Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 August 12 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This did not have to be nominated at AFD. A {{ db-band}} tag on the article would have sufficed. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Obliques (Band)

Obliques (Band) (  | 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. Completely unsourced article about a band with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; as written, this amounts to "Topic is a band that exists, the end", and doesn't even attempt to make any actual notability claim at all. In truth I'd ordinarily have speedied this, but there's already a declined speedy in the edit history. Also WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Obliquesmusic. Bearcat ( talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments

Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

As per Wikipedia:Galleries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Taylor Leigh Gordon

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a dancer, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been one member of a dance troupe that competed in, but failed to win, a reality show competition. This is not a claim of notability that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and there's no strong reliable source coverage here to get her over WP:GNG -- with the exception of one piece of coverage on a local radio station in her own hometown, the sourcing here is entirely of the primary and YouTubey varieties. And even the radio piece is about the team, while entirely failing to contain even a glancing mention of Gordon as an individual. This is not the kind of sourcing, or the evidence of notability, that it takes to get a dancer into Wikipedia. Bearcat ( talk) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The Laurier English and Academic Foundation program

The Laurier English and Academic Foundation program (  | 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 academic program. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Every individual program at every individual university does not automatically get its own standalone article. Some such programs certainly can be sourced as independently notable topics in their own right — typically the professional programs like journalism, medicine, architecture, education, law or MBA schools, much more frequently than the "routine" programs like English literature, psychology or academic transition — but no evidence has been shown or reliably sourced here that this one would qualify as one of the special cases. Plus, I'm guessing direct conflict of interest editing by a student in the program. Bearcat ( talk) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; no coverage and the article itself contains no indication that the program is especially notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dwarf deities. North America 1000 01:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Gorm Gulthyn

Gorm Gulthyn (  | 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 character article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above. As we have the article on Dwarf deities, there's no value in deleting outright. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per the above, but I'll note that it's premature, as the content has never been merged. While it's entirely possible that the IP address who turned the redirect into an article would contest this, all the editors in good standing who edit in this area are agreed that deities without non TSR/WotC refs should be appropriately merged, so I'm not sure why we even need an AfD here. Jclemens ( talk) 04:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Zakaria Mssiyah

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

Basketball player who has never played at a professional level, only in youth leagues. H-Hurry ( talk) 20:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Patrick Sinning

Patrick Sinning (  | 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 amateur basketball coach. H-Hurry ( talk) 20:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Webb Schools. I have redirected, text can be merged from the page history. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Webb Canyon Chronicle

Webb Canyon Chronicle (  | 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 student newspaper; fails WP:GNG. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article was deleted by Ymblanter. ( non-admin closure) —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 11:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Indiana Fire Academy

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

Unremarkable youth sports organization, fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH as youth leagues are generally non-notable. SanAnMan ( talk) 19:05, 11 August 2016 (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... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge to Chicago Fire Academy or delete – WP:BRANCH clearly states that "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Based on this sentence alone, the article should be deleted as coverage does not significantly expand beyond the state of Indiana. However, it might fit well into an article about the Chicago Fire academy system, preferably to be created at Chicago Fire Academy (see also Category:American reserve soccer teams for similar articles). – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Chicago Fire Academy, which should be written to cover all teams in the MLS club's academy system. The league may be notable, but youth clubs, as a general rule, are not without meeting WP:GNG. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) In light of SanAnMan's comment below, I am changing my !vote to delete. Youth clubs must meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 21:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- Chicago Fire Academy (not to be confused with Chicago Fire Soccer Club) is a non-existent article, and not even related to this article; this club is not the same club. The league this youth club belongs to is the U.S. Soccer Development Academy which has its own article as it should, although it is full of redlinks to its individual youth clubs and in need of major clean-up itself. Chicago Fire Academy is another youth club that is also a member of the same Development Academy, so merging this article to Chicago Fire Academy doesn't make sense. Also, a youth club is completely separate from and not even in the same level of play as a reserve soccer league, so that comparison doesn't stand up either. The fact that they are sponsored by notable professional clubs does not make the youth clubs notable, as notability is not inherited. Getting off the soapbox now, thanks. - SanAnMan ( talk) 20:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable junior team. Were Chicago Fire Academy created, perhaps some content could be moved there, but that article does not exist. Fenix down ( talk) 07:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Justin Lee Stansfield

Justin Lee Stansfield (  | 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 permanent collections and my searches are not finding better, the best claims of significance here is that he has published a few works, but there's still not the needed substance for an actually convincing article. I frankly would've frankly PRODed but that may simply be drive-by removed with no explanations. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

M19 motorway

M19 motorway (  | 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 was a planned route between the M1 and the A1 motorways that never got past the planning stage. A section of the M62 motorway was upgraded to establish the link Fudpukker ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of professional Magic: The Gathering players. MBisanz talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrew Cuneo

Andrew Cuneo (  | 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 GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron ( talk) 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete is clear, based on arguments and lack of reliable sourcing; statements that sources are available and reliable lack evidence. Drmies ( talk) 04:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

AJ Atencio

AJ Atencio (  | 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 - lots of external links which all seem to be about the "hittingpaydirt" service, the only one to mention the name seems to be unreliable source Reddit. Pam D 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree with the nominator no indication of notability, seems like just a way for person to get his name out. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google search turns up very little, if anything, in the way of reliable, independent sources. The soruces that are provided in the article are either only passing mentions (if that), statistics, or are just plainly unreliable. I should also mention that the article creator has been blocked for disruptive editing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes, Pam, I am newer here. Are you saying my opinion is less valued because of that? Looks like we have an ego problem going around Wiki. ( JamesSPR ( talk) 22:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a minor personality in the sports betting space. I cannot find RS on this subject, and the article appears to be promotional in nature. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note -- the objecting editor has attempted to strike out the "delete" votes: diff. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • These painfully-obvious socks are, as they say, painfully obvious. There's no need to strike their comments, nor to quadruple their height by saying why you struck them. That's just antagonizing, and the closing admin, whoever it turns out to be, is not a dolt.
    New guy: The way to save this article kept is by presenting nontrivial, reliable sources (nothing in the article is both), not by creating new accounts and making the same baseless assertions over and over. You're not fooling anybody and are only hurting your own case. — Cryptic 04:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Indo-Aryan migration theory. Although there's no numerical consensus, the argument that this is a POV fork - an article covering the same topic from a particular point of view - of Indo-Aryan migration theory is a strong one, and has not been addressed by the "keep" side. Our policy is to have one article per topic, and to use consensus to determine what is in it. There is therefore policy-based consensus not to have a separate article, but it's not clear that this requires outright deletion. Editors must discuss whether and to which extent to reintegrate this content into the one article we are going to have about this topic.  Sandstein  05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Indo-Aryan migration debate

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

The article was created as a POV-fork when fringe material was removed from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It currently is not in compliance with NPOV and WP:FRINGE as it presents fringe viewpoints as equally valid to mainstream ones - this problem is inherent in the articles entire structure. If we ever need a separate article on the "debate" separate from the article on the theory, then it would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to our content policies. Meanwhile, I suggest we delete this POV-fork, since it makes little sense to merge it back into the article from which the material was originally cut. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It's clear from your nomination statement that deleting this material would be fundamentally incompatible with maintaining a neutral point of view. There's a basic difference between a neutral point of view and a majority point of view, and you're obviously trying to present one point of view as invalid. Go discover what "neutral" means, and don't impose the majority point of view on an encyclopedia that from its beginning has valued presenting both sides of a story. Perhaps the content isn't neutral (I've never even heard of this theory before, so I can't know if it's ignoring some viewpoints), but that's a matter for subject-matter experts to decide, and it can be resolved through editing, not deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That is utter nonsense, keeping a POVfork is fundamentally at odds with maintaining a neutral point of view and deletion is specifically given as a solution to pov forks in policy. That you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to know whether the material is indeed a fringe pov is not a valid reason to vote keep. Also NPOV specifically mentions that neutrality is not giving equal weight to "both sides" - neutrality is giving weight according to prominence within the relevant field of knowledge. This material was removed form the main article because it gives undue weight to non-notable minority and fringe viewpoints. The viewpoint currently has the appropriate amount of coverage in the main article from which it was split - keeping it in a segregated article like this is NOT in any ways compatible with wikipedia policy. One of these viewpoints ARE invalid according to scientific consensus- and hence it does not deserve or warrant the same degree of coverage that the mainstream viewpoint does. What abou you go and read what neutral actually means before lecturing people about topics about which you havent a clue. The neutrality policy is basic stuff that an administrator is expected to actually understand - advocating for retaining pov forks (the articles creator has stated the fact that it is a pov fork quite sqaurely and has also stated that he would not vote keep) is quite odd for someone who is supposed to enforce our basic policies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This is the only keep vote that's been elaborated on so far, but the argument isn't valid. We're not silencing one side of a debate here. Mainstream scholars unambiguously consider the "Indigenous Aryans" theory to be fringe, nationalistic pseudoscience which @ Nyttend: ought to have been able to learn by just briefly perusing the relevant articles. It is notable enough for us to cover it as a fringe theory, and that coverage exists at Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration theory. This article appears to have begun as an attempt to reduce the size of its parent but unfortunately it has ended up repeating the arguments of fringe theorists without balancing them with the mainstream consensus, as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE would require (apart from an inadequately short "criticism" section). And I agree that it's vaguely worrying to see an admin wade into an AfD in defence of fringe science on a subject they, by their own admission, don't know anything about. Joe Roe ( talk) 00:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It was split-off from Indigenous Aryans, to reduce the size of that article, not from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It's a hopeless article indeed, but that's inherent in it's topic: an overview of fringe-arguments for a fringe-theory. As such, it serves a purpose: mainstream ideas, fringe ideas, rejection of these fringe ideas. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I've renamed the article into "Indigenous Aryans arguments." I hope this helps to make clearer what the article is about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Redirect to Indigenous Aryans. Many editors edited this article and has lots of content. But it is very same to Indigenous Aryans. There are arguments against Indo-Aryan Migration by few other theories, but this article has included arguments only from Indigenous Aryans, that's why it should be redirected to it. If anyone sees any new content on this article, it can be merged to Indigenous Aryans. Lorstaking ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
So, you're suggesting to delete the contents of "Indigenous Aryans arguments", or to merge it to "Indigenous Aryans" (after being pruned for primary sources etc., as Maunus suggests)? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ay Caramba, this set of pages is such a mess. In addition to the page under discussion, there is Indigenous Aryans which as I see it is even more problematic than this page. And then there was Out of India Theory, which was merged into Indigenous Aryans. They are all clearly derivatives of the same fringe theory. What we need is a single page about this theory, treating it as a fringe theory (analogous to Climate change denial). Indigenous Aryan arguments does not fulfill this function. What it is doing is creating false equivalence between the accepted view and the fringe view, partly by using extensive quotations from both sides. I wouldn't even know how to go about salvaging a useful page from this. Delete it, and start over using the small set of sources that are describing the debate as the basis. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see credible references used and the topic passes WP:GNG. It would be a loss to purge the article. Please persuade if it fails notability guidelines. -- Ekvastra ( talk) 10:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Ekvastra: Have you read the nomination? The argument is not that this should be deleted because it isn't notable, it's because it's a POV fork of a notable topic. Joe Roe ( talk) 12:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I have. Have you read policies? First, from the edit history of the article I do not find who edit-warred to create a split, could you get me proof for this assertion, burden to give evidence for your assertion is on you. Second POV Split page does not tell it is a deletion policy. -- Ekvastra ( talk) 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorou regh discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist MBisanz talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Hema would you care to elaborate? Not sure what the rules of play are here, but whether HemaChandra88 [dis]agrees with [whatever] isn't part of the debate. We're not counting a tally we're trying to discuss the merit of the proposal. -- Cornellier ( talk) 02:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Infopark

Infopark (  | 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. I went ahead and left in the rather large list of customers, although that is generally not something we allow. Mentioning in prose, sure, but not lists. This seems to be trying to inherit notability, or dropping names. That isn't how WP:CORP works. I did some basic searching, and I don't find anything that satisfies the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Farmer Brown ( talk) 17:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. A rationale for deletion was not provided in the proposed deletion ( diff, notice how the "concern =" parameter is empty) prior to this nomination ( link). As such, a valid rationale for deletion was never presented in either of these processes. WP:NPASR that provides a valid rationale for deletion. North America 1000 04:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Phyllis Keino

Phyllis Keino (  | 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 and other templates removed with absolutely no explanations at all and I still confirm my removed PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please enough, and stay away from me, you have caused nothing but attacks against me. My confirming of PROD is sufficient in itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Alice Norsworthy

Alice Norsworthy (  | 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 absolutely no explanations despite my saying there's no inherited notability for CFO and there's essentially nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete / Speedy Delete This reads like something that we'd expect to find on her company's website. As mentioned, nothing notable about being a CFO in and of itself if it were re-written, and right now the WP:PROMO language is 100% of this article. Personally I feel G11 & A7 CSD covers it. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 20:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

First of all, this request for deletion seems to be made by someone who has no expertise or knowledge of the business sector being discussed and Norsworthy's contributions to that industry.

Alice Norsworthy is one of the top 100 officers in the world's largest media and entertainment company. She has changed the competitive landscape in the theme park industry. In an article linked to her profile, she is given credit as one of the key architects for significantly changing the multi-billion theme park markets in central Florida [1]. Her recognition as one of the most highly influential female industry executives in a major economic sector is documented on the page. This guy's objection to the entry is she is "just a CMO," which is contradicted by the facts on the page.

