergic

Steroidergic (  | 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 title and subject matter of this article is original research. The term steroidergic (and related terms corticosteroidic, glucocorticoidic, and mineralocorticoidic that are also mentioned in the article) are made up terms not widely used in the scientific literature (see table below; note that the few hits that were found were often written by non-native English language authors or were false positives). In contrast, the terms corticosteroid, glucocorticoid, and mineralocorticoid are widely used and already have articles devoted to each. Adding "ergic" or "ic" to these terms is in analogy to CNS agents such as dopaminergics. However Wikipedia should not invent new terminology through analogy. It should only use terminology found in reliable sources. For a related discussion concerning similarly named navboxes, see this link. Boghog ( talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Term PubMed Google Scholar Google Books
steroidergic no results 5 results 5 results
corticosteroidic no results 43 results [1] 17 results [1]
glucocorticoidic no results 14 results [2] 5 results [2]
mineralocorticoidic no results 1 result 1 result
corticosteroid 361,186 results 524,000 results 4,630 results
glucocorticoid 193,988 results 614,000 results 4,480 results
mineralocorticoid 17,492 results 38,600 results 1,380 results

References

  1. ^ a b Most are false positives, for example inhaled corticosteroid (IC)
  2. ^ a b Most are false positives, for example glucocorticoid (IC50)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Good point. The "Steroidergics" navbox in the uses the {{ Navboxes}} templates to combine several other navboxes and this combined navbox is only included in this article. Several of the included navboxes such as {{ Glucocorticoidics}}, {{ Mineralocorticoidics}}, {{ Progestogenics}} are also problematic, but exist independent of this article and hence are a separate issue. Boghog ( talk) 08:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think the navbox-template is an issue. It is a one-off composed navbox in this article, not a separate page in template-space. So it's like a table added to the article. Once this AfD is decided whichever way, no separate action is needed for the navbox, it follows the article. - DePiep ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The names of the component {{ Glucocorticoidics}}, {{ Mineralocorticoidics}}, {{ Progestogenics}} navboxes are definitely an issue but outside the scope of this AfD. The consensus arrived at this discussion is that these templates should be renamed or merged with {{ Glucocorticoids}}, {{ Mineralocorticoids}}, and {{ Progestogens}} respectively. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Boghog ( talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Diasagreement whether this is a case of purely inherited (non-)notability or whether his place in medical history makes him notable.  Sandstein  15:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (  | 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 know I'm going to catch flak for this because the article is about a Kennedy, but... I have to go with WP:INHERITED and WP:1E. His notability lies solely on his parents and he is known for just one thing: being stillborn to his famous parents. Those two factors do cause this article to fail WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per User:Winkelvi reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givenunion ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 July 2015‎ (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E and per WP:NOTNEWS, which states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Patrick isn't noted for anything on his own beyond dying within two days of birth, and notability is not inherited; being a Kennedy does not by itself make someone notable. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If he had indeed been stillborn this might be a different debate, but he was not - as this source and many others (eg. [32] [33] [34]) his premature livebirth and subsequent death "inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care". His appearance in medical literature continues to this day, and indicates a significance beyond simply who his parents were. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Two events: widely covered birth, widely covered subsequent death. But even if we wish to interpret this as a single event, it would still be appropriate to keep this article, per the guidance regarding a "person famous for only one event [who] may be more widely known than the event itself" in BIO1E. We have multiple sources detailing this individual's short life and the impact of his death, more than enough to pass GNG. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject was written of not merely on the occasion of his birth and death, but continues to be written about fifty years later in the New York Times. This will be the fifth time we've resolved here that the subject is notable by WIkipedia standards. Wikipedia would in no way be improved by the removal of this article.- Nunh-huh 15:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
That's an assumption you shouldn't make. You have no idea who will wander into this discussion nor do you know what their understanding of policy will be. Your chastisement is out of order and unwarranted, Everyking. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Per Nikkimaria, I'd also agree to the effect that he was an index case for neonatal illnesses. Bearian ( talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - When you're used in medical research as an index case Gaëtan Dugas i think there's a case for notability. These one event guidelines should have a proclaimer saying "doesn't apply to everything" because this is one of those cases. I am on the other side of the world so i am far from patriotic or something either. There's also TWO events the birth and then subsequent death, you "might" say not every (the) individual is notable in a birth and a death but then we would have to rename the article into Patrick Kennedy's life as that is the event. We don't have Arabella Kennedy as that was one event aka stillborn. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Michig ( talk) 07:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

SCOAP

SCOAP (  | 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 is about a non- notable neuro-hype "model" that forms the basis for various money-making training/coaching programs Jytdog ( talk) 04:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user, who per this has completed the SCOAP training and per this "I want employers to see what my SCOAP Certification and training (delivered by this foundation) means". Editor is a WP:SPA for all things related to SCOAP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of editors who take training courses nor the training courses. Other articles are under consideration for speedy and those that survive, I will add here... reply

SCOAP-Profile (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Since the topic of this page has scientific pretensions, I'm going to treat it as such and recommend deletion. Sources are all affiliated. Browsing the academic search engines and databases by their "cited by" links, I found only two third-party publications that cite any of these sources: one is this book chapter, the other is this book. That's not enough. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For SCOAP-Profile, Merge or delete as an insufficiently notable topic on its own. It seems like a component of SCOAP, an article about the model where the profiling according to the model could be discussed. Therefore, I would support merging to that article if that article survives, or else deleting as a non-notable component of a non-notable parent topic if that article is deleted. DMacks ( talk) 08:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both Vanity pieces by user who wants to promote themselves by promoting their qualification. Fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for reasons noted above.
  • Delete per above. As I noted elsewhere, a Google search of the acronym turns up other more common uses [35], not a strong endorsement for notability here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 ( talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Probably keep SCOAP. and merge in SCOAP profile. It will depend on how many other people have written about it. which will need checking. The article contents itself is not in my opinion promotional--if it turns out the theory is notable. Even if someone with promotional intend write a descriptive article on something impt, the article should be kept, the the intent when --as here -- it can be proven can be a factor to consider. At AfD we judge articles, not authors. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. Agree with DGG that article is not written in a promotional way, but I could not find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. Also not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rika Kishida

Rika Kishida (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TallCorgi ( talk) 04:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TallCorgi ( talk) 04:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails all three points of WP:NACTOR--1) She has a total of four roles listed, and aside from the first one, they are merely guest roles in single episodes. 2) There is no evidence of a significant fandom or cult following, and 3) there is no indication of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions." Moreover, there is no independent coverage indicated per WP:SIGCOV; sources are merely the actress's own webpage and an agency profile. TallCorgi ( talk) 04:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above user is the article creator. An article being on another wiki does not mean that it is retained in English wiki. Each article is discussed separately. Cowlibob ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or preferably redirect to Chojin sentai Jetman as it seems she was a main cast member and her most significant work (only work listed at IMDb) and as for my searches, the best I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nominator, there is no indication she has had multiple major roles or is otherwise notable by the English Wikipedia's standards. — innotata 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - She has not worked in many years, so it may be hard to find internet articles on her, but she's only appeared on six dramatic TV shows, mostly in limited roles ( [36]), so I just don't see the multiple major roles needed to establish notability. Note that the user who created this article has been creating many new articles on actors that appeared in super sentai shows. I fear many are of the same level of notability as this actress. Michitaro ( talk) 12:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Frederik Schram

Frederik Schram (  | 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) 03:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

In-circuit functional tester

In-circuit functional tester (  | 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 considered prodding this, but I'm doing this instead as it's been here for so long. This is an unencyclopaedic essay full of original research. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Page was deleted and then recreated as a redirect to The Californias by RHaworth. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Las Californias Province

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

This article attempts to create a non-existent place name, and runs in parallel competition with the article The Californias (Las Californias). WCCasey ( talk) 01:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyvio ( G12). -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sweere-arse

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The article's source is the only one I can find (in fact, the article seems to have been copied almost straight from it). Adam9007 ( talk) 00:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I declined speedy deletion; the two versions do not seem to me to be a copy-paste or copyvio. The article says the name of a game amongst Scottish school children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins. The source says a game in which two people seated on the ground facing one another with feet pressed against feet, grasp a stick between them and tug so that one tries to pull the other to his feet. Those two versions are certainly different enough for Wikipedia's purposes. However, I favor deletion per this AfD process; the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, with a single source and no indication that the game is notable. In a search I found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ MelanieN:The source I linked says " a sport among Scottish children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and, holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins the game." [38] in para. 3 note (3). It is attributed to C. Mackay Poetry and Humour (1882) p350 rather than C. MacKay A Dictionary of Lowland Scotch (1888). Jbh Talk 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see! The copyvio detector tool led me to the other version and I missed this one. You are right, our article is a copyvio (as well as deserving to fail an AfD) and I will speedy-delete it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Bbb23 per WP:A7, "No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". North America 1000 05:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ojas Godatwar

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

Un-notable actor. Eat me, I'm a red bean ( take a huge bite) 00:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kelton Flinn. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 05:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Air (1977 video game)