Here is the link to a search from this proposed deletion page just for Alice Norsworthy and news. It lists 42 separate entries: Alice Norsworthy News

Is this objector is using uninformed judgment to declare all the other content presented on Alice Norsworthy is unimportant. This is just the judgment of some anonymous individual who does not possess the background, skills, or knowledge to make such an assessment.

Enough please, see WP:NPA, you are making several serious accusations without even knowing the context and depth that is Wikipedia. The fact you only have contributed to this one article and are getting defensive about it, speaks for itself. Sinply being "influential" and a " major person in business" is not enough claims by itself for notability. We need actual substance including to suggest her own independent notability (there's no inherited notability from any companies or people). SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
okay, how is an article such as this so much more "notable?" I disagree that there are any personal attacks included, by the way, but I am trying to focus on the issue at hand: Bill Gurley Seriously, one is on an investor's list, and Ms Norsworthy is on multiple independent travel organization's list of influential individuals. Does a person have to be in a particular career? Obviously, the person doesn't need to be a household name. The distinction is far from clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL789 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Here is another example of a person with notable contributions to an industry that appears to be about the same as Ms Norsworthy's contributions to travel. These are all over Wiki: Max Strang Here is a person ( Lainie Frasier) who has had less exposure in national media than Ms Norsworthy, who has been on national TV three times as a judge on NBC's The Apprentice. What makes these individuals more "notable?"
I'll write one more thing and then you can decide on your own, if you are the one who decides these matters. Ms Norsworthy influences travel policy at the national government level, in the largest theme park market in the world (central Florida), and within her company (obviously). It appears your focus is just on the last role within her company and diminishes the contributions she continues to make to shape a very large industry, including her notoriety as a female role model in a male-dominated environment. Independent sources document this in her article's references and external links. Read them if you would like to see more. She is absolutely "notable" in this realm. Is that broad enough to be included? I guess this process decides such matters, but as a writer to this I assert the article certainly qualifies when compared to numerous other such notable people already included in Wii.
  1. ^ Garcia, Jason. "Theme Park Wizards". Florida Trend.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

2016-2017 Indiana Fire Academy season

2016-2017 Indiana Fire Academy season (  | 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 underlying team for this season article is neither professional nor playing on the top college level. Therefore, its seasons are not meeting the notability criteria for season articles. The article also fails to demonstrate the applicability of the broader general notability criteria. WP:PROD was contested with the following rationale. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 15:50, 11 August 2016 (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... 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment -- I have gone ahead and added the parent article to AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Indiana Fire Academy - SanAnMan ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

UFC Fighter Rankings

UFC Fighter Rankings (  | 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 consists of current UFC rankings and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Article needs constant updating and fails to show significant independent coverage. This would be the same as having an article on the current college football rankings--it needs constant updating and doesn't show why that ranking is notable. I'm sure there are plenty of passing mentions of these rankings, such as "he's currently ranked ninth in the UFC lightweight division" but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. These aren't even world rankings, just rankings of a particular promotion. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I never would have thought of this as a copyright violation. I don't see how an organization's frequently changing rankings confer notability on themselves. As nom pointed out, there will be plenty of passing mentions of where fighters are ranked, but not necessarily significant and independent coverage of the entire list. Papaursa ( talk) 02:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted and salted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Lambert Ofoegbu

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

Unremarkable person. Fails WP:BASIC, no sources. Specto73 ( talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Note here that this article has been placed (repeatedly) by a paid editor. AllyD ( talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt: There have been repeated deletions of versions of this article ( [1], [2]) and also a rejected AfC ( [3]). While some of the hyperbole of the first versions has been pruned, at no point has there been evidence presented or found to indicate that the subject (a project manager) is anything more than a person with a job, going about his business. Membership of professional associations and golf clubs, holes in one: while all of these may be gratifying to the subject, the point that these are not evidence of encyclopaedic notability does not seem to be understood: [4]. AllyD ( talk) 15:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt: promotional, no actual notability. ubiquity ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kbach Yuthakun Tvear Prambey Bôran Khmer

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

Poorly written and confusing article about a non-notable martial art. Article starts out talking about a historical martial art and then switches to the discussing the modern form of this art, which apparently is a family style. Either way there's not enough significant independent coverage to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. There's also no evidence the modern version has anything to do with the historical one. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is very confusing and there is no indication what the connection is with the convoluted history section with the titled modern art discussed latter on. The history section is already covered in Bokator where it belongs and there also seems to be some duplication with Kbach kun boran. The unique portion does not demonstrate notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I showered improvement tags on this early in its life hoping against hope that there was something notable or at least noteworthy there. A month has passed and nothing of any substance has been added. I agree with the nominator - this fails WP:GNG and it seems most unlikely that better sources will appear. I couldn't find any.   Velella   Velella Talk   22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. To see if the modern version is notable, I also checked for coverage of the current master of the art. I found no significant independent coverage of him, either--just things like Facebook and youtube. The modern version may exist, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 01:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

SCG Maptaphut Stadium

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

Unremarkable building. Fails WP:GNG. Specto73 ( talk) 15:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The following duplicate article has been added to this AfD. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Maptaphut municipality Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Goran Gatarić

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

Completely non-notable artist. Only reliable link is to hr.wikipedia, wikidata, wikimedia commons. No news result. And simple search is only about facebook links. Marvellous Spider-Man ( talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Mouhamed Abdulla

Mouhamed Abdulla (  | 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:ACADEMICS, no WP:RS. WP:NOTRESUME. Judging by the numerous unsourced personal details, this is likely written by the subject himself as a promotional or vanity article. P 1 9 9   ✉ 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Park Jae-hyun (model)

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

The article may not meet strict WP:A7, but does not qualify on notability as a Model. This user created similar articles. Phyo WP (message) 13:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Privileges of War (Book)

Privileges of War (Book) (  | 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-fiction book with no claim to notability, should be deleted as not meeting any of the notability criteria for books nor the general notability criteria. None of the references mentions the book at all, and I fail to find any reliable secondary sources. That episodes described in the book were the subject of news reports does not make the book itself notable. A small independent film company has apparently picked up an option on the book (but again, this is not actually referenced anywhere) - if a notable film comes out of it, that will be a different matter, but at that point, somebody who is not affiliated with the author of the book will probably create an article about it. The author of the current article appears to have a strong conflict of interest; they are obviously editing in good faith but may not have fully understood Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with everything Bonadea wrote. I ran a Google search on "privileges of war". There were 62 hits, a fair number of them not using the phrase in reference to the book. Of the ones that did, I found one, this, that wasn't involved in sales or promotion of the book, and that had as many as three sentences about it, and even those were in passing. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I disagree completely with Bonadea and Largoplaza and am utterly amazed that deletion would even be suggested. I am sickened that a book which discusses the true and well documented selfless actions of a small team of American soldiers who risked their lives for the freedom of 165 primitive mountain villagers is not . . . "notable" in itself. Yet, a fictional account of made-up accounts of heroism, as described in the book The Green Berets, makes its way to the pages of Wikipedia. The only things that made that book "notable" was how inaccurate it was and how poorly it was received by critics, the public and . . . real soldiers. So, if Wikipedia were to drop Privileges of War and keep The Green Berets . . . what statement does that make about the Wikipedia platform? ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which exists to document that which is notable, per Wikipedia's definition of notability. This is not the place to discuss the notability of any other articles - each article stands and falls on its own merits. The article The Green Berets (book) may not have a particularly strong claim to notability either, but again, that's irrelevant here. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if, and only if, after looking at this and this, and making a good-faith attempt to prove that the book is notable, you find that it isn't. (That's what I did before nominating this article.) As stated above, that a book deals with notable events or concepts does not make the book itself notable. In addition, notability has nothing to do with whether something is worthy or interesting; I have no opinion about that, one way or another, and it wouldn't matter if I did. The fact remains that the article doesn't include a single reference to a source that mentions the book, and that very strongly suggests that the book is not notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The book lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. It fails WP:BKCRIT as well since none of the other criteria are met. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I searched, but the only thing I could find was this local source about the book, so the book looks to fail WP:NBOOK. Now the book's accuracy or the lack of accuracy of other works are not considered arguments that would give or take away notability as far as WP:NBOOK is considered, as notability is decided by the work's coverage in reliable sources or the coverage for any adaptations in RS. Green Berets would pass NBOOK because of the notable film adaptation starring John Wayne. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and if Moore's book is very inaccurate then the way to go about correcting that is to find sourcing that backs this claim up and add it to the article. (Offhand it looks like this might be doable.) It's a shame that we can't have an article on every book that was published through a reputable publisher, but the guidelines on Wikipedia are too strict for this and they're unlikely to ever become more loose. If the film adaptation occurs and becomes notable, then the article can be recreated, but not before that point or before the book gains coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nauseating commentary . . . no wonder this world is in the state it is. Where is inspiration? What do you people do in real life when you aren't hiding behind screen names amd numbers? Please delete the page . . . it would be an honor not to be a part of Wikipedia. If I could delete it myself . . . I would. You should be ashamed of yourselves. ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The author has blanked the article and expressed a wish to delete it, and since the discussion has unanimously pointed towards a delete anyway I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion per author request. @ ThomasARoss: I'm sorry your experience of Wikipedia was unpleasant. It is not unusual that people's expectations of what belongs in Wikipedia are different from what the guidelines say, but please note that civility towards your fellow editors is required. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Drowtales

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. Three hits on google news- one, an article from 2015 where it's mentioned in the comments. One, a completely routine listing of comic books for sale from 2012. The biggest mention is a paragraph long description in Comics Alliance from 2012, alongside many other comics. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, for the same reasons I listed last month(?). I personally believe that the no-consensus of the last AfD was improper, as I've yet to see enough sources to be able to write an article with. ~ Mable ( chat) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and administratively close as too soon following previous discussion. The proper venue for contesting a recent AfD outcome with which one disagrees is WP:DRV. All the arguments from the previous AfD still apply, do they not? Jclemens ( talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion does not specify a time period outside of "to give editors the time to improve the page." In the 42 days since the previous nomination, there have been exactly 2 edits. One was a bot, the other changed 1 character in a reference name. This hardly seems "too soon" to me. As for the previous arguments, they still amount to nothing but WP:other stuff and Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. Argento Surfer ( talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's not a good encyclopedic article I'll agree, I'm somewhat biased as I contributed some to it in early days as a fan. I tend to believe the web-comic is notable, though the article does completely fail to establish this. Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics, though it certainly doesn't have the same level as cultural impact as for example XKCD, so yeah not a lot of 3. party sources. Ultimately I would not be hugely bothered if it was deleted, but maybe just re-writing the first section a bit and deleting everything below that would do the job? Certainly excessive amounts of fancruft in the current form. -- Sherool (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There don't seem to be any proper sources providing critical reviews or commenting on the cultural impact of the topic, so it currently has no need to exist. Examples provided in the previous AfD do not at all appear to be reliable or relevant. TTN ( talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poorly referenced. I can't find any reliable sources that help prove notability. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, re "Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics", please see WP:OLDSUBJECT. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The ultimate reality

The ultimate reality (  | 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:NBOOK. This article is part of a COI effort to promote Kumar and his books. I have not been able to find any additional WP:RS to establish notability. shoy ( reactions) 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Gian Kumar

Gian Kumar (  | 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:NAUTHOR. This article is part of a COI effort to promote Kumar and his books. I have not been able to find any additional WP:RS to establish notability. shoy ( reactions) 12:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Jagadeshanh created the original version of the article which was speedy deleted, and has since been the almost exclusive editor. shoy ( reactions) 17:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
as by SPA am changing to weak keep, if he was paid editor would vote delete Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

That's one of the reasons it's here, plus the promo for the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, just blogs, facebook etc., did find a review of Know Thyself here [7] by the Zordor Times but "Created By Sora Templates and My Blogger Themes" at the bottom of the page and "We are Zordar! Details coming soon" on the About page [8] does not engender confidence. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment notwithstanding the subjects doubtful notability, the style of writing doesn't follow encyclopaedic style WP:MOS, e.g. at length it reflects on the subjects state of mind (He rebelled against every religious idea. Moreover, during his childhood and early years, Gian Kumar struggled with a lack of financial comforts. Being a scientifically inclined person, he questioned every experience happening during his life, more so his struggles.) while providing little noteworthy, verifiable information. This needs to be rewritten accordingly, by someone who is familiar with the subject, or lack thereof, deleted. -- Jôanes ( talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I trimmed out much of the promotional content and editorializing nonetheless, the author lacks significant notability and the page was written as a puff piece. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted G7. (non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 13:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Giovanni boscariol

Giovanni boscariol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Giobosca (
talk) 
11:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Waraich clan

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of ' Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's was a suggestion to redirect to Siege of San Sebastián, which I would normally do, consensus or not, per WP:ATD. But, The siege of San Sebastian (1813) seems like such an unlikely search term, I'm going to pass on that. If somebody else wants to be WP:BOLD and create the redirect, who am I to stand in their way? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The siege of San Sebastian (1813)

The siege of San Sebastian (1813) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion, contested by DGG on the spurious grounds of "addition material in Basque WP" (this is in fact a word-for-word translation of the entire Basque article, which as with this translation devotes only two short sentences to the actual topic, the rest being historical background), so bringing this over to AFD to do it the long way. Per the discussion on the talk page, this is not "a painting by an unknown artist", this is a poor-quality English souvenir etching by Thomas Batchelor of the type that were—literally—two a penny before the first illustrated news magazines were introduced in 1842, when newspaper printing presses couldn't handle illustrations so the printed plates were sold separately. I can find absolutely nothing to suggest that this has ever been the topic of any coverage in any source whatsoever (its entry on the museum's website reads in full Anónimo, The Siege of San Sebastian, siglo XIX, grabado coloreado, 51 x 60,8 cm, and Batchelor wasn't an engraver of any note and only appears as an entry in directories of publishers, not as the subject of any discussion in his own right).  ‑  Iridescent 11:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that we need to establish some sort of significance for this image as we cannot just have an article about some random etching without any kind of sources. I did a google image search to find something better and found this image which is bigger and allows for a reading of the text. It's from this website which does credit Batchelor (as Batchelar). However, a search of Thomas Batchelor of Moorfields tells us that he was known as a printer and publisher, not specifically an engraver himself (one directory tells us "Batchelor, Thomas, printer & publisher, 115, Long Alley, Moorfields, 1817U"). So it's entirely possible that the artist is unknown. A google translation of the Spanish website indicates that the image is being used in the Zumalakarregi Museum (or its website) as an artifact and/or illustration of the battle itself. The engraving itself spells the name Batchelar, not Batchelor, and credits the publication of the image to one T. Batchelar. Searching for Thomas Batchelar gives us nothing -- it appears to be common then and now. Adding "publisher" gives us a book, Napoleon and British Song, 1797-1822 (Oskar Cox Jensen) which mentions Batchelar as a "loyalist printer" and central to "loyalist song culture". According to the Pickering & Chatto Antiquarian Booksellers Bulletin, (I can't link the PDF because of the spam filter), Batchelar was a London "ballad printer". Other than that, his name appears in some directories. In the end, we don't appear to have much. The engraving, probably artist unknown, is most likely not significant other than as an illustration. Batchelar appears to be non-notable himself. The image could be used in the article on the seige, with a redirect for anybody who may be searching for the image and has not tried out google yet. Someone with time on their hands could possibly write a sentence about the image for Siege of San Sebastián, as an indication of contemporary interest in the battle itself, although sources appear to be lacking. This was fun, though. freshacconci talk to me 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. the additional material was an additional reference at least; I can't read Basque to see if there was further content. If a major museum consider a picture significant enough to put on its own website in a prominent position it's notable (as an analog of the accepting criterion fcr WP:CREATIVE.) DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • What "major museum" would that be? San Telmo Museum is a small local history museum so obscure it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and they don't have this "on their website in a prominent position" ( here's the website in question should you want to check); this link, which I suspect is what you're referring to, is the subpage for a temporary exhibition in 2013 in which this print was included (and if you scroll down to the photos of the rest of the exhibits you'll see why this one was chosen). I challenge you to find even one single source other than the one-line entry in the museum's catalog—in any language—which even mentions this print, let alone qualifies as "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". As I've already pointed out, and you're studiously ignoring, the Basque article (complete with the "additional reference") is not about this print; other than the single sentence 1813ko Donostiako setioa margolana Donostiako San Telmo museoan dago. XIX. mendeko egile ezezagun batena da eta 1813an gertatu zen Donostiako setioa deskribatzen du. ("The Siege of San Sebastian is a 19th-century painting by an unknown artist in the San Telmo Museum, San Sebastian, depicting the 1813 siege of San Sebastian"), it's just a description of the aftermath of the siege; the additional reference is for the statement that "over 1000 were killed and women and children were systematically raped", not to anything relating to this print. As Freshacconci correctly says above, a case can be made for including this in Siege of San Sebastian to illustrate that the battle generated interest in Britain (although there are much better quality British depictions of the event which would likely do the job better), but it serves no useful function for Wikipedia to host an article which it's literally impossible to expand beyond two sentences. ‑  Iridescent 17:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship [ eu merits its own article in English, but a major museum, sorry, that it is not. The idea that a picture should become notable in Wikipedia terms because it is displayed on a museum website is fanciful and a disregard for WP:GNG, and the analogue with WP:CREATIVE is obscure. If any analogue applies here it is rather "artistic work where the artist has no article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" ( WP:A9). — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete yes, a local museum whose website states that it's a "Reference center for knowledge and enjoyment of the nineteenth century in the Basque Country" used the illustration on its website for a historical exhibition. This is not the same as being part of a significant exhibition, as is suggested by the biographical guideline for WP:CREATIVE, nor does it confer any notability on this obscure illustration. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Illustrations have never been held in a esteem at a par with formal paintings (compare with comics nowadays and before). However, that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references that elaborate on technique or form or school, but it gathers an attention, and the fact of being anonymous does not detract from both formal and historical context aspects, where the publisher (or printer, above) can be cited. "Local museum", "so obscure"..., yes, runner-up to Best Museum of Europe 2013, no less. Iñaki LL ( talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know what your source is for this museum being runner up or in what category... but I cannot except that any illustration that happens to be featured in a local exhibit on area history therefore automatically becomes notable -- nor do our guidelines allow for this. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
"A local exhibit": Yes, local, any museum is located somewhere, even Tate Modern. San Telmo lies in Donostia. I agree though that when it comes to individual references to the illustration, sources are scarce. Iñaki LL ( talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Right and the museum, now apparently repurposed according to its website as the Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship, does look stunning, esp. with its redesign. It's unfortunate we don't have an article on it. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Nor was the Commons file for the image properly categorized. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course, we also see that the article creator has been prolific in creating this stub across a variety of wikipedia language editions, using different but related usernames. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
By the way, the Wikidata links listed at fr:Musée San Telmo suggest that there was formerly an English article on the museum. Can't find a redlinked deleted file, though. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Can't find a deleted article at any permutation of the name, and San Telmo (disambiguation) doesn't include it in any version. Are you sure you're not actually seeing the link to eu-wikipedia (Basque)? ‑  Iridescent 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Regarding the multiple language versions, see the links on the talkpage; it was created as some kind of mass-stub-creation contest. ‑  Iridescent 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
right and for that "deleted file" thing, when I hover over the grey "English" I now see that it's for a pop-up for "traduit cette page en anglais" so it was just some sort weird setting issue... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment in re "that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references ...", please see WP:INTERESTING. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think prints can be notable, but this one is not. I can't see that there is anything we could say about the print beyond the bare facts that are already in the article. We don't know who the artist is, the publisher isn't notable, the print itself is not unusual in any way, and there doesn't appear to be any more information about it, not even in Basque or Spanish. It's a pity we don't have anything about the museum though; that may very well be notable. Mduvekot ( talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Arguments for deletion have been convincing.Redirect to Siege of San Sebastián and use it there. Otherwise, it's a micro-stub of an article on an otherwise non remarkable art piece. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It meets the standard of being on permanent display in a major museum, and nothing more is needed. Some articles will always be stubs, and there's nthing wrong with that either. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    Do you have a source for "on permanent display in a major museum"? Even if you accept the San Telmo as a major museum (which is itself dubious), nobody is claiming that this is part of the permanent collection let alone on permanent display. The link is to a long-gone temporary exhibition in which this was included, not to the permanent collection. ‑  Iridescent 18:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

    Struck through your second vote; just because you really don't want something deleted doesn't mean you get to be double-counted. ‑  Iridescent 18:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- While the article is primarily about a painting in a gallery, the siege was a notable engagement of the Peninsula War and might conveniently be expanded to encompass the history of the siege. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Peterkingiron, could you clarify the above? You appear to be advocating deleting the existing Siege of San Sebastián article, overwriting it with this, and then re-expanding this to cover the battle, which makes no sense at all. (Incidentally, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated but this is not an article on a painting, but on a penny-etching; the present-day equivalent would be having a Wikipedia page on an individual issue of a newspaper or magazine.) ‑  Iridescent 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The article is about the engraving (not painting), and the notability of the siege has nothing to do with the notability of the subject at hand. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not find anything to support notability. I don't even understand the title: is "1813" supposed to be the date the work was created, as one would normally expect, or does it refer to the date of the actual siege, in which case we don't know when OR by whom this was done? In fact we know almost nothing about this piece. The battle itself was notable, but not every illustration of it is therefore notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Pure prod material, had this been a musical recording, A9 would have applied. Here, in lack of a specific WP:SNG, it is WP:GNG that applies. The best "source" I could find is this .pdf from the museum. And that's just not enough. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect (possibly merge) to Siege of San Sebastián, which uses the picture as an illustration. I doubt that the picture is independently notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the Peninsula Campaign was fought and won by a great many British gentlemen, Britain was the world's wealthiest country, the market for prints of that campaign was enormous because Wellington's army was enormous. Even the families of the foot soldiers could afford a print of the battle where a beloved son fought - or fell. So many of these engravings survive that they decorate the hallways of small hotels, and print shops today have huge stocks of them to choose from. They sell them as upscale tourist souvenirs. Some engravings of this war are notable: The Disasters of War. But I see no evidence that this one is. While there is no reason to redirect this, the image itself would make a nice addition to our article Siege of San Sebastián. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I added this image to the page on the siege. I think we can W:SNOW close this now. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Chaunty spillane

Chaunty spillane (  | 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 came across this as an A7 candidate and while the assertion of notability is wafer thin, it's still there via her having acted in notable films. However that said, these roles are all non-named extra roles, many of which are uncredited. (IE, none of the roles are major, which is required per WP:NACTOR.) For example, it's hard to say that Ghostbusters was her break through role when she was playing "Show Girl Ghost" in an uncredited role. None of the things in the article give notability, as a search brought up nothing to establish how any of it is notable - actors are not automatically notable for existing ( WP:ITEXISTS) nor do they automatically inherit notability from an association with notable persons, films, or organizations - we need sourcing to establish how these roles were major. ( WP:NOTINHERITED) If not for the local coverage for her, I'd have speedied this but I figure that this is just enough to where it'd be safer to send it to AfD and have it as a more firm delete, given that there have been various attempts to create this article in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

–––––

The article is of notability and per guidelines of notability requirements only requires three reliable resources that are in depth about the person of notability. The following are three reliable sources directly from the page article proposed for possible deletion: Spillane, Chaunty. "Chaunty FollowingTheNerd Article". FollowingTheNerd. Spillane, Chaunty. "Local Actress Appears in Ghostbusters". The Westfield News. The Westfield Newspaper. The Westfield Newspaper. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Markham, Brett. Modern Caveman- The Complete Paleo Lifestyle Handbook. Retrieved 8 August 2016. ( WP:ITEXISTS)

If I may so gently correct a statement above regarding Chaunty Spillane's roles and credited or uncredited status: She has six credited roles including the Ghostbusters credit which I'd like to mention next. Chaunty's role in Ghostbusters was significant and a break through because, although not credited properly, she did play the role of Gertrude Aldridge (whom is a major character in the blockbuster film). She also has 8 TV commercials in two years as well as two listed magazine covers and featured articles about her. She is also in a book sold in Barnes and Noble as well as Amazon.com as a yoga model and is mentioned in the book. WP:NACTOR

Chaunty Spillane is notable and the ( WP:NOTINHERITED) does not apply as she is not just the every day actor a lot has accomplished in her career in a short period of time managing to do so while not living in LA or NY. In reference to the text above, the roles actors play is not an easy process, nor is the average local Boston/NY actress gain as much notability and a trending topic as Chaunty has. The actors must work hard and put a lot of effort as well as practice into auditioning first for a role and then waiting to receive a call back if the actor received approval for the role.

I find the idea of scheming to give this article a "firm delete" rather than a "speedy deletion" as stated above is malicious. That kind of behavior is not accepted on Wikipedia as stated in its own guidelines. Various attempts were made to create the article, but there were also a lot of Wikipedia authors who were in favor of and helped by slightly editin the previous attempts mentioned above to create this article to help it remain "live". All in all, the local coverage plus the above "corrected information" regarding crediting of the actress rather than focusing on a few uncredited roles is enough evidence to establish notability. 2601:19B:4300:DF35:451D:A615:71F1:F493 ( talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • IMBd has an entirely different actress listed as Gertrude Aldridge, Bess Rous. Rous is also listed as the performer in this USA Today article, this Mercury News article, and this one by the New Yorker. (There are also people selling photographs signed by Rous at the Ghostbusters premiere.) In other words, there's nothing to substantiate that she plays Aldridge at all - and if she was Aldridge then she desperately needs to get her agent to contact a lot of media outlets. Wikipedia is not a place to make corrections of this nature and until there are massive corrections about the performer in the media, Wikipedia has to assume that she is not Aldridge and that she was only a show girl ghost. I also have to say that I found this link that shows a Facebook post of Spillane's, where she's holding a photograph of herself with the credit "show girl ghost". In other words, there's more evidence to show that she isn't Aldridge and is instead a non-notable background character. If she is, then it's up to Spillane and her agent to correct these errors, not Wikipedia. (And I also need to caution you that it's not a good idea to go about trying to put this on Wikipedia or other outlets before the agent corrects this because if she isn't Aldridge then this can backfire badly on Spillane.) I do also need to point out that if this was her, then that would be her only substantial role to date and odds are this would just redirect to the cast page for the film. As far as her appearing in a book goes, this by itself does not give notability. The book itself would have to have been the subject of RS that mention Spillane's contribution to the work. If her appearance in the book was not substantial (ie, she would not have received an in-depth mention about her participation in any given RS about the work) then that would not give notability. In the end notability must be established via coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is lacking here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I also found this YouTube video of the movie's end credits, which list Bess Rous as Aldridge. All legality of the person recording the end credits aside, I think that this is quite definitive proof that Spillane was not Aldridge - it's possible that news outlets might credit the wrong person, but the movie credits will most certainly bill the proper person, at least in a film such as this and in a role as visible as that one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether he meets WP:PROF, originating from different expectations, and the article has been here for almost a month, so it is time to take a break-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Daniel Romanovsky