Air (1977 video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, or even verifiable. For a "major" title with lasting influence, I'm having an extremely difficult time finding a single reliable source. While this claims that the game is lost, I am unable to verify that this has ever existed. The only source I have thus far been able to find is this, which is hardly confirmation of its existence. With the lack of information (a "major" title would surely have something out there on the internet), I can only conclude that either this game vanished without trace long ago, or it's a hoax. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kelton Flinn. It looks like this article had a reference at one point that was deleted here. I'm unsure why. In any event, the reference (link to actual page of book can be found here). At a minimum, the article doesn't appear to be a hoax. That said, I don't think there's any evidence it passes muster as notable, and given that it's already mentioned in our article on the game's creator, I think we should redirect there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:51, 5 July 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) 12:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Ginseng's logic. (Wish I read their post before independently confirming the page's one citation myself...) Redirects to the company or to Air Warrior's development would also suffice, but it perhaps belongs most in Flinn's history. There does not appear to be much other coverage on the subject, and it can always spin out summary style if need be. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. –  czar 18:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kelton Flinn - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage. Game is sufficiently historically notable to justify redirect to programmer, and additional refs can be added there if found. Dialectric ( talk) 01:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_5&oldid=1142223533"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 July 6 July >

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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Gon' E-Choo! (video game)

Gon' E-Choo! (video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to establish notability. Game lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) The1337gamer ( talk) 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

What more sources do you think are needed? Examples? Jsaiya ( talk) 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The problem at the moment is establishing notability. That source, along with the one on the article aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It would be more appropriate for you to improve the article in the Draft namespace in case this is an example of WP:TOOSOON. Then it can be reviewed and submitted later. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
That Italian site looks like a blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. We should only revisit this once the game is covered by vetted video game sources. –  czar 00:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

ASIQUAL

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

Wholly advertismal, reads like a press release and plenty of time has been given to fix it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) MJ94 ( talk) 07:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Port City International University

Port City International 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)

No context, although much time has been given to provide it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability seems to have been established. The original author of the article at one time retracted his deletion request, under the condition that his version be kept, but it has been pointed out that that is contrary to WP:OWN. It shows that the G7 request was not made "in good faith" as the guideline requires, but was done to get the upper hand in an edit war. Please take the content dispute to the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

John F. Harvey

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

Courtesy nomination on behalf of User:Hoestermann, who has attempted to have the page speedy deleted. The text of his request follows:

The "editors", particularly User:Roscelese, have changed the text to such an extent that it appears that certain ideological positions have been imposed on the original content. I am not a specific admirer of the subject, but I am well versed enough in Catholic theology, and the temperament of Fr. Harvey, to know that neither the Church, the memory of Fr. Harvey, nor the public at large, would be served by the words, expressions, and terms contained in the "edited" content. I am the sole author. By Wikipedia rules, i have the right to have the page deleted. Thank you. Hoestermann 22:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

At this time, I do not express an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article; my nomination is procedural to open up a discussion on whether the article merits retention, as Hoestermann feels it does not. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

    • I am the only author. Others were merely "editors". None contributed additional or relevant material. They slashed a whole lot, more than 75% of the original content, then changed a few words here and there. No other person contributed original content. Review edit history and this assertion will be proven. Per criteria for speedy deletion, as the sole author, I have the right to request speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — User:Hoestermann ( talk) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Procedural note User:Hoestermann is, as far as I can tell, indeed the "only or substantially the only" author, and should he desire to do so, no AfD is needed, he may simply affix {{ Db-g7}} to the page.
I think this would be a shame since the subject appears to be notable, and the article has taken considerable effort. Disagreements over content could be resolved at the talk page, and a sensible solution found. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC). reply
    • Just to summarize on certain objectionable edits on original article.
  1. Roscelese keeps reverting to LGBT language. The Catholic Church admits to no identity politics. Neither did Fr. Harvey. The Catholic Church uses the terms "homosexual" and "same-sex attraction." Of the two, Courage International prefers the latter. The principle behind this? That the person is not solely defined by his sexuality, but that he is a complex, independent creature made in the image and likeness of God, and deserving of care and affection just as all men and women are. (Before you get into a conniption on my usage of "he" and "his", remember that customary English orthography uses the masculine pronoun as the equivalent of the neuter.)
  2. There is no rule prohibiting the inclusion of journal articles in a Wikipedia page on a person. Roscelese keeps deleting the list of journal and scholarly articles written by Fr. Harvey. Why? Perhaps her comments about the "notability" of the subject reveals a certain prejudice. It's as if she wishes to obliterate the memory of Fr. Harvey, and his work on the moral theology of same-sex attraction. Is she the authority on the Catholic Church's pastoral work on people of same-sex attraction? If not, why does she presume to question the work of Fr. Harvey and of Courage International? Why does she wish the public not to know of the vast writing of Fr. Harvey on the subject? Hoestermann 23:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article that Hoestermann wants to write doesn't seem to be compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I agree with him and Rich that there's nothing preventing the use of G7 here. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Of course you would. What better than not to be "triggered" by topics with which one is not in agreement? See Jean-Pierre Faye's Langages Totalitaires. [2] Reminds me of Kristallnacht and the Taliban eviscerating the Buddhist shrines. Despite sanctimonious encomiums on "netruality" one wonders if certain personal prejudices have not indeed crept into the wholesale deletions. There is a vast difference between quoting a work by a subject and opinions of a writer on the subject. If one were to review the original page, it would be apparent that the writer made no personal opinions. He merely quoted third-party, secondary sources, and words of the subject gathered from his books, articles and interviews. The original text was no more objectionable than those contained in:
  1. Catholic Church on Marriage
  2. Catholic Teachings on Sexual Morality
  3. Catholic Theology of the Body
  4. Courage International
  5. Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
  6. Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination
  7. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
  8. Theology of the Body of John Paul II Hoestermann 04:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The deletions on the John F. Harvey page made by Roscelese were made without regard to this distinction between quoting a work by a subject and the opinions of a writer on the subject. Hence, a commentary on personal prejudices is apt, here in the "talk" space. I would prefer to have the page on Fr. Harvey remain on Wikipedia, but without the noted prejudices imposed, and without the legerdemain with which it was treated by Roscelese. A review of the revision history will reveal that no suggestions to changes were made by Roscelese. Hoestermann 06:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • REDIRECT to Courage International, I guess. Although it is kind of a shame we can not find some sort-of compromise between LGBT-approved and Catholic-approved language here. Maybe an acknowledgment he preferred "same-sex attracted" and others, or critics even, prefer a different terminology. (Some chaste LGBT Catholics do use the terms "lesbian" or "gay" as I'm pretty sure Eve Tushnet does. Others feel that language is too culturally specific or defining by sexuality. Interestingly I read an article on, dang I can't remember now I thought maybe Slate, of some actively gay men not wanting to use the word "gay" because they feel it has cultural or definitional connotations they don't relate to. Terminology is often a matter of debate among many groups and thus a headache here. Like what do you do with people who self-identified as a midget?) The topic of same-sex-attracted or LGBT chaste Catholics has grown a bit, I think the Washington Post had a profile on it, so again a bit of a shame if we can't find a way to speak of it without offending either side.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 08:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Reply to T. Anthony. Thank you for your comments. I'm afraid there is no compromise to be had. Please note the following text which was deleted by Roscelese: [Fr. Harvey asserted] the teaching of the Church that same-sex acts are "intrinsically evil," that same-sex inclination was an "objective disorder," and that "these truths are a fundamental part of the Church's doctrine." If these theologically technical terms seem "pastorally insensitive" . . . they are indeed not, "if they are clearly explained." He adds, "documents from Roman Congregations must use exact language dealing with the issue at hand to the persons for whom they are meant." [1] (Most of the foregoing terms are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and they are liberally quoted in /info/en/?search=Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Overview_in_the_Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church). I might add that nowhere in Catholic teachings does the Church condemn persons with same-sex attraction. In fact, as in all situations, the Church says hate the sin, but love the sinner. Hoestermann 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rev. John F. Harvey, "Response of Courage to the Nugent-Gramick Matter,"Original, July 30, 1999. [1] Retrieved 2015-06-29
  • Speedy delete as a G7. Whilst I think they might be notable, a G7 deletion is valid here IMO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • RETRACTING DELETION REQUEST— If there are no more edits arising out of personal prejudices, I am happy more or less with the version as at 11:50, July 6, 2015‎. Please comment. Hoestermann 11:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Response to Roscelese's comments. No proof given for the above accusations re: "keep adding poor sources, personal commentary and inappropriate language". By "people", a neutral observer can only take it to mean Roscelese. Because no one, but she, has taken an exception the likes of which she has demonstrated by her wholesale deletions. Besides, how, precisely, are the following innocuous phrases describable as having no merit, are tendentious or objectionable?:
  1. "Throughout the years, Fr. Harvey regularly traveled to New York City to meet the Courage group there on Saturdays."
  2. "Fr. Harvey lived at the Wills Hall student residence, with his fellow Oblate priest, Fr. Peter Leonard, O.S.F.S., where they ministered to the pastoral, spiritual and intellectual needs of the students there." (Scroll down in the John F. Harvey revision history. You will see that Roscelese thought that as he lived at the student residence hall, she dismissed him as an "undergraduate". Do the math. Fr. Harvey lived at Wills Hall between the ages of 72 and 92 years. I don't know where she went to college, but where I did, we had RA's. At Catholic universities, they did better — they post priests; the better to guard the moral virtues of students.)
  3. "Fr. Harvey had already been teaching moral theology for 30 years, while also providing spiritual guidance to seminarians and priests struggling with same-sex attraction when, in November 1978 . . ."
  4. "Fr. Harvey was a moral theologian by training and was a student of the teachings of the Church, especially as reflected in the works of Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He wrote more than a dozen books and scores of scholarly articles."
  5. "Christoper Damian states that book Homosexuality and the Catholic Church do not present a comprehensive picture of the Church’s understanding of, and approach to, same sex attraction, for it fails to give due consideration for the statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "the psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
They are factual and are from independent, verifiable sources, which are properly cited and referenced. Please see the most recent John F. Harvey revision history and my "edit summary" explanations. Please also see Talk:John_F._Harvey. I dare say someone has come unhinged. I am waiting for Roscelese to substantiate her accusations. Hoestermann 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AfD is not a place to extend an edit war. Where material is not suitable for inclusion in an article, it is important to explain by example, especially to newer editors, what the reasons are. Conversely there is no value in attacking other editors, established or not, avoid phrases like "do the math" and "someone has come unhinged". As for the language, you both need copious helpings of good faith here, to establish whether these are terms of art, or dated phraseology, and what explanation should be given if they are used. It really needs to be taken one step at a time, on the article talk page. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC). reply
    Use of "Dated" phrasing is often the only way to fairly present scholarship from the past, the porpler approach is to put old-fashioned therms of art in quotations, rephrasing using contemporary terms obscures the nature of arguments form other eras. We may not approve, but the job of encyclopedia writers is to illuminate, not to recast and distort older meanings amnd arguments form another era, as Rosecaleese has attempted to do here.. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am no expert on gender politics, however, since the article claims that "The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care" is a notable work by Harvey, I ran a couple of searches on it and it is obvious that this was a serious work in its era and that it was discussed in a serious way by supporters and critics both. [[User:Roscelese] appears to have political issues with the work (in fact, most of us would with a work of this sort - Harvey's is hardly a popular stand) but editors ought not to politicize AFD. Roscaleese should also be reprimanded, perhaps topic banned, for POV editing of this article, but that is not an issue for AFD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As President of a Seminary for 12 years, I would have thought he was notable. POV editing is a form of vandalism. The culprit should be warned and his/her activities restricted or the article should be edit-protected. If there are RS for the POV, that can be dealt with in a separate section. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