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this person does not seem notable per WP:ACADEMIC. It is not clear at which university he taught or currently teaches. Also, the books mentioned in footnotes 3–5 do not include anything written by a "Daniel Romanovsky". Actually, those three books each include a single reference to the book in footnote 2 (to which Romanovsky contributed a chapter). The only "source" even mentioning his name is a dodgy interview on an Angelfire website, apparently written up by his wife. bender235 ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows several articles cited by numerous others, and Google Books shows him quoted in quite a few books. This just needs someone to cull more information from these sources. Yoninah ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't think having a handful of citations is enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC requirements. One of the articles listed on Google Scholar lists "Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism" as his affiliation, where he is listed as "Editorial and Abstracting Staff". I'm not sure that is enough. -- bender235 ( talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
What relevant notability standard? He has only got 15 cites on GS. Several hundred would be the norm for this field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC). reply
It might be useful to look him up in Russian, where he did his early work. Yoninah ( talk) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
GS covers Russian citations as well. They are just not there. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Neutral Keep Neutral I started this article since I was using some of his writings as a source for another article. I think he deserves an article (yes I do know that's not part of WP policy ;)) but understand that the sources I provided were not enough by the strict rules here. The one that gives the most information was an interview by an Israeli website. The others were his own articles published in books on the Holocaust and some mentions of his research in other books, all found by Google books. I did purchase one book from Amazon with his article on Belarus under the Germans based on interviews with eyewitnesses. Some of my references are no longer in the article and I did not make the claim that he is a professor -- which I don't think makes any difference one way or the other. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
PS Thanks to bender235 for notifying me of this AFD. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I restored the original references to the article, which should help a little. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 15:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I changed my vote to keep after more references were found. Delete still has a case however since the sources talked mainly about his work, not about he himself. However with everything, keep. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
After some more consideration I withdrew my keep vote. My understanding of strict WP policy will not allow me to vote to keep without substantial secondary coverage. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The main GS citation contributor (123 citations) is a book by V Rudich...is this mistakenly included in Romanovsky's entry? Some of the other entries are by other authors, as well. Seems to be only a handful of citations to his own work. WoS shows consistent results: his 1999 paper in Holocaust and genocide studies has 6 citations. This is really far below even the borderline of a few hundred citations (where there's legitimate back-and-forth on PROF c1). Majority of refs are pamphlets and web pages. Agricola44 ( talk) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Did you also check out Google Books? It shows 325. I only looked at the first two pages but they all seem to be about him. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 03:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's very different from what I see regarding books. When I search the Romanovsky's full name within Google Books, I see around 30 citations, and under WorldCat I don't see any primary-authored books. It appears he's written chapters, but no books. Can you furnish link that shows >300 citations? Agricola44 ( talk) 05:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
I guess I don't understand how Google Books works. Here's a link to a search for his name: [9]. Most of them seem to be saying that his interviews of Holocaust eyewitnesses are important. I agree with you that he himself is not noted as an author. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC) https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=10&q=daniel+romanovsky+holocaust+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 reply
That analysis does show a few more than the one I looked at, but only around 50...The succeeding pages seem to contain "Dan" and "Romanovsky", but not "Dan Romanovsky". Agricola44 ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Keep The opening sentence could be changed to "Daniel Romanovsky is an Israeli historian and researcher who has contributed to works analysing the Holocaust.." I think we have enough sources to back that up. Irondome ( talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Have you found more than what are being discussed above? Agricola44 ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Thanks Irondome. I changed the intro by your suggestion. To me 50 mentions of his contributions, many in books published by universities etc., should be enough to establish his notability as an historian and researcher. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
take a look at this I am coming up with considerable material. Irondome ( talk) 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's part of what we've already been discussing. The statistics are pretty far below the conventional requirements for PROF c1. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
However, we do appear to over-relying on Google Scholar "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability". Irondome ( talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Clearly he has done significant research work, which is referred to above. I first came across him in the reference in the Stone book referred to. He is notable for his pioneering work on the consequences of the Holocaust in the USSR, which was noted in peer review publications and done in very difficult conditions before he left for Israel. The entry certainly needs to be filled out which I might try and do when I get back to my library next month. Joel Mc ( talk) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The burden of proof is on "keep" here and the fact that all the standard databases (WoS, GS, WorldCat, Google Books, etc), which we routinely use for academics' AfDs, show mediocre results is very telling. BTW: Science is indeed online all the way back to Volume 1, Number 1 (July 1880) on JSTOR. The salient question is whether there is anything else that would decide the matter conclusively. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism has it's own article. Daniel Romanovsky has been involved as an abstractor in the Posen papers aspect of the project, which has been reliably cited as "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" [ [10]]. I think his [ involvement] in this project confers notability. Irondome ( talk) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
He's listed as a "technical editor", among many others, on that volume. Would you kindly have a quick look at WP:PROF for the kinds things that would count toward notability? "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" is a platitude that can be applied to almost any academic activity. Agricola44 ( talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
He is actually listed as an abstractor. He is or was working on a major academic endeavour. C1 of WP:PROF seems to be satisfied here. "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others." I also note that the subject has given lectures under the auspices of Yad Vashem in various countries. The above quote is hardly a "platitude". I really would suggest we apply common sense here. This is becoming increasingly desperate stuff. Irondome ( talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree it's becoming more desperate. You're trying everything to see what sticks, for example invoking association with Yad Vashem is pleading WP:INHERITED. If an "abstractor" is a person who writes abstracts of other people's work (probably what your link saying he's a "technical editor" means), then that is likewise routine academic work. Agricola44 ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Have you actually read any of the links I have given above? Yad Vashem was merely an afterthought, as I would have expected that more than enough evidence has been deployed to justify a provisional keep, allowing for further work on the article. Irondome ( talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I think it's clear by my comments that I have indeed been looking at the evidence/links you've offered. I will try to sum-up the evidence in a new thread and maybe you could add whatever you feel I've left out. Would that be good? Agricola44 ( talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • I appreciate the offer of your time and energy. However I have argued as well as I could for a provisional keep, being a relative newcomer to the stimulating area of the project that is AfD. Regards, Simon. Irondome ( talk) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Re, the burden of proof etc...I believe that in order to delete, you need a consensus and I would not go along with that: I have already indicated above why his work is notable. Joel Mc ( talk) 22:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I remember you had some vague remarks about difficult working conditions and unspecified number of citations. Agricola44 ( talk) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a historian, I suggest that those who doubt that Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research read "Soviet Jews under Nazi Occupation in Northeastern Belarus and Western Russia" and/or “The Soviet Person as a Bystander”. Joel Mc ( talk) 08:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The level of citations he has are not enough for him to pass point 1 for academics. I have seen historians who have a single paper that has twice as many citations as his total body of work have their articles deleted. Romanovsky does not pass any notability criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Way too little demonstrated academic impact (such as citations, response-papers, etc) for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. Clearly he exists and has published but that's not enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research. I am not sure why there is all the discussion whether or not he meets “notability criteria for academics”. There are plenty of historians who are not notable academics and who do notable and significant research. When I came across his name in a scholarly article, I found it useful to be able to get more info about him in WP even if the WP article is a bit of a stub. (I noted that it would be interesting to dig a little and add more info when I have time) I guess that I don’t really understand the need to delete articles which have useful info unless they are libellous or are misinformative. Joel Mc ( talk) 19:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closer: This is Joel Mc's second !vote. Yoninah ( talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry. Didn't mean to cast two votes, but rather to clarify my earlier comments. Joel Mc ( talk) 07:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Joel Mc: so strike your second vote and just indent your responses to other editors' !votes. Yoninah ( talk) 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep -- He appears to have done original work on an important, but this seems to consist of about three academic articles, which is not normally enough for us to keep. Nevertheless, his work seems to be much cited, which might just push him over the edge into keep. Note that the citation indices are not good on arts subjects, such as history. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Much cited. Can you quantify that? Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Weak keep. On the basis of the google scholar results, the google books results, and the source provided by [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman] above, it seems to me that this individual just about meets WP:PROF #!1: namely, having had a significant impact on their field. In this case, Romanovsky seems to have had a significant impact as a researcher of the holocaust; impact cannot be measured solely by the number of GS citations. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The google scholar cites are tiny-far less than normally required for notability. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete" but is relisted per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3.  Sandstein  08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Repost: Since this has been reopened I am reposting my comment which I posted on the Holocaust Talk page after jujutacular had decided to delete.

"In commenting on Jujutacular’s puzzling decision (to me) to delete the Romanovsky piece, I said that I would drop the issue and move on. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Jujutacular#top But I am going back on that decision to support Thoughtmonkey and Poeticbent as they are reiterating the points I made on Jujutacular’s talk page. I might add that as a member of a society which makes its decisions by consensus, I do not recognise Jujutacular’s idea of consensus which overrides a majority of votes. Furthermore, maybe the notability guidelines have a role (but even here not the only role) in deciding to create an article, but as I have already said, I am uncomfortable deleting a referenced article which contains useful info. Heavens know that I have come across many a WP article which seems to me trivial, but I have never thought that they should be deleted. Joel Mc ( talk) 16:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His work has been reported in serious secondary sources. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 19:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (re prior Keep) -- With the recent work by Poeticbend and ThoughtMonkey, the article has been much improved. I’m not sure if “usefulness” is a criterion in AfD discussions, but there are articles that use the subject as a source. I’ve always found it helpful to be able to click on “author links” in bibliographies to learn more about the author. The article is non trivial and “useful”.
That aside, the subject had an interesting life as a Soviet dissident and made a contribution to Holocaust research. Each of these would have probably been insufficient to establish notability by itself, but taken together, I come to the conclusion that there’s enough notability to sustain an entry. This is also born out by secondary sources that cover the subject’s career and research. I thus reiterate my keep vote. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (re WP:DRV Keep). Meets WP:N, with now added WP:RS expansion. Poeticbent talk 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • At most, Weak Keep (as above) -- His subject is certainly an important one, but his scholarly output seems to be three articles or chapters in collections of essays. That is hardly enough to make him a notable historian. However the importance of the subject takes it beyond the weak delete, that those comments would imply. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I believe it should be noted that, as a researcher, Romanovski was significantly disadvantaged; that is why his output is lower than what's expected of a historian. Studying Holocaust in the Soviet Union in the 1980s was not exactly prohibited, but it was definitely a career limiting move. Moving to a new country mid-career did not confer the same advantages as pursuing it uninterrupted. The research has has done is fairly unique -- the oral histories he collected are irreplaceable as the people he interview most likely have died by now. So on the balance of things, I believe that the article should be kept.
In addition, this source: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II by Leonid Rein, was not considered during the original AfD. It was brought up during deletion review, and has now been added to the article. Rein discusses Romanovski's views and incorporates it into his work. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article has now been discussed in AfD/DRV for an entire month and it is now very clear that the conventional notability guidelines (works that are widely cited, held, reviewed, etc) are not satisfied. Peterkingiron's observation is accurate: Romanovsky's scholarly corpus consists of a small number articles and chapters in collections, none of which have shown significant impact. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. This would seem to explain why the relisting simply continues to push earlier canards: web pages and PDF pamphlets have been added and are now referred to as WP:RS, his work EXISTS (Kitfoxxethe), and the strained pleading from K.e.coffman that asserts special consideration because Romanovsky's work was suppressed under the Soviet system. (K.e.coffman concedes that Romanovsky's "output is lower than what's expected of a historian", but does not seem to recognize the contradiction in his/her position posed by the fact that Romanovsky emigrated to Israel in the 80's and has been a "free scholar" there for almost 30 years.) If this article is ultimately kept, it will represent a significant low-end outlier of WP historian bios. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Reply. Yes, I think we've discussed all this already. The Google Books page and individual works you've quoted each represent a single citation to his work...there are around 40 of these by my count of the GB link you furnished (some GB entries do not seem to list his name). At any rate, I absolutely agree that his works are "discussed", but must emphasize that they are simply not discussed at a level that is commensurate with long-established notability guidelines. Moreover, these low numbers are not explained by the "suppresion" that you've claimed. Rather, Romanovsky's corpus of work is simply average in this sense (which is not to say that it isn't interesting, or lacks any other subjective quality that one might consider). Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I think that the academic conclusions he reached are interesting, and especially combined with the fact that other Soviet historians shied away from such conclusions, it is worth having this information. My reason is not so much policy based, but bending the rules a bit for a worthy case is also part of Wikipedia policy. Debresser ( talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per most of the above, and notably we have another case of "googleism," and holding liberal arts scholars to the identical (and inappropriate) standard for scientists... peer review isn't the only indicia of notability, and this individual has multiple other reasons for notability beyond NPROF. Montanabw (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me, but that comment misrepresents the above discussion. We have examined him in the context of being a historian, e.g. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. Most areas of science bios carry much higher notability requirements. We have wagon loads of WP historian bios and, if you start looking through some of them, like Will Durant, you'll find more objective examples of what qualifies as a bio. Even folks whom the mainstream historian community considers to be cranks, like Howard Zinn, have articles here because their works are discussed/critiqued, i.e. noted by others. You assert that Romanovsky has "multiple other reasons for notability": what are they? In the end, it seems like the "keeps" are again hoping for a simply tally-based evaluation of this case, because policy-based reasons for keeping this article are simply not there. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC). reply
  • There is also WP:BASIC, where an individual who meets GNG does not have to meet a specialty SNG. Here, he has multiple sources of notability, WP:PROF alone is not the sole criterion. The political dissident angle is also significant. Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I started the article, as I explained above, but I don't have any connection to Mr. Romanovsky. Just in case that was the issue. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep adding a couple of sources to the article now: an old news article describing his pre-immigration career, and a scholarly article mentioning him in a list of "leading scholars" in his field. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Regardless of the merits of his argument, he does not meet WP:PROF./The standards for academic notability are those applied in the academic field, and Historians normally become notable by publishing books, not journal articles. He has not published a single one. He has published 3 journal articles. They do not lead to recognition as an influential historian. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Phelps Number

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

Cannot find mention of this in anything. No sources listed except the medal table from the current games. WP:NEO or WP:OR possible WP:A11. Savonneux ( talk) 07:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Cinque Ports Light Railway

Cinque Ports Light Railway (  | 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 speculative article ("it is likely", "it is possible") about a light railway that never was built, where half of the short article is not about this scheme but about other railways. Suorced to a blog, an unrelated source, and primary sources. Prod removed without explanation or improvements. Among the 49 Google results [11] one can mostly find either primary sources or unrelaible ones. The best independent source I could find about it was this passing mention where it gets one sentence in a paragraph about the 48 light railway schemes proposed in 1899 and 1900. The remainder of the book sources (well, mostly magazine sources) are the announcement that the company had been formed. perhaps a redirect to Light Railways Act 1896 with a short mention there may be a good solution. As at the moment that article doesn't even mention this scheme, deletion seems to be the most logical way forward though. Fram ( talk) 07:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seems clear the railway was authorised by parliament, a company was formed and extensive planning was done. There's plenty of detail, if we want it but if the current stub doesn't get much further that's fine too. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • "It seems"... is your !keep based on anything substantial or is this the same kind of drive-by action as your prod removal? Fram ( talk) 07:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • (edit conflict) When I do prod patrol, I pick out topics whose titles seem promising. I then skim possible sources for the topics to check my initial impression. If I then go on to remove the prod, I don't start discussion because that's not part of the prod process – prods are supposed to be indisputable. In this case, the topic is a railway and, in my experience, railways are very well documented. Last night, for example, I watched a good TV show about the history of railway development which maintained that railways were more important than the internet in changing UK society. With this general understanding, I checked the sources again and find plenty of detail about the proposed route in the London Gazette and there seem to be detailed plans in the National Archives. I'm not sufficiently interested to work on the topic myself but am fairly sure that it should be left in main space for others to improve, as they see fit. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The railway was authorised discussed by Parliament, which means that there will be record of it in Hansard. It should also have received coverage in the railway press over the years. Just a question of finding the sources and expanding the stub. Mjroots ( talk) 07:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Both mention the scheme and application for authorisation. Mjroots ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Well, like you say, there was an application. That's still far removed from being "authorised by parliament", which you both claimed as keep reason and for which I still have no evidence to support it. Fram ( talk) 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Private Bill Schemes". Glasgow Herald. No. 287. Glasgow. 1 December 1899. p. 3.
  2. ^ "London Correspondence". Birmingham Daily Post. No. 12995. Birmingham. 5 February 1900. p. 4.
  • Keep - there are multiple RS in a this google book search, and I suspect a less constrained search might find more. Contemporary sources probably react to the 1899 Railway Order, whereas the 1999 The Tramway Review demonstrates it to be of sufficient note a century later to justify column inches - not least, that article notes it to be the most ambitious light railway proposal of the period. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep " that never was built," So GNG et al is now over-ridden by commercial success?
I also fail to see why not having obtained an Act of Parliament is any sort of problem here. As a Light Railway, it didn't need one. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • "Of course, "that never was built" was the only thing I wrote, silly of me that I didn't realise that. The fact that there are no significant reliable sources unearthed yet (the one source added to the article is the one I presented in my nomination, and which has all of two short lines about the railway) has obviously no relation to the GNG whatsoever. And "I also fail to see why not having obtained an Act of Parliament is any sort of problem here": I never claimed that this is is a problem. The problem is that two people are basing their "keep"s on the claim that the railway had obtained an Act of Parliament, which is false. Pointing out errors in other people's statements is still encouraged, I hope? Fram ( talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Keep per the ample sources demonstrated to exist by others. I very strongly suspect that there will be additional off-line sources available in various local archives for a scheme of this date, nature and extent. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Which reliable, secondary sources would that be? Which of the sources provided by the other people in this discussion are secondary sources with significant, indepth coverage of this? So far, they are either announcements by the promoters of the railway, or a two-sentence passing mention in a railway magazine I provided at the very start. Fram ( talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plans were filled and are held at the National Library as part of the Ministry of Transport Archive Records. see: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakcat ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I know that this is headed for a keep, but your argument for keep has nothing to do with notability. That a company files plans with a ministry, and that these plans are kept, is routine dealing with a primary source. That's not the required significant attention in secondary sources. Fram ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Asyraf khalid

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

Majority of sources are user-generated content; not enough reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Drm310 ( talk) 06:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric van Siede

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

Almost certainly a hoax and not a particularly convincing one. Even if such a forgotten Swedish poet (of Dutch descent?) had existed, the fact that the book isn't found in LIBRIS shows that he wouldn't be notable enough for an article. Hegvald ( talk) 05:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hegvald ( talk) 05:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hegvald ( talk) 05:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a single source found, and bears many hallmarks of a hoax: the unlikely first name change from Peder to Eric, the Dutch-sounding last name and the spelling of "Eric" (the spelling of "Erik" with a c existed, rarely, in the 19th century but mostly in the nobility), the purported title of his book (in Swedish that's one word, not two)... If he was recently discovered there would have been something written about him, but there isn't. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Was speedily deleted. ( non-admin closure) Savonneux ( talk) 07:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Swastik Garg

Swastik Garg (  | 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 basic notability guidelines. Marvellous Spider-Man ( talk) 04:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. The issue, in terms of policy and practice, is whether this is merely a news event or significant enough for an article. That's a matter of editorial judgment, and numerically, the outcome is a tie. If one discounts opinions that are not based on the topic's coverage in reliable sources, but consist of conspiracy-theorizing (PeacePeace, DestroyerofDreams, JGabbard) blocked low-editcount accounts (TradingJihadist) or mere votes (184.90.237.3), then one gets a slight majority to delete, but nothing approaching consensus. So this topic is probably best revisited a few months later when the election is over and the story's importance can be assessed at more of a distance.  Sandstein  18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Murder of Seth Rich

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

There is no tangible connection asserted in reliable sources between this event and the DNC leaks. It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder. St Anselm ( talk) 04:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The murder of a DNC worker at the time it happened is obviously a notable murder. Moreover, the implications of the actions of WikiLeak in this matter with the posting of a reward for information in the context of danger to whistle-blowers who give information to WikiLeaks, certainly raises the notability of the killing of Seth Rich. I can see no benefit to censoring the article. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
  • @ PeacePeace: Actually your statement is contrary to the most fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Notability is a test that relates to verification in Reliable independent sources. No event in the real world is inherently notable. The Wikileak nonsense is orthogonal to the topic of this article. Put it in the article about Assange or an article about conspiracy theories if you wish. Your view on this is contrary to policy and as such it will be disregarded by whoever closes this AfD. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Explain how: you are the article creator, this is your "first" article, first edit actually (second was to nominate it for DYK), and how I'm supposed to read and respond to things that weren't even posted when I made my comments. Since we're all demanding things here...-- Savonneux ( talk) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Change the name of the article to Seth Rich Based on the reliable sources available specifically discussing the individual and the circumstances surrounding his death, I think Mr. Rich meets the guidelines for a WP:BLP. Additional information and editing to the page as it stands, coupled with a change in the title of the page would be sufficient to keep the article. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. Coverage mainly about self-serving Wikileaks statements irrelevant to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This crime has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. If you disagree, please find RS that link the crime to the campaign. The question has nothing to do with editors' opinions, it is about RS references. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note this account, although created in 2007, has only 25 edits prior to this comment. I'm sorry but this looks like a sleeper sock account. The !vote should be discounted accordingly. (Also in this case that is NOT a reliable sources).
Assange is not a reliable source for this and neither is Fox, and we don't publish "implied" facts per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Assange is not a reliable source regarding the identity of his own organization's sources?
As for Fox News, that was just an example; many reputable news organizations covered the same story, as listed in comments below. DestroyerofDreams ( talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This Fox News segment also reported that the police have reported there is no known connection between Seth Rich's death and his job at the DNC. Even the interviewer takes the position that this was a botched robbery. Assange in this segment did not present any evidence, was obviously speculating, and using innuendo to imply that Rich was one of his sources. Even if Rich really was one of his sources, no connection has been established between his death and that he was some sort of whistle-blower. Instead, police evidence points to a botched mugging or botched robbery. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph [13], The Independent [14], The Washington Post [15], Sky News [16], ABC News [17], Washington Times [18], CBS News [19], and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death [20]. It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. TradingJihadist ( talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Even if these references were to establish notability, they would be establishing notability of a conspiracy theory not about a crime or a real world individual. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't understand what you mean. The sources cover a range of topics, from the killing, facts about Rich and his work, the theories and speculation, WikiLeaks' involvement, etc. TradingJihadist ( talk) 22:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP articles are about a topic -- they don't "cover a range of topics" That's the whole point. It's WP:SYNTH and for this and other reasons it violates WP:BLP. Please review the pages at those links. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note that the above editor who is the creator of the article was indefed for WP:NOTHERE Nil Einne ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
"even if it does later turn out " - this is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. We do not know what will "later turn out" and since this is an article about a recently deceased person (so BLP still applies. It also applies since this has repercussions for the guy's family) we err on the side of caution. IF "it later turns out" that there was a significant link between WikiLeaks and Rich THEN this article can be created etc. For now, BLP says "be cautious". So it should be deleted. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't see how WP:CRYSTALBALLING applies. The event has happened, the media coverage has happened, the WikiLeaks reward offer has happened. I think that all of this combined is notable already, and the possible future developments that I was speculating about are developments that might make murder itself seem less notable, even if it is now at the center of a larger set of events. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Joel7687, what you say is certainly true about those things happening. But to use language like "even if it does later turn out" opens yourself up to attack by unprincipled editors who will latch on to anything in order to unleash a torrent of acronyms - even though anyone can read your comment and interpret what it means and know that it has nothing to do with "CRYSTALBALLING". TradingJihadist ( talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NCRIME. Also see WP:BLP1E. IF there was substantial indication of a link to the Wikileaks nonsense then maybe. But there isn't and this article's purpose seems to be just to fan the flames of conspiracy theories. (Also, I'll repeat my earlier comment, that a brand new account with the username "TradingJihadist", knows precisely how to create a brand new article, nominate it for DYK and then navigate DYK criteria and process. Obviously not a brand new user.) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lots of coverage in reliable sources. Interesting mystery about what the role of Wikileaks is all about. In any event, Hillary Clinton has specifically and publicly referred to Rich's murder in connection with her support of tighter gun control regulations. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I wonder how many murders Clinton has referred to in talking about gun control. Surely that doesn't make them notable. It's a trivial, passing mention, not significant coverage. St Anselm ( talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Perhaps reliable sources should have treated it that way, but they didn't. For example, the Washington Post devoted an entire article to it: Hermann, Peter. "Hillary Clinton invokes name of slain DNC aide Seth Rich in calling for gun control", Washington Post (July 12, 2016). When these things hit home, politicians react more forcefully. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
It seems the conspiracy theories are the main topic not Mr. Rich's tragic outcome. Clear heads must prevail on Wikipedia. This means avoiding getting caught up in the drama contained in a relatively short news cycle. This will probably fade in a couple of days anyway WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Regarding WP:BLP1E, it's true that the recently-deceased are sometimes covered if the article includes "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime". I'm not sure that applies here given lack of gruesomeness and lack of suicide (he was shot in the back). Even if BLP1E does apply, Seth Rich is gone so he will not remain a low-profile person, and in any event the sources indicate the murder and Hillary Clinton's speech about it are significant, and Rich's role in his own death was of course substantial and is well-documented. As for WP:NCRIME, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, and there's lots of media coverage here. Chandra Levy seems analogous. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Since the family has been begging people to stop spreading conspiracy theories and publicizing his death [21], [22], [23]... yeah, BLP1E applies. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Absolutely, as I said at BLPN, let's keep the conspiracy theories out. That doesn't require article deletion. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If you keep the conspiracy theories out he is a one time victim of a crime and per WP:BLP1E If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. So it actually does require article deletion.-- Savonneux ( talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Even without mentioning conspiracy speculation, there is wide coverage in reliable sources because Hillary Clinton spoke about Rich in a speech, because of the very unusual bounty offered by Wikileaks, because of the political nature of Rich's employment, because of his young age, et cetera. What about Chandra Levy? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF The prolific number of questionable biographies is actually something of a perennial thing at AfD.-- Savonneux ( talk) 00:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Seth Rich is gone so he will not remain a low-profile person Logic, how does it work? That's less a crystal ball argument than it it is a non sequitur. In any case, this is a single event of no proven impact, your Wikilawyering aside, and Wikipedia has no obligation to help conspiracy theorists and political partisans in their propaganda efforts. ----
Again, making arguments like "Keep until more details are known" is WP:CRYSTALBALL and it's just not sufficient reason to keep, especially for a BLP. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Rich was an alleged source of some leaks, that is not enough to make him notable. It also involves lots of speculation, and nothing can be reliably sourced. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per arguments articulated by Volunteer Marek. Can always add it later when sources have more to say. Lipsquid ( talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is absurd to say that it is not notable, being a member of the DNC murdered when he was murdered. The reward money offered from different sources makes it notable. Notability is obvious from the Google & YouTube hits, also from the demands to delete it here -- why would anyone care about a non-notable topic? Every demand for deletion is a notability. And an outcry of "Strong Delete" indicates even more notability. And keep the name, for it is the murder (in life context) that especially makes it more notable. "“If someone is gunned down in our national capital, we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why,” said [Newt] Gingrich. “And if it clearly wasn’t a mugging and it wasn’t for money, what was it for?”( PeacePeace ( talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
A request or suggestion for deletion is one thing, emotional or insistent demand for deletion with lots of spilled ink, is a different matter. As in this case, evidence of notability. For something allegedly unnotable, there is a lot of noting going on. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 23:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
I had no idea what you're talking about, until I looked at your contributions, and noticed that this is your very first AfD. This is understandable. Geogene ( talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
LOL Well, Geogene, indeed this is my first; I had no idea that the way you persuaded other editors was to call the other POV "horseshit" (as above) and to throw around straw-man talking-point arguments like "conspiracy theory." ( PeacePeace ( talk) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
WP:♠ WP:QUACK this isnt kindergarten, also that was Calton. You've analysed everyone's motives have you? Quite a feat.-- Savonneux ( talk) 01:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Quite right, it is impossible to know the secret motives of any particular person. But motives aside, whoever makes a decision on this article should consider 1) whether or not any proof has been given of "non-notability" as opposed to evidence for notability and 2) whether the "conspiracy theory" mantra/talking-point is not actually a straw-man argument. For does the article state that the death was the result of a conspiracy? I don't recall anyone claiming that; and if not, one may well ask whether or not the repetition of the expression "conspiracy theory" be a straw-man argument and off topic; as the question is supposed to be that of notability, not of conspiracy theory. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Calton called the article horseshit, he didn't call an editor or a viewpoint horseshit. Nothing wrong with that. PeacePeace, if you want to have a long life on WP, I suggest you bone up on policy and seek guidance at WP:TEAHOUSE. It gets better. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Just a reminder WP:BLP1E would not apply to this article because the article is about THE event (murder) not a biography. Why we have articles on the events of Murder of JonBenét Ramsey and Suicide of Amanda Todd but not on the person, they would most certainly not pass the one event rule but the event passes GNG. Right wingers are using this as a conspiracy theory but that alone is not a case for deletion either infact all their coverage adds on to passing GNG which is the ONLY criteria for a event. GuzzyG ( talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:BDP The only exception would be for people who have recently died...has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime You could attribute any specific event tangentially related to the US Presidential Election as notable because they are all covered by every news outlet in the US until the "next big thing" happens. That's why it's called the "news cycle." Go to the Al Jazeera website and look for articles on this (I already did [24] ), that should give you an idea of just how notable this is in terms of Life, the universe, and everything-- Savonneux ( talk) 02:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Interesting point about going to the Al Jazeera site - showing that this event has no significant impact; it is merely fodder for the news cycle because it is a presidential election year, and because now WikiLeaks has offered a reward (oh my!). To further demonstrate the lack of significance, I cannot find a New York Times article covering this event. The only thing all this drama in the press demonstrates is Julian Assange is as famous as a rock star -- not that he or anyone else can give credibility to anything other than the police strongly believe this was mugging (robbery) gone bad. And this was the fourth of such recent muggings in the area. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Is there something about Al Jazeera that makes it particularly accurate as a barometer of notability? There are zillions of news outlets and sources other than Al Jazeera. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Good job on seeming to miss the point--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC). reply
You need to provide a rationale for your !vote, not just make an assertion. WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Volunteer Marek: A simple assertion of notability is indeed a rationale. Not a particularly good rationale, but it's not WP:ILIKEIT. He's asserting that it meets the policy requirements for inclusion, which is valid grounds to keep. He should provide an explanation for why he feels that way, but he doesn't need to. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree with all that has been said above. I see no reason to repeat the same arguments. I see no reason to keep re-inventing the wheel. In my estimation, it's notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The murder has received ongoing mainstream news coverage, particularly since Wikileaks provided a reward and criticism of them has been reported. Furthermore, mainstream media have also covered the "conspiracy theories" that Rich leaked the DNC emails. Certainly allegations of a conspiracy involving the DNC have come from fringe sources, but the guideline says, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It has. There is no requirement that mainstream sources take the allegations seriously, just that they report them. TFD ( talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
TFD - the conspiracy theories are one topic and the shooting of Mr. Rich is another topic. It is the conspiracy theories that have received significant coverage and Mr. Rich's tragic outcome is a side event - that the police believe is merely a robbery gone bad. It is apples and oranges and conflating these is WP:SYN. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
That would justify an article, it's just that the topic would be "alleged conspiracy theories about the murder" rather than the murder itself. BTW the police have not ruled anything out in their investigation. TFD ( talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
TFD - I'm not sure what you mean about the police not ruling anything out. They have been strongly backing the "mugging (robbery) gone bad" theory because of their experience (they know what one looks like), and they have reported what appears to be defensive wounds on Seth's knuckles. They also reported this is the fourth such mugging in the area. They have not given credibility to theories that Julian Assange and internet chatter are speculating about. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If anyone wants to look at Google Trends it's following the news cycle perfectly [25] first there's a blip when it initially happened in July, then wikileaks offered a reward a few days ago and it went through the roof, then they ran the stories about people reacting to the news that wikileaks had offered a reward, and now it's plummeting again. Paper thin information hashed and rehashed because until the next thing breaks they have to play something on all those 24 hour news channels-- Savonneux ( talk) 09:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
collapse misstatements of fact falsely attributed to newspaper article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, and no. In fact I have no idea why you thought it necessary to bring 1) up. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. While I believe in assuming good faith, as it were, I am at a loss to know why my comment was hidden above, since the NY Daily News certainly did refer to the Shot-Spotter technology used to find the location of the shooting. And that is notable. Moreover, the NY Daily News appears to consider the murder itself as notable. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 20:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-dnc-staffer-seth-conrad-rich-shot-killed-article-1.2707538 ( PeacePeace ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