FIIOB

FIIOB (  | 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 general notable guidelines or WP:WEB CutOffTies ( talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep

This should must be kept as of what are my views as this page is about a organization that's even registered under Non-profit org. section of Indian Societies act. So my only request is that, that there are more than a 100,000 people who know about this organization in India and support it too. So this page must be included in here for being quite a famous and money spending organization. There have been several articles published in newspapers about this organization too [1] [2]

No one can now disagree the fact that this has no such significance or its not verified from trusted sources. Realmmb Con. Talk 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ article about FIIOB world cup in indian branch of global daily The Telegraph
  2. ^ article about FIIOB in Indian daily Hindustan Times
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - sources noted above indicate a reasonably significant level of coverage in reliable sources. Article needs expanding to include content from these rather than relying on primary sources. Fenix down ( talk) 07:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Looking at things now I have a bit more time on my hands, those are basically the only sources that I can find that discuss the activities of the organisation in detail. there looked like there were a number of other items, articles such as this and this only mention the organisation tangentially. Fenix down ( talk) 07:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets neither general nor author notability standards in the English Wikipedia project at this point in time. It does not help that Spanish Wikipedia has no entry on this individual either. -- Avi ( talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Enrique Santos Molano

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG; WP:Notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tommy Kool

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

First, from the link and from the talk page post, Tommy Kool refers to a fictional character with the backstory described, not a real person. Second, even if the article were changed to reflect that, I do not believe that said fictional character is notable. There is one review of the production in the Orlando Sentinel, a mention in Timeout [3] but no further coverage. Agtx ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This was originally tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. On a search I found the Orlando Sentinel article so I concluded it was not a hoax and declined speedy, leaving open the possibility of AfD. I cited the reference and then trimmed away about two-thirds of the article - most of the outrageous/unbelievable/uncited biographical claims, as well as the TMI listing of all his podcasts. However, what remains IMO does not meet GNG either as an invented character or as the portrayer of that character. BTW the article was authored by the person himself. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I have modified the lead to make it clearer that Kool is a fictional character. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dungeons & Dragons deities. Any (small amount of) content that would merit to be merged is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 14:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hruggek

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage in independent sources. (All the article's references are to the same publisher's game manuals, and I couldn't locate any significant coverage by third parties.) Psychonaut ( talk) 19:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
as noted above, your suggestion for the merge target is also lacking in third party sources that would establish the larger topic as notable. (and your "keep" !vote is based on what policy?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, there are two such sources for that one, Dicing with Dragons and Heroic Worlds. BOZ ( talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
You mean the book by Lawrence Schick the guy who worked for TSR many many years and is still making royalties on his work for them and the one by Ian Livingstone who led the company that was the official distributor of D&D products in England? - those "independent" sources at the suggested merge target? And those two sources support only 2 sentences out of the entire 41,215 byte article , when We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
What do you mean, "per"? BOZ didn't offer any rationale, policy-based or otherwise, for his !vote. — Psychonaut ( talk) 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; per WP:LISTN, paraphrasing, the individual entries at the list do not have to be independently notable, as long as the general subject grouping is; the two sources pointed out above would discuss the redirect target subject in general. Lawrence Schick only worked for TSR for 3 years, from 1979-1981; since his book was published by an unrelated publisher in 1991, I would consider that to meet the standard for an independent source with respect to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. I would also suggest that since anything Schick designed during his tenure at TSR is long since out of print, it is unlikely he is making any royalties on anything he designed during his 3 years at TSR. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; small amount of material could be retained as brief description. I agree with @ TheRedPenOfDoom: about reliable source support ... but this is endemic among fiction-related articles throughout wikipedia (sigh). Realistically, this is a part of the D&D world, has multiple mentions in in-world materials, and deserves a mention as part of the overall world description - albeit small mention. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. I think Vulcan's Forge makes a good point about Schick's work being enough to qualify as an independent source here. That said, as Ceyockey said in his !vote, the mention should be small. Inks.LWC ( talk) 19:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Belly cast

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

There's plenty of google hits for this, but they're mostly blogs and YouTube videos. The article itself seems like a mix of neologism and how-to essay. Been tagged for reference improvement for three years. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I think notability is debatable, but there is some coverage that might qualify as reliable sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. But I wonder about merging to plaster cast - I don't think this is really more notable than penis casts or casts of other body parts, and the main article could be expanded to be more useful rather than having a lot of little articles. Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Maybe not the most talked about topic over dinner, but it does carry a lot of weight. I simply went to Google books and you can see from this link [10] that it is talked about in numerous books. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 00:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Simon Bass

Simon Bass (  | 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 biography fails to give worthwhile references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact asserted, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage

This is, pretty much, an advert for a borderline notable musician, one who is on the incorrect side of the border. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Erica Frank

Erica Frank (  | 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 real notability, fails WP:GNG, references to her on the web are largely primary sources and M.D. listings or faculty listings. References in the article are primary, unrelated to her professionally, a wedding announcement, and one dead link. Article seems to be written from WP:COI, to boot. Lots of puffery and bloat, nothing that makes the article subject notable or encyclopedia worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC on a number of counts. For some examples, look at the following criteria: 1) her research has made a big impact 2) she has received several prestigious awards from national bodies 5) she holds a university research chair 8) she was co-editor chief of Preventive Medicine from 1994 to 1999. Yes, the references need some work but even from the current sources available, her notability is very clearly established. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 23:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Canada Research Chair is enough for WP:PROF#C5 and enough to convince me that she has been found notable by a body with access to much more detailed information about Frank's contributions than we have. Her top Google scholar citation count is 1276 and she has 14 pubs with over 100 citations each, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And Drchriswilliams makes a strong case for #C8 as well. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF as outlined above. PianoDan ( talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 'The Lancet' offers plenty of primary sources to confirm her notability. Toffanin ( talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Skeg. Obvious consensus to delete article, plausible to redirect to Skeg via the NOAA link. Not a common redirect, but they are free. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bug shoe

Bug shoe (  | 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 sure whether this is a hoax or not, but I can't find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors. Can't find anything on Google Books either. Adam9007 ( talk) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an apologetic withdrawal of the nomination. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

5 Sides of a Coin

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NFILM. I can find only one major review of the film. Everything else seems to be screening announcements or trivial mentions. Jbh Talk 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator
I really messed this one up. I did not even think of Rotten Tomatoes. I will remember it in the future. Four reviews in major papers, even if no longer on line, is more than enough to keep. No point in running out the clock. Jbh Talk 11:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It has four reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and an additional one through Variety, which is enough to keep the movie. I also note that it was listed in this academic text, but that's mostly just an aside. In any case, I get the impression that there was more coverage out there but it has pretty much dropped off of the Internet due to the passage of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Robin L. Hutton

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are primarily advertising for the book - Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. A couple of secondary, but does not seem to be enough to support the article. reddogsix ( talk) 01:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It is borderline. I agree the amazon citations are no good. User talk:jumplike23 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, I put the page together from a suggestion on a list of 'Articles to Start'.