I have no idea why your comment was hidden but your claim does appear to be incorrect. You claimed "this is the first (probably) instance of police locating a man shot with the (Washington DC) Shot-Spotter acoustic technology" but the source [26] just says "responded to the gun shots around 4:20 a.m. using the ShotSpotter system to find the location of the shooting". Considering our Gunfire locator#Public safety says "ShotSpotter system installed in Washington, DC has been successfully relied upon to locate gunfire in the area of coverage. The Washington, DC Police Department reported in 2008 that it had helped locate 62 victims of violent crime and aided in 9 arrests. In addition to assaults, the system detected a large amount of "random" gunfire, all totaling 50 gunshots a week in 2007." (emphasis added), your claim of it probably being the first is extremely dubious. I know you're new here, but actually it doesn't matter whether you're on wikipedia or elsewhere. You really need to read sources carefully and not read too much in to them. Frankly NY Daily News isn't a great source anyway so if they make claims which sound dubious you probably should check other sources before repeating them. But even they don't appear to have made such an extreme claim as the one you made (something being the first in 2016 for a system which was actually first trialled in 2007 with multiple use in 2007-2008 leading to expansion), not even close. BTW, I have no idea why you keep mentioning the what the NY Daily News regard as notable. We have our own notability standards which have little to do with what the NY Daily News regard as notable Nil Einne ( talk) 13:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
You make some good point Einne, but did you notice that I began by asking a question, "Do you agree that . . . ," rather than making an indicative statement of fact? Also I used "probably." So you are evidently correct that this technology was not an innovation for this case and thanks for that information. But attention to a story by a newspaper does indicate notability. No doubt we all have no monolithic standard, but different standards of notability, and also possibly what we hope is not noted by the public. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 23:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
I have no idea what you mean by your last point. Our standard of notability is covered at WP:Notability. The ultimate requirement is GNG. We do have the subject specific guidelines, but these are really intended to just be a simply test to establish an article meets GNG without having to go through the work. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you probably shouldn't be participating in a deletion discussion. As for you earlier points, it's misleading to bring up the question. You weren't asking "is this true" but rather were saying "since this is a (probably) true fact, doesn't it mean..." so you were in fact stating a probable fact rather than simply asking a question. Also you seem to be missing a key point. This AFD is already messy enough. You shouldn't be writing random stuff, especially when that stuff is extremely wrong. And yes, saying something is the first in 2016, when the actually first happened in 2007/8 then repeated many times in that year, and this very basic detail is covered in our article on the subject; is something that's very wrong. If you can't be bothered doing basic research before commenting, then you could simply not say anything. You should also phrase your comments carefully since your wording strongly implied what you were saying was supported by the source when it was not. Perhaps most importantly, when what you say is so majorly wrong, it's not unresonably to simply hide your irrelevant comments. Again, if you don't want this to happen, either do basic research before talking or just don't say anything if you have no real idea what you're talking about. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The fact that the death is notable for stupid reasons (viz. conspiracy theories) does not somehow negate its notability. It has received extensive media coverage, and I don't see how BLP1E/BDP comes into play here, since the article's about his death, not about him, and there's nothing in the article which reflects negatively on Rich or his family and friends. Now, obviously this article should not be kept so that it can be used as an incubator for WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories coming from SPAs and POV-pushers. But I see no problem with it being kept as an article that neutrally describes the detail of the investigation, as well as the conspiracy theories regarding it. (If POV-pushing remains an issue, ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions can certainly be imposed.) If it comes to pass that the conspiracy theories become far more notable than the murder itself, then I can see the case for moving to Conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich or such, per TFD's quite insightful comments here. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:NOTNEWS portion of the argument, i.e. that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Now it uses routine or timely coverage as an example to the rule but not an element of the rule. It's an election year. Every time someone passes gas loudly you get 400 articles on the event. We could write an entire article on Clinton's facial expressions if you sourced it to the US Media (I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFF here I'm just pointing out something). When the book comes out I'll be convinced (per Chandra Levy), until then this is just a media circus that is even now dying down.-- Savonneux ( talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and change name to Seth Rich. Clearly notable: tens-to-hundreds of thousands of results on google news / google search for "seth rich murder" and variants thereof. Plenty of reliable sources on the details of the murder; the existence of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories does not take away from the verifiable information out there. The real question is whether or not this article gets disqualified under section 2 of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" subpolicy of WP:NOT. I don't see this article as merely a "timely" incident analogous to celebrity gossip, and am thus firmly on the side of keeping the article. I suggest that the article be renamed to simply Seth Rich, as it really covers both (a) biographical information and (b) details of his murder. // Cachedio ( talk) 21:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Whether or not Wikipedia has been tabloid in the past and when that began (if it ever did), is irrelevant. There is nothing tabloid about the article on an event which is reported in major news outlets (non-tabloid). ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete WP:NCRIME, WP:EVENTCRIT this appears to be an unremarkable robbery gone bad (botched robbery). It is so unremarkable that the police reported this is the fourth such type of mugging-robbery - and of course the police have much experience.
Also for comparison - for 2014 (the latest year I could find) there were about 1,165,000 violent crimes in the United States [27] (source: FBI). In 2012 there were 354,000 robberies nationwide [28] (source: FBI). In Washington DC, as of August 15, 2016, there have been 1900 robberies, and 85 homicides in 2016 [29] (source: DC Police).
Also, per WP:EVENTCRIT (above) this appears to have no historic value and it is not of lasting importance - its already fading away, having fallen off the the News Cycle - no coverage in Google news since August 10th - and that was focused on the WikiLeaks reward. The only thing the news covered significantly was other people - such as Julian Assange, the bereaved, the police, Hilary's comments, (Newt Gingrich) and so on. Furthermore, using the news cycle chart - coverage related to this robbery peaked on August 10th according to the aforementioned News cycle indicator - and went into a steep dive thereafter [30].
And as stated above WP:BLP1E applies because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this person only became known due to this one event - which has no long lasting effect and therefore should not be an article. And most certainly WP:BDP applies with all the speculation and conspiracy theories swirling around the individual at the center of this event --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This murder is notable as a fascinating mystery and as having rewards offered both by the police and by WikiLeaks, right after Assange gave an interview in which he strongly suggests that Seth Rich was a leak source for Wikileaks. The mysterious noise heard by his girlfriend to which he responded not to worry with the bruises on face and body are also a riddle. The fact of the suspicion of being the leak source is very notable. But thus far there is not a good case for this being a hit job, as the bruises do not seem consistent with that. But suspicion of hit job, is not essential to the notability. Isn't the BDP concerned with people dead over 115 years? If so what is that relevance? As to one event, Seth Rich had a significant project with the DNC, was shot with viral results on the internet which recur day after day (1000's of events?), was posthumously involved in a dramatic TV interview and in a dramatic and intriguing offer of reward money from Wikileaks. However, BLP1E states, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when . . . ." The article is "Murder of Seth Rich," not "Seth Rich." So the articles is "an article on a person" or a "biography" (term mentioned in BLP1E). It is about a notable murder, notable for the viral response it got on the internet, notable for getting a reward offered by Wikileaks, notable for being the murder of a man who was practically identified as a Wikileak source by Assange, though he stopped short of a direct assertion. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Let me say again you really need to read stuff properly before commenting. There is nothing in:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