I've replaced most of the Amazon links -I've only kept one for the About the Author information and am working on finding a better source. However, I completely understand that that doesn't address other concerns about the article. Out of curiosity, would adding more information about the different projects she's engaged in to bring awareness to Sergeant Reckless help or would the article still seem not notable? Thank you. ([[User:Filterkaapi71|Filterkaapi71]]&#124[[User talk:Filterkaapi71|t]] )([[User:Filterkaapi71|COI]]) ( talk) 19:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Debapriya Mukhopadhyay

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

Optometrist who appears to lack notability as per WP:ACADEMIC, article also lacks suitable references Drchriswilliams ( talk) 12:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Private railroad car. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Survivor (Railroad Car)

The Survivor (Railroad Car) (  | 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 of notability. The article topic is a single railroad car, which isn't presumptively notable. The Smithsonian article, the only real reference, is more concerned with private car ownership in general and has little to say about the Survivor. The car appears to be a one-off so there's no merge target. The article was proposed for deletion in 2014 but this deletion was declined. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 08:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Others to be put up for deletion/merge include: Juliet (PRR) and Westmoreland (railcar). - Bethayres ( talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Bethayres: I think it is a good to nominate those three railcar articles for deletion. Instead of accusing your fellow wikipedians of needing disproportionate amounts of explanation, it is more fruitful to find further sources that verify the notability of this railcar if you wish this article remains a standalone. AadaamS ( talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Mark MacLeod

Mark MacLeod (  | 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 radio programming consultant with no strong claim of notability under any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules, and no strong reliable sourcing to support it — other than his own self-published résumé on ZoomInfo, all of the "sourcing" here is to the published programming guides of radio stations he was working for, making them primary sources. In addition, there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was originally created by User:Markloud. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist — notability must be demonstrated via the use of reliable, independent sourcing, but that's lacking here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Pino Concialdi

Pino Concialdi (  | 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 artist, sources are blogs and passing mentions. Ref #2 has a bit more coverage, but is an exhibition annoucement without author info. Google search turned up only those references and a few more passing mentions. As the article was created by a confirmed sock, it should be WP:SALTed if the discussion ends with a "Delete". GermanJoe ( talk) 18:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 06:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative delete unless it can somehow be improved with good Italian sources but my searches found nothing aside from this and various browser links. The Italian wiki article was deleted for promotionalism, not exactly for notability per se, but I'll leave to any Italians familiar with this to improve it there and then maybe it can be moved to English. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvement. LibStar ( talk) 02:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Cheng Ho Cultural Museum

Cheng Ho Cultural Museum (  | 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:ORG. Another tiny museum that only gets references as a tourist attraction. If someone wants cite the book "Museums, History and Culture in Malaysia" they better check the book actually refers to this museum rather than recycling AfD arguments LibStar ( talk) 15:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
all it gets is a tiny one line mention. You'll have to demonstrate a lot more coverage than that. LibStar ( talk) 13:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I really wonder if you think people are naive to think a one line statement in a book makes this entity notable. But that's what happens when you go on a keep at all costs spree. LibStar ( talk) 13:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Also found this article from JSTOR about the political dispute underlying the museum's opening (pp. 202-203). Altamel ( talk) 20:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
thanks Atamel for making a genuine effort to find sources. LibStar ( talk) 22:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 15:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Reginald Finger

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

Probably autobiography by Rfinger. The article has no sources other than the subject's personal website. bender235 ( talk) 14:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The references have the subject quoted as a source of opinion -- very particular and political opinion. That doesn't attest to biographical notability. Instead, this makes for a political voice for the cultural right. However, it's not accurate to say that there are no sources. Hithladaeus ( talk) 12:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not notable. A small-scale controversialist whose views have been reported purely as part of discussions of HPV policy. No indication that he himself has done anything of note, and no in-depth coverage of him or his work in reliable sources. Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing to demonstrate notability. This article was created in 2006 after the subject of the article was quoted in the New Yorker. This forms that bulk of the initial version of the article and the initial editing may have been autobiographical. Further edits addd more descriptions of controversial opinions around whether introducing certain vaccines would have an effect on the sexual behaviour on parts of the population. Some of the references and the descriptions of controversy were subsequently edited out in December 2009 by an IP editor (despite attempts to undo the deletions). Most of the other references that I turned up are primary sources. The subject of this article has worked in a number of academic and policy settings. The coverage where his name appears does however seem to revolve around the opinion that he was voicing, on behalf of the faith-based organisations that he had links with. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 12:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - run-of-the-mill university professor and government advisor, article is pure self-promotion (including promotion of his views). Although there are some sources, the subject still fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline. Kraxler ( talk) 17:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - short published opinion statements fail to establish notability. A 1-liner quote is not significant coverage. The rest of the article is just standard biographical information with no specific claim of encyclopedic notability. No other independent in-depth coverage found (just a few additional passing mentions and some self-published information). GermanJoe ( talk) 11:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

TunnelBear

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

Just another virtual private network. Does it establish its notablity? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus per WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Quintana Roo Dunne

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

She has two claims to fame, having notable parents and a notable uncle, and being a main subject in her mother's memoirs. This is inherently all a violation of the rules against inherited notability. There is no evidence that she is notable, and any need to cover her can be achieved in either the article on her father, or on the book that mentions her. She may have a major role in the book, but I think the article on the book is a much better place to discuss her. She was in her late 30s when she died, but the article says nothing about her doing anything in her life. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Gene Fisher

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

Not notable. He won two small tournaments many years ago. Reliable sources have not written about him and thus by definition he is not notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Another inappropriate nomination. The "two small tournaments" are two World Series of Poker championships, and Yahoo Sports for one is a source to sustain notability. 2005 ( talk) 06:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
"championships" -- I guess it is you who added that word to all of these articles. They are called bracelets, not championships. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, two !votes without citing a guideline. Can be speedily renominated, provided nominator does WP:BEFORE. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 18:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bob Ciaffone

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

Not notable. Never even won a bracelet. Nothing in reliable sources. None of this stuff in this article is sourced other than the small tournament cashes from over 25 years ago. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Omak Aviation

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

A totally unnecessary dab page. At best, there's only one Omak Aviation, and that's a defunct flight school that's barely mentioned in passing in Omak Airport, so I doubt that that's even worth a redirect. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments given by the persons !voting "delete" are quite compelling and policy based. The !vote by I.Wont.Give.In, although keep, actually argues against notability, because it suggests that future coverage is needed to establish notability, implying a lack of notability at this point. Randykitty ( talk) 14:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Patty Walters

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial secondary support. "References" consist of Primary sources and YouTube videos. reddogsix ( talk) 03:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Regretfully delete, or at least cut back to a stub. The subject has one good interview, but the writer of this article has decided to pad it out with non-Notable and Original research. I wouldn't rule it out for the future, however. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 03:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Walters is a notable individual, especially because of his work on YouTube. His work as a solo artist is sufficient in that his music YouTube channel has well over 25 million views and 459 thousand subscribers, which has made him featured as a solo artist in various magazines, including a recent an article about him in Popstar!, in addition to the many different articles which have been written about him alone; he was also featured on the cover of Rock Sound Magazine by himself representing As It Is with no other members of his band pictured. Also, the majority of the sources in the article are secondary sources, including web articles from reputable sources and three printed journal articles. A few sources are pages automatically created by YouTube which are used for statistical purposes only. Additionally, only a few of the sources on the article are self-published by Walters, each of which is considered acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines because they are related only to him and mention no outside parties. Additionally, two of the references from YouTube are interviews with Walters, both of which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines.~ Peter Dzubay ( talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I agree it appears there is a desperate attempt to make this notable by piling on more websites that have mentioned this artist. Most that are in external links are really 'iffy' to be here. See WP:ELPEREN. (two for youtube, one facebook, one twitter, one instagram and even tumblr (!!)) We have 36 sources for a barely 'start class' article. That being said, there are some notable press sources. I am a fan of Kerrang. Keep article and trim. I dislike seeing a row of citation numbers after statements. One good one is better than four non-notable sources... Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Wait, Fylbecatulous--you mean this article from Kerrang? But that's one single paragraph with an announcement of the As It Is tour. It offers no in-depth discussion of anything; one could argue that it's nothing but a quote with a headline. In addition, if it adds to notability for anything, it would be for the band, not for our subject. Drmies ( talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Eh...--for now, delete. I'll say "keep" if I see three or four decent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in any kind of depth. I tried looking for good sources, but stuff like this (three paragraphs in an alternative paper), this (two paragraphs and a thousand videos in an online magazine), this (an interview on a blog), and this (another interview on a blog, where the writer managed to write no more than four or five short sentences) just don't cut it. The rest of the plethora of links are just that, links--primary, unreliable, silly. I mean, what is this supposed to add to the article? And what do the six External Links, all to our subject, signify but "fan page"? Drmies ( talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Each source in the article is acceptable to cite for information, though a few may of them not add notability to Walters (but still provide valid information). Firstly, I'd like to point out that there are many sourced articles about Walters from online magazines and newspapers (such as Alternative Press and Kerrang, to name a few) in addition to three different printed journal articles (including articles in Rock Sound and Alternative Press) which are, with no doubt, reputable and acceptable. Each of the few social media sources in the article, though they are not preferred, are considered valid sources per WP:SELFSOURCE, and are used only for things such as his full name, birth date, and quotations. Each interview is an acceptable source per WP:Interviews. Also, the external links simply serve as links to Walters' social media because he has no official website. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk) 4:01, 22 June 2015
    • No it is not. I asked for a few sources; you provide nothing. What you're basically feeding us (in this AfD and the reader of the article) is "it's verified so it should be in here"--including fan chatter like his own announcements about his own work. That it's "his" article so it should get a quotebox with some of his famous dictums is nonsense as well. Mind you, what you did in this edit does not mean the article should be deleted--it just means you show no sense whatsoever of editorial discretion. And let's face it: we're talking about someone who makes videos on YouTube and isn't written up, let alone discussed in significant depth, in reliable sources--it's just chatter in ezines, as far as I can tell, and your downplaying of the amount of "social" and self-sourced content is nothing but fluffery. Whether this article stays or goes, it will be trimmed. Drmies ( talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • There are many valid sources in the article. A few of these I mentioned above by publisher, which are very reputable and are good sources including three printed journal articles (Biddulph, Andy (May 2015). "Reviews". Rock Sound (199): 75., "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., and Richman, Jesse (June 2015). "AP Recommends". Alternative Press 29 (323): 33.) and articles and interviews in reputable online sources (such as this, this and this); the "chatter in ezines" which you mention make up only a few of the sources and are articles which come from reputable publishers and contain the information which is being cited in the article. Also, OnRecordMag and TenEightyMag are valid news sources and not blogs, and other sources which you specifically mentioned, such as this, are legitimate and contain the information that they source in the article. I have taken your suggestions and removed the less reputable sources, sources less focused on Walters, and sources which were part of source lists after certain sentences. Also, to mention one of my edits and say that I "show no sense whatsoever of editorial discretion" is rather ridiculous considering that, first of all, in that edit I specifically explained why I did what I did while linking it to Wikipedia guidelines, and second of all, I only reworked two of the edits that had been made- I had not undone all of them. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk) 23:36, 22 June 2015
      • Well, Wellz Street Journal is just another music blog, as is On Record. You are welcome to take this to WP:RSN and try to establish that we should accept these WordPress-generated blogs without clear editorial policies as reliable sources. The Alternative Press article you linked spends no more than half a sentence on our subject ("and Patty Walters will be doing vocals for the Sunrise Skater Kids songs"). So none of this adds up to notability. Sorry. Drmies ( talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Per Wikipedia:Interviews, both of the interviews which you specifically mentioned are considered acceptable because of the articles' interviewee and subject; there is not any doubt that those interviews were legitimately with Walters. There are also other reliable interviews from which information is drawn such as this one with DSCVR. Also, whether or not articles such as the Alternative Press article that you mentioned go in-depth on Walters or not, the information in the Wikipedia article that is sourced with these is present in them; there is not a single claim made in Walters' article without a source that specifically supports it. In that example, the sentence in the article states that Walters is the vocalist of the satirical rock band Sunrise Skater Kids which that source specifically states. And, again, you are failing to acknowledge the journal articles that I've mentioned (Biddulph, Andy (May 2015). "Reviews". Rock Sound (199): 75., "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., and Richman, Jesse (June 2015). "AP Recommends". Alternative Press 29 (323): 33.), some of the sources which establish notability. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk)
          • This is an AfD. We're talking about notability here, not about whether something can be said to verify some statement or other. The three sources you just mentioned, as far as I can tell they're all about "As It Is" (AP, for instance, recommends As It Is, not Patty Walters), not about Patty Walters--and so this fails WP:BAND quite spectacularly (see the final note in that section). Drmies ( talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Walters is a notable individual; he has done a lot in addition to being the frontman of As It Is. Most significantly, he is a well-established solo artist because of his work on Youtube. Through YouTube, he has generated 25 million views, 460 thousand subscribers, several viral videos, and a large following as an individual. His work as a solo artist has been caused him to be featured in various articles about him alone (such as this one and this one, and the majority of "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., which, while also about As It Is, is focused mostly on Walters' work on YouTube). Additionally outside of As It Is, he is the vocalist in Sunrise Skater Kids and has done things such as collaborating with The Vamps and other YouTube celebrities to raise funds for cancer treatments and co-hosting Transmitter. He does significant work outside of As It Is; he does not fail WP:BAND. Also, while the Rock Sound and Alternative Press articles, unlike the Popstar! article, are focused more on the band than Patty, they specifically discuss his solo work, and this discussion does, in fact, count towards his notability. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk)
              • Well, I could believe this, maybe, if you could give me one of these articles that say this. We've already looked at these two short paragraphs in a zine and these three sentences in an alt paper. We just don't accept stuff like that as significant discussion in reliable (preferably printed) sources. Everything you've provided so far has been either a. unreliable and non-notable; b. incredibly brief and uninformative; c. not about him; or d. all of them at the same time. Not a single article about him in a print journal or magazine? Strange. Or not: since I have come to believe even more strongly that this guy is not notable. Someone please write up As It Is and give the singer's YouTube career three sentences. Drmies ( talk) 00:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
                • You keep referring back to the fact that those two references (out of many) are short which is irrelevant to this discussion; their length has nothing to do with the information that they serve to source in the article.
                • In response to your statements: a. There is not a single source in his article which is not accepted under Wikipedia guidelines; I have specifically explained why the ones which you mentioned above as unreliable are accepted. b. There are various sources which are in-depth, like the journal articles about Walters and his band, the online articles about Walters and his band, and the interviews, all of which are legitimate sources. Also whether or not an article is brief does not matter as long as it contains the information it is used as a reference for. c. The only article that was not directly related to him was about a band that he is a part of and has since been removed.
                • There are articles about him in the journals which I listed; they serve no less as points of notability because they also discuss a band which he is a part of. Additionally, Walters had a printed four page spread about him alone in Kerrang! issue 1564 (Hickie, James (15 April 2015). "Will the Real Patty Walters Please Speak Up?". Kerrang! (1564): 25.) which discusses his career and his life in-depth.
                • His YouTube career should not be compressed into "three sentences" and thrown into his band's article as you have suggested because it would be irrelevant; Walters' life outside of his band is just that: outside of his band. ~ Peter Dzubay ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\  talk / 06:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Due to the fact of his youtube popularity, rising notableness of his band, and valid sources we have of him I say keep for now. But if he drops of the face of the earth and only does his band and never returns to youtube then we might need to re-open this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Wont.Give.In ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pegasus Award. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ohio Valley Filk Fest

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

Seemingly NN gathering of filkers. The Dissident Aggressor 07:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton ( talk) 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tahera Ahmad

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

Trivial event. NOT NEWs DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

User:DGG, I'm not sure you did the due diligence on this one.
Those cover the range of 2011-2015 aside from the coke can incident. She's been featured on public tv,radio and print. She's been cited as the first female reader of the quran in public at the largest american muslim convention. She was also honored at the white house during woman history month in 2014. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 09:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

FYI I am intending on coming back to fix this up a bit. I had previously left messages on a few places enlisting help to improve it but it was mostly ignored. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 10:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: (Per my talk page comment) She's not notable in the least and neither is that coke can event. The notability guideline stresses that events must have some lasting historical impact. There was some buzz in the media, the airline apologized, and the story faded. -- Veggies ( talk) 14:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Veggies You are fixating on that one event, above I show additional ones prior to that event for SEVERAL years. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I found what appear to be two seperate times she was featured on public tv, [ [21]] Is from New Hampshire Public Tv and [ [22]] is from PBS. If you take the time they are both different times she has been featured for reasons of her faith. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
As I said, she isn't notable. She hasn't received substantial secondary-source coverage nor has she been recognized for some historic contribution. Not sure what your reasoning is, here. -- Veggies ( talk) 15:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The event at ISNA was a first for America thus it would be historic. I would like to ask specifically where the guidelines say that their impact has to be historic. I've shown she was featured in a tv series on national tv, I can show she has at least 10 articles above she is either featured in or used as an expert. She's been featured in print, radio, tv and online and not for a flash in the pan time, but 4+ years. A couple of those links above like the womens voices one and one other which title escapes me also describes her activites in reciting it "ground breaking" Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 16:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:PEOPLE is where the guidelines are. Not everyone who is mentioned in an article or has their face on TV is notable. -- Veggies ( talk) 19:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
User:CorporateM thank you for that, I believe we actually have an account by that name in the article history whether that was her is anybodies guess. I personally don't think a page just about the incident is nec. She is notable for other things too and I think the coke can incident as an article would be a little WP:UNDUE. She does not have Michael Jackson intense coverage but she has been in the paper or other media across the country so I thought it would count as "significant" Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 15:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the list of links provided by Hell in a Bucket comes down to dead links, primary sources, blogs and trivial mentions. Plus a run-of-the-mill "discrimination incident" the coverage of which has petered out long ago. She's certainly struggling to get some attention, but did not attain notability yet. Kraxler ( talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Links # 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are either dead (error message) or removed content (not anymore available). Kraxler ( talk) 20:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Richard Young (actor)

Richard Young (actor) (  | 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. He's had many small roles, but there are no reliable sources to base this article on, and he's never had a major role. The closest, I think, was a recurring role on a short-lived NBC soap opera. Pburka ( talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Reviewing my previous PROD, I forgot that he did star in Eye of the Widow. I still don't think this is sufficient, though. Pburka ( talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Incredibly weak keep. His part in the opening of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is really memorable, plus he got fifth billing in An Innocent Man. Throw in some minor roles in major films and starring roles in minor ones, and I think he may just barely squeak by. Then again, it wouldn't pain me too much if this was deleted. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluveitie. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Merlin Sutter

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

Musician with little notability to be found. Either a delete or a redirect to the band would be the best. (was not sure to do a afd or a prod but went with this in the end) Wgolf ( talk) 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

2014 Cavan Senior Football Championship

2014 Cavan Senior Football Championship (  | 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 sporting event. Per the lead, this is a preliminary contest several layers below national championships. Nominating as a test balloon, will likely nominate other similar articles in the category Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

PANDEAN diet

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

I couldn't establish that this is a WP:NOTABLE product Boleyn ( talk) 11:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the three links in the article are dead, web searches turn up links to pet food sites, no independent coverage. Fails WP;GNG. Kraxler ( talk) 20:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most likely spam. (Ironically, Spam sounds like the exact opposite of what this diet claims.) I could find no published information about this supposed diet anywhere. Searching Google finds one pet food company (the same one which is the source of the dead links in the article). Nothing at all at Google News, Books, or Scholar. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. overall consensus is ot keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 05:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Kidd (rapper)

Kidd (rapper) (  | 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: insufficiently notable musician Quis separabit? 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Heraldry in Sub-Saharan Africa