which says it only applies to people "dead over 115 years". And to be honest I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Did you mean people who died recently and were over 115 years of age, or people who died over 115 years ago? If you meant the later, your comment is even more wrong. Anyway the quoted statement is clearly saying it applies to people who recently died regardless of their age. The only relevance of 115 years is, as the guideline says, people who are over 115 years are assumed dead and people under 115 years are assumed alive; unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since Seth Rich was not even close to 115 years, but his death is very well established and disputed I think by no one here, the 115 years bit is irrelevant to this particular discussion. He is however recently deceased, again something accepted by everyone in this discussion (or should be), therefore BLP arguably could still apply, as BDP says. :: Nil Einne ( talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
No, my comment is not wrong. It was a question. Kindly cease making false attributions as to my statements. If I ask a question, that is not an assertion. And it is not wrong to ask a question. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
PeacePeace wrote: "This murder is notable as a fascinating mystery and as having rewards offered"...the mysterious noise heard by his girlfriend to which he responded not to worry with the bruises on face and body are also a riddle... Comment: Wikipedia is not a mystery novel or a serial mystery magazine or suspense novel. Wikipedia does not promote speculation. And saying Seth "had a significant project with the DNC" is a POV statement - media coverage did not say his job was significant - and this is really not related to any ONE EVENT criteria. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I have to agree that such an article would not pass WP:PROFRINGE and would run counter to WP:BDP which is concerned with fringe and conspiracy theories that have been shown to be needlessly "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" - as demonstrated above by User:FourViola and noted by others in the above. Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Question RE: "per above" -- there's an awful lot of discussion up thar. Could you please specify the reason you believe this subject is notable, citing WP policy and RS citations? How would you respond to the concerns stated above that virtually all of the media coverage relates to Wikileaks' coy attempt to insinuate itself and its agenda into this matter rather than to the crime which is the subject of this article and this AfD? SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG applies. There are many reliable, independent sources covering this event, as demonstrated by TradingJihadist and Anythingyouwant. As for the WikiLeaks thing, this still shows that this event is notable, at least in some way because of all that coverage. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind merging this into another article(s), but either way, this is too notable to simply delete. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 16:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and change name to Seth Rich. The clear and reasonable consensus is for keep. This deletion push is irrational, resembling shill tactics. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. DNC may seek to repress the collection and dissemination of this information because (Redacted). Retaliation is an obvious possible motive because of Rich's info leak to Assange. If even partly true, notability is huge; but either way, it should no longer be disputed. - JGabbard ( talk) 15:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
For those who would decry the logic of criminal minds as conspiracy theory in order to dismiss the larger picture surrounding this event, I just wanted to be 'Captain Obvious' and connect a couple dots pointing to the elephant in the room. 'Nuff said. - JGabbard ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't create the article. I do support keeping it, partly for its value in teaching conspiracy theorists that it may well be a garden variety mugging. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I mistook you for the article creator at the bottom of the first page, sorry. But two shots to the back of the head is NOT the typical M.O. of muggers, more of assassins.- JGabbard ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
collapse misstatement of fact contradicted by virtually every RS and insinuating BLP violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, The Telegraph says 2 shots in the head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/ . But now the Daily Mail Online (which looks rather tabloid to me, says shot were in the torso). ( PeacePeace ( talk) 02:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Is this egregious breach of BLP sanctionable? Geogene ( talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:BLPTALK-- Savonneux ( talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ JGabbard: per Geogene and Savonneux' comments, I have redacted what appears to be the most major BLP breach in your comments. I'm leaving the "assassins" comment stand for now, since I'm not sure if I see a BLP issue when the implied villain is a collective entity rather than a particular individual or individuals. That said, if others see fit to strike that and similar comments of yours, I won't be objecting to that by any means. Furthermore, even if your conspiracy-theorizing here does not violate BLP, it is inappropriate in an AFD or anywhere on Wikipedia; additionally, they may be sanctionable under ARBAP2. I would strongly encourage you to remove your comments here. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (see trend line [34]) --- I know there are quite a few people that love conspiracy theories but as of today there are no reliable sources stating that this was anything other than a DC murder (he was walking home around 4 in the morning). If something comes to light over the next few months it's not hard to recreate an article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the creator of this article had less than 100 edits and was blocked indefinitely less than a week ago [35] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the blocking of that editor is notable, as are the 2 or 3 (by police, Wikileaks, & possible 1 other) offers of reward money for information about this murder. The passion this murder has raised is also notable, as methinks the attempts to censor the article. It is notable that immediately after a few objective facts about Rich's family, were added to the article, the addition was speedily reverted. The continuation of the derogatory talking point "conspiracy theory," while the article has no conspiracy theory, is notable. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 21:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
  • Clearly the level of interest on both sides, with such an inordinate amount of agitation by the minority side over the article's very existence, more than justifies its indefinite continuation.- JGabbard ( talk) 21:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
FYI Gabbard, Peace, et al. [36]. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Controversy or not, the murder was covered extensively in reliable sources. The fact that Wikileaks issued a reward for information leading to a conviction for the killing makes the subject of this page even more notable. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Being covered does not mean notable. Road closures are covered, food fights are covered, rescued dogs are covered, but all very soon forgotten. When there are sourced claims to some notability, then we can create an article about that notability. Until then, there's simply nothing to put in this article, unless we just ramble and speculate. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 15:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Specifically, it's a WP:SENSATION case: there is material we could put in the article to indicate notability beyond WP:ROUTINE, but that material is prohibited under WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BDP. FourViolas ( talk) 15:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for saying it better. It's not an article we can support at this time. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comatmebro, your creation of the article doesn't impact my view that the subject of this article is not-notable, and therefore it follows that this article should be deleted. I understand that you think he is notable. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Somedifferentstuff I never asked if my creation of the article impacted your view of the subject's notability. I said your argument was irrelevant. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comatmebro, then your mention of "user with less than 100 edits" was meaningless. Here is my current view: Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (see trend line [37]) --- The subject of this article is not-notable nor has he been proven to be. This will be my final comment here. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Removed duplicate bolding of "Delete". FourViolas ( talk) 11:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Somedifferentstuff Again, YOU mentioned the "user with 100 edits," and made it seem as though that had some sort of weight as to whether or not the article should be kept. You are right, it is meaningless. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - consensus indicates a lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Pay accounts office DSC

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

Regional Pay Accounts office is not notable. WP:BRANCH Uncletomwood ( talk) 03:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Why cant it be notable? The pay accounts office dsc is managing the pay and other finance functions of the 61000 Defence security corps(dsc) located through out the military installations of govt of india and selected embassies. and it is a govt office of importance in kannur kerala. roshyf2 04:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 ( talk • contribs)
Defence Security Corps may also be gone through roshyf2 04:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 ( talk • contribs)


  • Delete and Comment: Mr Roshan, The minute regional, administrative and functionality differences in "military Pay Account offices" should not be counted for separate articles. You could create a page for CGDA and create a separate para for all the regional offices and clubbed together. It would be really unusual to have articles on each of the regional/zonal office of Military pay office, as it won't have much content to add on after a certain time. There seems to be no rationale for having many articles, on pay account offices which are anyway not notable organisations. You may add this information to a page you can create on the CGDA or in the IDAS page itself. See this /info/en/?search=Defense_Finance_and_Accounting_Service. Also Mr. Roshan you seem to have a very high Conflict of Interest with regard to this matter and COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Uncletomwood ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RETAIN and comment :Mr Uncle tom your advice is highly appreciated,i am on creating a CGDA wiki article which will have links to the 44 military pay accounts offices ( that cares for diverse regiments, and corps).That does not undermine the significance of the wiki articles of Military pay accounts offices because links have to be connected to a link article.The office of the CGDA historically had different names and a span of around 270 yrs. Unlike US defence finance which is a recent one and located in same country , the Indian defense finance and accounting offices have suffered relocation due the infamous partition of Indian sub continent and the creation and location of troops and regiments have changed. The Wiki article Defense_Finance_and_Accounting_Service which you have given for my understanding also have links to regional military depots , reserve centers , closed military installations of US which is seldom updated with contents or just updated to change the name of the head of the office .The wikipage for PAO DSC or any military pay accounts office becomes distinct because of different purpose,origin, clientele and procedures it follow. If the entire details get infused in a single CGDA wiki , the page becomes gigantic. More over these offices have regional importance too (say important govt offices/ military offices of Kannur). There is no Conflict of interest from my side. The right to information in India gives the right to each and every person of functioning of offices in a location. There are two sets of people who would like to know about these offices the direct clientele(DSC SOLDIERS and related) , other sister Ministry of defence organisations and Common man who may like to know about the offices.roshyf2 06:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 ( talk • contribs)


Need your expert help @ DGG, Lemongirl942, and SwisterTwister: Uncletomwood ( talk) 08:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. routine government offices of this sort maintain their own web sites, and the necessary detailed information should be there. Everyone knows to look for there if they need info. we're an encyclopedia , not a self help resource or a directory--see WP:NOT. When we do have an article on an organisation we do not link to its local offices--again, that is expected to be on the main website. In fact, we have a rule against doing so, WP:ELNO. The right to information about government functions in India is expected to be met by the activities of the government. It is not a right to have articles about them on a private website dedicated to another purpose entirely. We cannot be expected to fulfill the functions of every possible information need, worldwide, just those that one would expect to find in a modern encyclopedia. WP articles are addressed to the general public, and this is met by articles on the general organization . Material addressed to the clients is considered promotional, no matter who writes it. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the the reasoning by DGG above. I am generally supportive of keeping article about government offices, but this one is a sub-branch if I am not wrong? Accordingly, WP:NOTDIR applies here. We don't create individual articles on every sub-branch of a government office. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, the notability concerns raised prior to the relist appear to have been addressed by the post-relist argument, which is supported by sources. If these are not adequate, please open another AfD - the suitability of sources typically should be decided by a community discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Petr Torak

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

Member OBE is not notable by itself, and that what he was awarded. Part of a series on non notable police officers. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as think he is borderline notable for co-founding two organisations: one to help the Czech and Slovak community and another one to support Romany ,gypsy and traveller police officers, the reliable sources newspaper coverage cited in the article confirm the iinformation in the article. Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there is still nothing actually convincing and there's also no convincing substance for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Roman are a heavily discriminated against racial minority, so much so that they are badmouthed at Holocaust memorials that should be recognizing the fact that they were the other full victims of the holocaust besides the Jews. People who would not dream of stereotyping other racial groups will stereotype Roman as a bunch of theives, cheaters and people unwilling to do real work. We have reliable sources mentioning Torak as the first Roman police officer in the United Kingdom. He has received recognition and notability for his work, and the article should be kept. It is bad enough the Roman are the most maligned ethnic group, when one has recieved real recognition for doing good, we should not delete it since he clearly is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep As well as the sources already added to the article, there's more to show he's notable. Profiles in the Daily Mail and on the Radio Prague website. Also other Czech news sites some of which may be RS though I'm not familiar with them. He's had all this attention because he's playing a unique role in British policing during a period of much public discussion about East European migrants, with Roma people in particular getting bad publicity. He's been invited to consult with the OSCE [38]and other organisations, like this. Czechs are interested in comparing with their own issues re Roma people. Also, lesser coverage in RS like a paragraph in a BBC article and the Telegraph - also several pieces in local papers [39] and Roma/Romani/traveller coverage including this big Roma news site. Lelijg ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The Bloodline (professional wrestling)

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

GNG tag since May and concerns never addressed. This group was a brief pairing for a storyline which lasted roughly a month. LM2000 ( talk) 03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 ( talk) 03:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Brahmakayastha Rajanayas

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

Unsourced article aimed at caste glorification. Unable to find any independent reliable sources, ignoring Wikipedia mirrors and social media pages. utcursch | talk 03:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MelanieN ( talk) 21:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Afrana Islam Prity

Afrana Islam Prity (  | 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 is a non-notable player who does not pass muster of NSPORTS or Tennis Project Guidelines. No WTA entries, no minor league titles, no jr titles at the Grand Slam level, no top 3 jr ranking, no Fed Cup that I can find. One of a million young players. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There's a to me surprising level of coverage of this player in the local English-language press; I suspect if I knew how her name is written in the local alphabet, I'd find still more. She clearly doesn't meet the specific notability guideline for her sport, but I suspect she may meet the second form of the GNG: a great volume of RS coverage over time. And GNG trumps the specialised notability guidelines. That's why I removed the PROD. Yngvadottir ( talk) 13:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
In Bengali script, the name is written আফরানা ইসলাম প্রিতী . A Google search returns a single passing mention. [40] -- Worldbruce ( talk) 17:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah this one is ridiculously non-notable. She is ranked 1647 and has played in 9 ITF jr events in her life and is 1-8 in her matches. Those sources almost entirely consist of scores. And she hasn't played in almost a year... maybe washed up at 16. This entry seems almost humorous. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" has no basis in Wikipedia policy or practice.  Sandstein  05:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Neopaganism in Mexico

Neopaganism in Mexico (  | 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 sites absolutely no sources and is not factual in any way. Until I edited it, it was claiming that Neopganism is a New Age sect, and that pagans worship Satan. Sbrianhicks ( talk) 01:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
It is against Wikipedia policy to have an article written that is completely unsourced and original research. Sbrianhicks ( talk) 02:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Neiltonks. Deletion here does not constitute "bias"--I'm sure an article on this subject would be welcomed if it were properly sourced and if any of the listed sects were actually found to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the article in its current state. -- Finngall talk 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Love Ambition

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

bare tracklist. No references or indication of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Caitlin Crosby

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

Examining everything here such as the current article and my searches (News and browsers), the 1st AfD and everything else, shows there's simply been no substantially better sourcing since 2011, all I managed to find, at best, were a few links since then. At best, this is still borderline as the longest works she's had as an actress was 5 and 8 TV episodes. She's only had 1 apparent album since that time, but there's also no substantial attention for that so the questionability still is noticeable. There's no inherited notability from working with other people and looking at the article's history essentially also suggests there's simply not a lot better. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America 1000 05:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Mahasadhvi Mallamma