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

OR, unreferenced for 6 years, nothing encyclopedic Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 07:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: "Heraldry" relates to the medieval European convention of nobility in the courts of Europe. Sub-Saharan Africa did not have European courts in the medieval and early Renaissance periods. That European families are there now is undoubtable, but that's "family crests and heraldry used by Europeans in Sub-Saharan Africa." If you mean flags and signals used by kings of any sort, then that's not "heraldry." Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Heraldry is not only about "medieval European convention of nobility in the courts of Europe" and "medieval and early Renaissance periods" but is in use today. Even if it was introduced by European colonialists, it is still heraldry, is it not? What is this if not heraldry? [25] KiwikiKiWi ( talk) 09:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Then your subject is just plain heraldry used by families in sub-Saharan Africa. That means you're forking either for a genealogical purpose or to redefine the concept to cover flags and tribal markings. The former is not allowed by policy, and the latter is an unattested neologism. Is there something unique about the way European families in the sub-Saharan region perform heraldry? Hithladaeus ( talk) 13:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article is a definition rather than an encyclopedia article, and it's an incorrect definition at that, as it defines heraldry as tribal and ethnic markings and flags. It otherwise suggests that coats of arms for sub-Saharan families are distinct from general coats of arms. No indications of notability, references lacking, and improper focus. Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 07:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Whether we need an article (why "Sub-Saharan Africa" rather than just "Africa"?) of this scope is (perhaps) debatable but the article, as it stands, is hardly even a stub and actually not better than nothing. It would not make it through the WP:AFC process and, as the proposer noted, is uncited and devoid of any facts whatsoever. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - unsourced, no indication of any possible content related to the subject of the supposed article, just a vague definition of heraldry connected to a random vague geographical location. Kraxler ( talk) 20:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not too impressed by the arguments that Heraldry specifically refers to something that happens (happened?) in Europe. For all I know, that may be true, but if so, it simply means the article needs a better title. Maybe Tribal symbols in Sub-Sahara Africa?. But, the bottom line, there's no real article here. It's a cross between a six year old stub and a dictdef. If somebody really wants to write on this subject, they can always create a new article (perhaps under a better title). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 15:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Deepan Budlakoti

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

WP:BLP of a person who, as sad and unfortunate as the story is, has not been adequately referenced to enough reliable sourcing to earn a BLP on Wikipedia. There are just two sources here (#4 and #9) which pass muster as reliable sourcing — the other sources are the website of an activist campaign with an inherent conflict of interest, a discussion forum which doesn't count as a reliable source, a newspaper's editorial (which is not the same thing as neutral coverage in the news section), or primary source confirmation of the texts of relevant documents (e.g. citizenship law, human rights declarations) which fails to actually constitute coverage of him. Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations database to help activist groups publicize their campaigns, worthy though they may be — the level of reliable source coverage which is specifically about him is simply not sufficient to make him an appropriate encyclopedia topic (and even if better sourcing can actually be shown to exist, the article would still need to be significantly rewritten from where it is now.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing about Budlakoti or the sources passes notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Budlakoti v Canada 2014 FC 855 2015 FCA 139 is notable because, as a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, it satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal are binding on the Federal Court: [26] [27]. Indeed, a case can only get to the Federal Court of Appeal if the judge of the lower court certifies that the case raises a question of general importance: [28]. A search for "Budlakoti v Canada" brings up a report of the case in the Law Times and coverage from Queen's University.
  • Comments. (1) Whether a newspaper's editorial is neutral does not affect its reliability. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to report relevant opinions as well as facts. (2) The CCLA reference in the article is a deadlink, but he is mentioned on their website here. (3) I am not sure what the nominator means by "an inherent conflict of interests". WP:COI is a behavioural guideline for editors. It has nothing to do with the independence or reliability of sources and has, therefore, no effect on notability. Independence is not neutrality. Simply having an opinion and expressing it publicly doesn't affect the independence of a source. I don't think that expressing it in a letter to the relevant minister affects it either, as I don't see much difference between expressing it there and expressing it in a newspaper for all to read. Representing him in a complaint to the UN Human Rights Commission might have an effect if it involves taking instructions from him, or the like, but it isn't "inherent". I can't see anything like that on the Amnesty International site.
  • Keep. I think the coverage in the news sources in the article, and in the fifty or so sources in GNews and Highbeam, and the other sources, satisfy GNG. Note that this is sustained coverage over a number of years. We might want to rework the article so that it is specifically about the dispute over his nationality. James500 ( talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for the subject: It meets WP:BASIC; there is a lot of coverage. WP:BLP1E may apply; however the case (event) is notable: there is a lot of coverage of the case, it is ongoing, it has reached a national audience, and it has raised questions and significant opposition on the Canadian immigration system. Esquivalience t 02:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Strictly speaking, a case (as opposed to a trial) isn't an event. It can be defined as the written memorandum of a dispute. The thing known as the judgement or opinion (these things: [29] [30]) is actually a document or text. Likewise the precedent created by the decision is a rule of law, rather than an event. That is what is primarily meant when one speaks of "Budlakoti v Canada" or any other case. James500 ( talk) 04:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 08:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 14:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the case has been going on since 2009, without an end in sight, it has attained national (several metro newspaper stories) and worldwide (Amnesty International) attention, and was subject of several rulings by high courts in Canada, possibly becoming a cause célèbre. Several reliable sources independent of the subject are there. Passes WP:GNG Kraxler ( talk) 14:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ancien Pont Bridge

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

Prod removed with no reason by an inclusionist. Bridges are not inherently notable, and there are insufficient sources to demonstrate GNG is met LibStar ( talk) 13:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a major bridge in the capital of Benin. The main complication in this case is that the bridge is in Francophone Africa and searching the French language sources across the internet isn't especially easy. We have adequate support for the current stub in sources such as this As our role includes that of a gazetteer, there's no case for deletion of this named, historic feature. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
all this source says is that the ancien Pont bridge spans water!! How does that even establish notability, it merely confirms what this bridge does like the vast majority of bridges, span water!! LibStar ( talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm now waiting for the good old WP:PRESERVE to be rolled out in a desperate attempt to cover up the shallowness of this source. LibStar ( talk) 13:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
please list sources that establish notability. Andrew Davidson provided a weak source. LibStar ( talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
a major Benin online newspaper has zero results for Ancien Port. LibStar ( talk) 07:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
major Benin newspaper La Nation (Benin) has nothing on Ancien Port. LibStar ( talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I think that's a flawed search site. The same newspaper has nothing on Obama.-- Oakshade ( talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

highbeam reveals an ancien port in Haiti. LibStar ( talk) 07:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This is the main artery between the two halves of Cotonou, Benin's largest city. It's unfair to claim no sources exist when a developing nation does not have online backlogs in the same way the United States or the United Kingdom do. This might be a case of systemic bias. I did find a French language source that shows only a preview but indicates it was built in 1928 and renovated in 1981. [31]-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't see how that source establishes notability. We wouldn't create an article for a bridge based on a source like that. LibStar ( talk) 04:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
If all people can claim it's a major artery it may be best to merge to Cotonou at best, I don't see how you can justify an article on that sole fact and no signficant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 04:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't be opposed to a merge without prejudice for re-creation if more topic-specific content is written and possibly the Cotonou article becoming too large.-- Oakshade ( talk) 04:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't support keep, but would support merge. LibStar ( talk) 06:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Isa dreams

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

Completing deletion nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The rationale given was

This article should be deleted for 2 reasons:

  1. It lacks notability. Isa dreams (very clumsily named) do not appear to have any real significance to Muslims. A web search appears to show this issue has non-existent notability among Muslims. This article appears to be a case of Christian propagandists telling Muslims they have a belief that they did not know of! (A belief which also, handily, benefits these Christian propagandists.)
  2. The article seriously lacks reliable sources. Looking at the 'Further reading', 'References' and 'External links' sections, the sources used are unreliable, highly biased, Christian propagandist books or websites. The only reliable sources, John C. Lamoreaux, The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002), 4 and The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 335 (reference numbers 3 & 5, respectively) are used to cite information in the article that has nothing to do with Isa dreams themselves; rather they cite info that talks about dreams in Islam generally.
    Also, note that the vast majority of references lack page numbers.

This article is clearly the product of a Christian propagandist using Christian propagandist sources. It also lacks notability for anyone other than these Christian propagandists—who have themselves contrived this issue.--58.106.251.124 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Reyk YO! 13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article needs work and may rely too heavily on biased sources. That said I think there is enough RS coverage to pass GNG. Just because a subject may get more coverage from sources unfriendly to a given group or faith identity doesn't make it non-notable. Also sources from outside of a given religious tradition are not automatically unreliable, though I agree with the nom that some of these do look suspect. This looks like one part legitimate content dispute and one part WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am going to tag it as needing improvement, but I think the topic exists and there is enough out there to warrant coverage in an article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't at all appreciate your implying that i have nominated this article partly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only thing that fired me up to nominate for deletion is because it is patently non-notable and has zero reliable sources where it matters (ie. in relation to dreams about Isa). I could similarly argue that you have ulterior motives for voting for a keep, due to your Orthodox Christian affiliation. You say you "think there is enough RS coverage"; could you please elaborate? Do a Google Books search of the topic and you will find zero reliable source coverage; you may find several books published by lulu.com!-- 58.106.224.138 ( talk) 02:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep- I think a deletion nomination needs to go beyond attacking so-called "Christian propagandists". IMO the sourcing is dubious in places and the article suffers from some WP:NPOV problems, but the sourcing does amount to substantial coverage. A merge would also be possible if a suitable target can be identified. Reyk YO! 07:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The only serious merge target i can think of is Jesus in Islam—assuming the article is kept.-- 58.106.224.138 ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not quite ready to vote delete yet, but to the two editors who said there are reliable sources: what are they? To me it looks like some decent sources were cited for tangential supporting statements, while the main points are sourced to some very BS-looking websites. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 03:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My analysis is the same as Sammy's: There are reliable sources for the first paragraph, which cites the Muslim name for Jesus and the fact that dreams can be regarded as important sources of inspiration or even prophecy by Muslims. But the second paragraph is pure propaganda, sourced to either to books which we can't evaluate since they are offline, but whose titles make clear that they are Christian treatises promoting Muslim conversion (sample: Muslims’ Miraculous Journey to Jesus) or else to promotional Christian websites (sample: This is a thrilling time in our history! This isn’t history past, this is happening right now. Pray to discern your part in this story and He will speak to your heart. You are one of the faces of hope.) As such they cannot be regarded as independent or authoritative, and without them, the article has no significant content. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of any evidence that "Isa dreams" are a concept in Islam, or even that they are notable as a Christian theory of what Muslims dream about. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the concerns above. The first paragraph appears to be synthesis - citing material on the general significance of dreams in Islam to argue that dreams about Isa are of particular importance. The second paragraph is close to propaganda, and should have no place in Wikipedia. We don't cite proselytisers for one faith as reliable commentators on another faith entirely... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even without the disruption from what appears to be puppets of some sort, the arguments put forward for keep are not really based in any policy, and the deletion rationales, particularly of User:ScrapIronIV and User:MelanieN are persuasive. That said, and without singling anyone in particular out, the advice of "don't bite the newbies" is good advice that we should keep in mind, especially in processes like AFD. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Belén Fernández

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

No indication that Fernández is notable. No reliable sources dicsuss her in any detail. The article is heavily based on Fernández' own writings and on opinion pieces. Huon ( talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Fernandez does not meet standards for notability. The majority of references to her work are from small-ish blogs/sites with only a small readership and part of a small circle of freelance journalist types. Moreover, the article was originally created by the subject's mother and earlier versions were thus slanted in the extreme towards self-promotion. More recent versions have been less obvious, but retain a focus on adding entirely unnecessary praise for her work, and adding only a single critique from Pamela Geller in a way clearly designed to discount it's importance. It is clear that Fernande'z mother (User: Tower 1109) cannot hold a neutral position on this article, and she continues to edit in spite of this. Even if her edits were entirely neutral/acceptable, the basis of the article and the reason for its creation is discredited by her connection (not merely close, the closest possible!). Indeed, elsewhere she has noted how she has contacted Fernandez herself vis-a-vis this page (getting a picture). I can't see any real reason for this to remain. Certainly there are other pages for journalists, but they tend to have achieved something particularly notable. This does not apply here. 93.185.230.67 ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Anon — 93.185.230.67 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC). reply
  • ( refactored) Keep Subject is an upcoming journalist who is already listed in WikiProject Women writers and American woman journalists. An influential publishing house brought out her second book to considerable acclaim by renowned left-wing thinkers and writers (see delete history for specifics) and recommended by Truthout and Gawker. The book has been assigned in university courses. She analyzes regularly for influential alternative news outlet, including Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye, among others.Please let us focus on whether subject is notable. Tower1109 ( talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)— Tower1109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Strong Delete Simply writing a book is not a criterion for notability, if it were then wikipedia would have far more pages! Generally speaking, journalists have wikipedia pages when they have achieved something especially notable- not simply criticising another journalist in a book. This would include, for instance, a particularly influential story. Alternatively, people like Friedman are considered notable because of their notoriety if you will. Neither applies in this case. Moreover: please stop trying to distract from the fact that you are the mother of the subject of this article. It is not a minor issue, it is a massive one. Your continued efforts to maintain this page damage wikipedia's efforts towards neutrality. Moreover, the fact that you won't let this discussion go on without you shows the degree to which you cannot be trusted to be neutral. If are truly sure of your position (subject is notable, etc.) then please stop engaging in the debate- because you are mudding it with biased opinions- and hope that other people agree with your perspective. Also, 'second book' is misleading; first book was self-published. 93.185.230.67 ( talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Does not meet notability guidelinesfor either a journalist or author. Article is dependent upon questionable - and even biased - sources. Many are simply opinion pieces and blogs. There is a clear conflict of interest with the main contributor to this article, an editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia. Scr★pIron IV 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • ( refactored) Strong Keep After hours of more reading up on Wiki standards and protocols, I remain convinced that the subject meets WP:Basic: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Subject's work has been lauded by a number of sources and cited as exemplary journalism; some are referenced in the page, others were deleted to accommodate critiques of "self-promotion." Please see history of edits. As for the "editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia," let us heed the the standard of "please don't bite the newbie." Tower1109 ( talk) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Tower1109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
@ Tower1109: You can only !vote once per discussion. Mkdw talk 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete As per wikipedia cited above, this article contains principally only blog links, opinion pieces, and/or lower quality platforms for reference material. Tower 1109 should note the wording of the notability criteria: 'reliable' (blogs/opinion pieces/niche leftists sites are not reliable per se) and 'intellectually independent' (the only sources here are from a small group of left-wing leaning sites/bloggers/etc. that are naturally inclined to cite this kind of material occasionally), as well as 'independent of the subject' (many of these sites have connections with the author in one way or another). There is no evidence of real notability- simply one commercially published book. Please note, again, that Tower1109 is the mother of the subject of the article (note her language: "subject's work has been *lauded*" and other similar biases in her edits. It is relevant that the only page she has edited on wikipedia refers to her daughter. — 146.185.34.131 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Requesting review by Wikipedia administrators of potential sock puppetry WP:SOCK by the only three unsigned users who are editing this page and arguing for its deletion; 141.138.186.38, 93.185.224.196, and 146.185.36.67. All three have IP addresses from Beirut Lebanon and they all use the same tone, language, and arguments. The first 2 addresses have made no other contributions to Wikipedia besides their arguments against the page; the third has contributed to Path Solutions, which has been flagged as an orphan page and overly promotional. Tower1109 ( talk) 15:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Tower1109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I have placed {{ Not a ballot}} at the top of the discussion. I believe the reviewing administrator for this discussion will take these points into consideration. That being said, AFD discussions are not a ballot and the outcome is not based upon popular vote but rather policy based arguments. Mkdw talk 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note The participants of this discussion were unfamiliar with the format in how to sign their comments. I have refactored the discussion for readability and moved their signatures to the end of their comments as per common practice. Mkdw talk 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
P.S. See related report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.185.230.67/Archive. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 City University of Hong Kong. Consensus that the article should not exist and defaulting to a selective merge to City University of Hong Kong. Davewild ( talk) 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Student Residence Of City University Of Hong Kong

Student Residence Of City University Of Hong Kong (  | 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. No encyclopaedic content included, just irrelevant details about what's in the bedrooms and bathrooms. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 11:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 12:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Genetics of infertility

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for scientific journal entries. I dream of horses ( T) @ 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Oxana Kosteniuk

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

Not notable other than being Alexandra Kosteniuk's sister. Article highly unlikely to be substantial Jkmaskell ( talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources except for the FIDE rating. ruwiki doesn't seem to have an article about Oxana Kosteniuk either (which doesn't mean she's not notable, but it would have been a place to find Russian-language sources). QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, all three articles-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bangkok Gunners League

Bangkok Gunners League (  | 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 about a Thai youth association football league organization which fails WP:N. Checks mentioned at WP:BEFORE failed to produce any WP:RS.

Sorry that this has been taken to AfD; the article had been speedied on 20 May, but was re-created the day after, so deletion might not have been uncontroversial. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are league season articles of said competition:

Bangkok Gunners League May/Jun 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 Bangkok Gunners League Sep/Oct (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 09:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 09:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Straits Chinese Jewellery Museum

Straits Chinese Jewellery Museum (  | 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:ORG. Another tiny non notable museum from malacca LibStar ( talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this jewellery museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar ( talk) 15:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This museum is fairly new (2012) but it is easy to find more sources for this particular place such as this or that. As this is a significant cultural institution, we should certainly keep this too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Significant cultural yet not covered in books? Virtualmalaysia is not a reliable source , it's an advertorial site set up to promote the Malaysian tourism industry. LibStar ( talk) 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

and you thought your first post was enough to convince people even though it contained no source relating to the Jewellery museum. LibStar ( talk) 07:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Much more information regarding the museum have been added, especially on its street address, detail exhibition stuffs, architecture information, its chinese name, history of the building & collection, opening hour etc. Now there are 12 reference sources already for the museum, including Malaysia's online newspaper The Star. Bare in mind that this museum is barely 3 years old, not hundreds of years like the Louvre or Forbidden City, of course the legit information regarding the museum is still not that abundant over the Internet. Nevertheless, this museum showcases the culture of the Peranakan Chinese in Malacca and South East Asia in general, which is really an important factor for the region's culture. Chongkian ( talk) 23:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the sources Chongkian added from The Star and South China Morning Post, meets WP:GNG. Altamel ( talk) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Steroidergic

Steroidergic (  | 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 title and subject matter of this article is original research. The term steroidergic (and related terms corticosteroidic, glucocorticoidic, and mineralocorticoidic that are also mentioned in the article) are made up terms not widely used in the scientific literature (see table below; note that the few hits that were found were often written by non-native English language authors or were false positives). In contrast, the terms corticosteroid, glucocorticoid, and mineralocorticoid are widely used and already have articles devoted to each. Adding "ergic" or "ic" to these terms is in analogy to CNS agents such as dopaminergics. However Wikipedia should not invent new terminology through analogy. It should only use terminology found in reliable sources. For a related discussion concerning similarly named navboxes, see this link. Boghog ( talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Term PubMed Google Scholar Google Books
steroidergic no results 5 results 5 results
corticosteroidic no results 43 results [1] 17 results [1]
glucocorticoidic no results 14 results [2] 5 results [2]
mineralocorticoidic no results 1 result 1 result
corticosteroid 361,186 results 524,000 results 4,630 results
glucocorticoid 193,988 results 614,000 results 4,480 results
mineralocorticoid 17,492 results 38,600 results 1,380 results