Mahasadhvi Mallamma (  | 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 by IP. Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains ( talk) 16:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
weak keep : since its a movie based ona true story or autobiography , it would be better to develop the both real biography article as well as this one Maximpoudje ( talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. apparent consensus ; I doubt relisting will clarify matters further DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Uday Sahay

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

Earlier nominations failed on lower participation. Non-Notable mid-level police official who has left service to start a non-notable company. Uncletomwood ( talk) 06:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 09:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 09:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Don't know - his notability is at best marginal and the article has a terrible problem with COI editors coming in to write about how marvellous he is.
That said, after one AFD goes a month with one Keep, one Don't Know, and the lister's Delete, I dunno how you expect more discussion starting another one four days later... Pinkbeast ( talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If you see he's just EDITED the book. Was not a signoficant author. Book is also not notable. Uncletomwood ( talk) 03:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't see it quite that way, but unless we're strictly using the test of the notability guideline for Authors, does that even matter? I'm not at all passionate about this and think his notability is minimal. If notability exists at all, it is proven by the General Notability Guideline. The claim is weak, but the article I cited, although ostensibly ABOUT the book does seem to include significant biographical information on the subject's larger life, (Career, spouse, views on govenment etc...) not just his credentials as an author. BoyRD ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- the subject appears to have served in a communications capacity in the police -- sort of like a PIO (public information officer). He then retired and started a branding consultancy / PR agency as described here:
"A contract has been awarded to a Delhi-based organisation headed by former IPS officer Uday Sahay for brand building in Bihar, especially through social media and to keep in touch with non resident Biharis. Nitish has also outsourced the task of marketing the key initiatives of his government to maximise support."
The subject appears to do a lot of self-promotion, as I'm seeing a number of trivial mentions (one per article), such as:
  • "Former IPS officer Uday Sahay, who has served as the liaison officer for the government of India for the Kailash-Mansarovar pilgrimage said this is the best thing that could have happened for the benefit of the yatris. "The other route is extremely treacherous. The vehicles can go only till Pitthoragarh district in Uttarakhand, and from there it is a trek of about seven days through Lipu pass, into Taklakot, a Chinese cantonment town. Major mishaps have happened during the last leg," Sahay told ET". link
  • "The state government has given a contract to a Delhi-based organisation headed by former IPS officer Uday Sahay for branding Bihar, especially via social media. This initiative was undertaken by Bihar Foundation that keeps in touch with NRBs. The agency will also market the key initiatives of the present government." link
Because of the problem of COI editing and expected persistent use of the article for self-promotion, I believe it would be helpful to delete this article. The notability is marginal at best. Yes, he edited several books, but at least one of them appears to be PR related: "This book is a collection of articles based on first-hand experiences in news media by eminent Indian media personalities. It is a comprehensive collection, exploring different kinds of news reporting across TV, print, and radio as also across different genres like sports, business, entertainment, war. Each essay is written as a primer yet with important tips from the foremost practitioners, which makes the business of reporting and news both a science and an art." ( Making News).
So overall, suggest deleting. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. His job as a police chief is not grounds for automatic notability. The GNG isn't met, given the meager coverage, and editing a book (or two) does not make one notable. Writing a book is different, since the moment that book gets reviewed, the author basically gets reviewed; with editors, that is not the case--plus we would need serious secondary sourcing to establish that the book helped create notability, etc. Drmies ( talk) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being a Chief of Police, even a chief of a large city, doesn't make one notable. But, being seen as someone whose opinion is important enough Indian journalists cite it, would make him notable. It would make him notable, even if those of us weighing in here all had strong feelings he just wasn't significant enough to be notable. Our policies are clear. Our opinions, our personal opinions, on what is notable, are trumped by what verifiable, reliable, authoritative sources have had to say. Wouldn't anyone who did their own web search, and saw that Indian journalists cited his opinions, on a variety of subjects, recognize he measured up to our notability criteria? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: @ Drmies and Geo Swan: I don't think that the subject was Chief of Police. From what I could gather, he was a police officer and a government official in a communications capacity, not head of the agency. Hence he went on to launch a PR agency. "A voluntarily retired officer of the Indian Police Service from Union Territory cadre, he headed the Directorate of Information and Publicity of Delhi Government and the communication vertical of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 Delhi before founding SAUV Communications Private Limited. A five-year stint in Prasar Bharati converted a baton wielding police officer to a pen holding communicator." (from bio at agency's web site). K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • K.e.coffman, I meant "police chief" in a loose sense. I'm looking at the article again, cleaning it up and teasing out the references. It is possible that he sort of squeaks by because of the coffee table book (and a few other little things), but I have not yet found enough evidence to call him notable as an author. Geo Swan's "keep" is, as usual, completely devoid of evidence. Drmies ( talk) 03:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- this is one of the few things which appear not to be puff pieces: From Sheila govt to team Arvind, The Indian Express. But this sounds like rumors and innuendos. The subject may be somewhat notable as a political consultant. It's just difficult to tease anything out among all the PR / puffery. In any case, this coverage is trivial and I still advocated deletion. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His police career sounds undistinguished and non-notable. Since then he has been a media consultant and has edited some non-notable books. Being quoted in news stories counts as a passing mention and also does not make a person notable. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity page and clear case of WP:ADMASK. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Following are the claims of notability and my comments are marked.
  • Police career: Absolutely not notable. This fails GNG.
  • Subsequent career:
  1. Chairman and Managing Director of SAUV Communications Private Limited: Organization and position held, both not notable.
  2. MD and CEO of Bodhi Tree Life Learning Private Limited: Organization and position held, both not notable.
  3. Secretary General of the Society for Social and Economic Development: Organization and position held, both not notable.
  4. Pro-Chancellor at Indira Gandhi Technological and Medical Sciences University: Fails WP:NACADEMIC.
  5. Key media consultant for Sheila Dikshit’s campaign: Not notable.
  6. Chief Communication Adviser to the Global Bihar Summit: Not notable.
  7. Communication Advisor to the Unique Identification Authority of India: Not notable.
  8. Communication Consultant to Delhi integrated Multi-Modal Transport Systems Limited: Not notable.
  9. Communication Consultant to Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management: Not notable.
  10. Communication consultant, the task of digitally branding Bihar: Not notable.
  11. Regent of the INLEAD Federation by Indian Institute of Learning and Advanced Development: Not notable.
  • Publications:
  1. Edited book - Making News: Handbook of the Media in Contemporary India: Not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR.
  2. Contributed 20 photos to a photography book: Seriously??
  3. Co-authored Media aur Jansamvad: Not notable and fails WP:AUTHOR.
  4. Edited a coffee table book, Raj Bhavan of the Rising Arunachal Pradesh: Not notable and fails WP:AUTHOR.
There is nothing encyclopedic about the subject Uday Sahay. The subject appears to be a real world equivalent of hat collector and keeps on collecting some or the other title. Page is purely promotional and appears to be the case of paid editing. The article creator had also created Vartika Nanda which also needs attention for varifiability. Sorry for the long vote and comments, but this article has been nominated four times and every-time it manages to slip through the crack. The 1st non-admin closure performed by Czar (who was not an admin then) on 6 July 2013 was not proper and this nomination should have been handled by an admin. In any-case, lets correct this problem now. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I concur with the above comments. I also believe that the "keep" votes were made under the faulty assumption that the subject was "chief of police". He was not, and these votes should be discounted. This is a non notable, publicity-seeking individual. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli#Notable alumni. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

List of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli alumni

List of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli alumni (  | 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 institute's main article at National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli previously had about 50 people listed as alumni, plus a link to the subject of this AFD. After going through the people named in the main article, I reduced it down to 8 people who currently have their own article, plus commented out two more who have an article which doesn't mention this institute as an alma mater. The list article actually has less people than what was previously at the institute's article, but it boils down to it being the same handful of notable people. There are not enough notable alumni to warrant a separate list, so I think this can be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You could have dealt with this just by redirecting the list back to National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli#Notable alumni. The validity of individual entries is a matter for normal editing and discussion, as is whether there are enough notable entries to merit a separate list based on WP:SIZE concerns. So this shouldn't have been brought to AFD at all, and certainly not before such alternatives had been attempted/discussed per policy at WP:ATD. Redirection has never been attempted, the list's talk page has never even been used, and the issue has also not been raised on the parent article's talk page. postdlf ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I could have redirected it, and have done so for other articles in the past. But on this occasion I considered that the title is not a "useful search" term as mentioned at WP:ATD; the average reader is surely going to look for the school's article first. The parent article's talk page hasn't been used in about 5 1/2 years, so I couldn't see the point in starting a discussion there when it is unlikely to garner any attention. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Chandrashekhar Naringrekar

Chandrashekhar Naringrekar (  | 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 didn't find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, disptuted PROD by author. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 06:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage in news as well. No sources found. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

If you find nothing on news, that is because there is nothing in the news. Use Google Books for a change. In any case, I am not gonna defend if you guys are hell bent on deleting it :-) Also, see here: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=naringrekar+chandrashekhar and see here: http://oriental-traditional-music.blogspot.com/2011/06/chandrashekhar-naringrekar-surbahar.html- Sribharathmk ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 07:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete : obviously not worth enough to keep , due lack of notable events in the life Maximpoudje ( talk) 03:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Tea Jazz

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

Delete. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Only claim to fame is "He got his first shot at doing music on a biggest level in 2010 when he got admitted into the university". Has never featured on any chart of any country. All the sources quoted cannot be taken as WP:RS. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ AKS.9955: Why do you not consider Vanguard (Nigeria) (founded 1983) and The Nation (Nigeria) (founded 2006) to be reliable sources? They're both well-established news outlets, per WP:NEWSORG. Qwfp ( talk) 15:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, the interviews are not promotional, there was a press conference in which several news outlets were present, including The Nation and Vanguard. He also topped City FM 105.1 charts as well as Raypower Radio Charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzy anslem ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tea Jazz was on the performing list for One Lagos last year december. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzy anslem ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 13:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Diffusion of innovations. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Eco-innovation diffusion

Eco-innovation diffusion (  | 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 poorly written article (term paper?) covers material that is a hyper-specialized form of Diffusion of innovations and the topic is relatively well covered in that article already. A redirect there would be good. Toddst1 ( talk) 18:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti Talk 15:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 15:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, and actually almost a keep. I am not sure why some voters instead of discussing whether the article complies with WP:GNG decided to discuss some details which do not seem to be relevant according to our policies, but all in all, more voters believe he passes GNG. The opposition is not insignificant and has some good arguments, this is why I am closing this as no consensus.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey

AfDs for this article:
Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (  | 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 was recreated after being deleted a little over a year ago. There is no significant coverage that would meet a specific notability guideline or WP:GNG. He served on a creed revision committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly; he issued a minority report for the committee (almost identical to the majority report) one year, and he was mentioned attending another meeting the next year (the Fort Wayne Sentinel said "nothing of importance transpired"). He attended some notable schools and has notable relatives, but the article's sources don't establish anything more than that. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 02:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Please do not minimize the importance of being the only non-cleric, a lawyer and judge chosen to draft the proposal for creed revision at the highest governing body of the Presbyterian Church, the national General Assembly. The proposed changes had been the subject of extensive debate and disagreement for several years prior to the actual vote. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 05:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The bigger mistake would be to overemphasize the importance of his role; see WP:UNDUE. Unless I am missing something, none of the sources even pointed out that Humphrey was the only non-cleric, lawyer or judge on this small committee (I don't think the sources mention the ordination status of the people referred to as Reverend - or whether any of them also had law degrees); we should not go out of our way to make a point of this detail if the sources do not. The sources only make single-sentence or paragraph mentions of Humphrey, so we would not be faithful to those sources if we came to our own conclusion that he had a large and important role. See also WP:BIO1E. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 05:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
You are probably right, EricEnfermero that I have made some incorrect assumptions. Yesterday I received from one of his descendants some .pdf images she scanned from a scrapbook. One is a Louisville newspaper article "Death's Summons Came in Sleep to Mr. Humphrey" dated March 22, 1917. It tells me more than I knew before, and one thing I am assuming after reading this notice is that he was not an actual judge of any court, but rather a super-active influential lawyer called "judge" by his peers. More from that newspaper will be added. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
There is confusion in the handling of deletion of articles. I am calling attention to this here because other Wikipedia Help venues have not led to a resolution of the problem, and the answer may add some light to the deletion proposed here. I have written 26 Wikipedia articles. One of them is about Edward William Cornelius Humphrey, an article which is accurately noted here as having been previously deleted after a long discussion. The other is Edward Cornelius Humphrey, a physician and former chief medical director of the Tennessee Valley Authority who shows on my list of 26 articles as "deleted" in red. I do not recall any discussion relevant to the latter's deletion and believe that the reason given for the deletion may have been the appearance that the article had previously been deleted. I think this is an error made by editors assuming that Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Cornelius Humphrey were the same person. I continue to work on both articles. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC) I have today determined which editor made the deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey and have requested that he/she confirm that an error of confusion of identity was made in deleting the article. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 21:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article was deleted just about a year ago, nothing about the notability of this long dead person has changed in the ensuing year. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As best I can tell Humphrey was connected with a predecessor of the PCUSA. Since the PCUSA has had 5% annual membership decline every year from 2010-2015, and no reason to suppose this has changed in the last year, the only possible change in the last year is that Humphrey is less notable today than he was a year ago. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Not to comment on the notability of this subject, but I'm surprised to read this stance. I thought that if someone was notable at one time (