References

  1. ^ a b Most are false positives, for example inhaled corticosteroid (IC)
  2. ^ a b Most are false positives, for example glucocorticoid (IC50)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Good point. The "Steroidergics" navbox in the uses the {{ Navboxes}} templates to combine several other navboxes and this combined navbox is only included in this article. Several of the included navboxes such as {{ Glucocorticoidics}}, {{ Mineralocorticoidics}}, {{ Progestogenics}} are also problematic, but exist independent of this article and hence are a separate issue. Boghog ( talk) 08:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think the navbox-template is an issue. It is a one-off composed navbox in this article, not a separate page in template-space. So it's like a table added to the article. Once this AfD is decided whichever way, no separate action is needed for the navbox, it follows the article. - DePiep ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The names of the component {{ Glucocorticoidics}}, {{ Mineralocorticoidics}}, {{ Progestogenics}} navboxes are definitely an issue but outside the scope of this AfD. The consensus arrived at this discussion is that these templates should be renamed or merged with {{ Glucocorticoids}}, {{ Mineralocorticoids}}, and {{ Progestogens}} respectively. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Boghog ( talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Diasagreement whether this is a case of purely inherited (non-)notability or whether his place in medical history makes him notable.  Sandstein  15:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (  | 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 know I'm going to catch flak for this because the article is about a Kennedy, but... I have to go with WP:INHERITED and WP:1E. His notability lies solely on his parents and he is known for just one thing: being stillborn to his famous parents. Those two factors do cause this article to fail WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per User:Winkelvi reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givenunion ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 July 2015‎ (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E and per WP:NOTNEWS, which states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Patrick isn't noted for anything on his own beyond dying within two days of birth, and notability is not inherited; being a Kennedy does not by itself make someone notable. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If he had indeed been stillborn this might be a different debate, but he was not - as this source and many others (eg. [32] [33] [34]) his premature livebirth and subsequent death "inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care". His appearance in medical literature continues to this day, and indicates a significance beyond simply who his parents were. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Two events: widely covered birth, widely covered subsequent death. But even if we wish to interpret this as a single event, it would still be appropriate to keep this article, per the guidance regarding a "person famous for only one event [who] may be more widely known than the event itself" in BIO1E. We have multiple sources detailing this individual's short life and the impact of his death, more than enough to pass GNG. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject was written of not merely on the occasion of his birth and death, but continues to be written about fifty years later in the New York Times. This will be the fifth time we've resolved here that the subject is notable by WIkipedia standards. Wikipedia would in no way be improved by the removal of this article.- Nunh-huh 15:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
That's an assumption you shouldn't make. You have no idea who will wander into this discussion nor do you know what their understanding of policy will be. Your chastisement is out of order and unwarranted, Everyking. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Per Nikkimaria, I'd also agree to the effect that he was an index case for neonatal illnesses. Bearian ( talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - When you're used in medical research as an index case Gaëtan Dugas i think there's a case for notability. These one event guidelines should have a proclaimer saying "doesn't apply to everything" because this is one of those cases. I am on the other side of the world so i am far from patriotic or something either. There's also TWO events the birth and then subsequent death, you "might" say not every (the) individual is notable in a birth and a death but then we would have to rename the article into Patrick Kennedy's life as that is the event. We don't have Arabella Kennedy as that was one event aka stillborn. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Michig ( talk) 07:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

SCOAP

SCOAP (  | 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 is about a non- notable neuro-hype "model" that forms the basis for various money-making training/coaching programs Jytdog ( talk) 04:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user, who per this has completed the SCOAP training and per this "I want employers to see what my SCOAP Certification and training (delivered by this foundation) means". Editor is a WP:SPA for all things related to SCOAP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of editors who take training courses nor the training courses. Other articles are under consideration for speedy and those that survive, I will add here... reply

SCOAP-Profile (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Since the topic of this page has scientific pretensions, I'm going to treat it as such and recommend deletion. Sources are all affiliated. Browsing the academic search engines and databases by their "cited by" links, I found only two third-party publications that cite any of these sources: one is this book chapter, the other is this book. That's not enough. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For SCOAP-Profile, Merge or delete as an insufficiently notable topic on its own. It seems like a component of SCOAP, an article about the model where the profiling according to the model could be discussed. Therefore, I would support merging to that article if that article survives, or else deleting as a non-notable component of a non-notable parent topic if that article is deleted. DMacks ( talk) 08:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both Vanity pieces by user who wants to promote themselves by promoting their qualification. Fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for reasons noted above.
  • Delete per above. As I noted elsewhere, a Google search of the acronym turns up other more common uses [35], not a strong endorsement for notability here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 ( talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Probably keep SCOAP. and merge in SCOAP profile. It will depend on how many other people have written about it. which will need checking. The article contents itself is not in my opinion promotional--if it turns out the theory is notable. Even if someone with promotional intend write a descriptive article on something impt, the article should be kept, the the intent when --as here -- it can be proven can be a factor to consider. At AfD we judge articles, not authors. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. Agree with DGG that article is not written in a promotional way, but I could not find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. Also not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rika Kishida

Rika Kishida (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TallCorgi ( talk) 04:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TallCorgi ( talk) 04:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails all three points of WP:NACTOR--1) She has a total of four roles listed, and aside from the first one, they are merely guest roles in single episodes. 2) There is no evidence of a significant fandom or cult following, and 3) there is no indication of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions." Moreover, there is no independent coverage indicated per WP:SIGCOV; sources are merely the actress's own webpage and an agency profile. TallCorgi ( talk) 04:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above user is the article creator. An article being on another wiki does not mean that it is retained in English wiki. Each article is discussed separately. Cowlibob ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or preferably redirect to Chojin sentai Jetman as it seems she was a main cast member and her most significant work (only work listed at IMDb) and as for my searches, the best I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nominator, there is no indication she has had multiple major roles or is otherwise notable by the English Wikipedia's standards. — innotata 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - She has not worked in many years, so it may be hard to find internet articles on her, but she's only appeared on six dramatic TV shows, mostly in limited roles ( [36]), so I just don't see the multiple major roles needed to establish notability. Note that the user who created this article has been creating many new articles on actors that appeared in super sentai shows. I fear many are of the same level of notability as this actress. Michitaro ( talk) 12:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Frederik Schram

Frederik Schram (  | 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) 03:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

In-circuit functional tester

In-circuit functional tester (  | 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 considered prodding this, but I'm doing this instead as it's been here for so long. This is an unencyclopaedic essay full of original research. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Page was deleted and then recreated as a redirect to The Californias by RHaworth. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Las Californias Province

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

This article attempts to create a non-existent place name, and runs in parallel competition with the article The Californias (Las Californias). WCCasey ( talk) 01:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyvio ( G12). -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sweere-arse

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The article's source is the only one I can find (in fact, the article seems to have been copied almost straight from it). Adam9007 ( talk) 00:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I declined speedy deletion; the two versions do not seem to me to be a copy-paste or copyvio. The article says the name of a game amongst Scottish school children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins. The source says a game in which two people seated on the ground facing one another with feet pressed against feet, grasp a stick between them and tug so that one tries to pull the other to his feet. Those two versions are certainly different enough for Wikipedia's purposes. However, I favor deletion per this AfD process; the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, with a single source and no indication that the game is notable. In a search I found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ MelanieN:The source I linked says " a sport among Scottish children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and, holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins the game." [38] in para. 3 note (3). It is attributed to C. Mackay Poetry and Humour (1882) p350 rather than C. MacKay A Dictionary of Lowland Scotch (1888). Jbh Talk 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see! The copyvio detector tool led me to the other version and I missed this one. You are right, our article is a copyvio (as well as deserving to fail an AfD) and I will speedy-delete it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Bbb23 per WP:A7, "No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". North America 1000 05:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ojas Godatwar

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

Un-notable actor. Eat me, I'm a red bean ( take a huge bite) 00:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kelton Flinn. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 05:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Air (1977 video game)

Air (1977 video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, or even verifiable. For a "major" title with lasting influence, I'm having an extremely difficult time finding a single reliable source. While this claims that the game is lost, I am unable to verify that this has ever existed. The only source I have thus far been able to find is this, which is hardly confirmation of its existence. With the lack of information (a "major" title would surely have something out there on the internet), I can only conclude that either this game vanished without trace long ago, or it's a hoax. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kelton Flinn. It looks like this article had a reference at one point that was deleted here. I'm unsure why. In any event, the reference (link to actual page of book can be found here). At a minimum, the article doesn't appear to be a hoax. That said, I don't think there's any evidence it passes muster as notable, and given that it's already mentioned in our article on the game's creator, I think we should redirect there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:51, 5 July 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) 12:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Ginseng's logic. (Wish I read their post before independently confirming the page's one citation myself...) Redirects to the company or to Air Warrior's development would also suffice, but it perhaps belongs most in Flinn's history. There does not appear to be much other coverage on the subject, and it can always spin out summary style if need be. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. –  czar 18:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kelton Flinn - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage. Game is sufficiently historically notable to justify redirect to programmer, and additional refs can be added there if found. Dialectric ( talk) 01:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_5&oldid=1142223533"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE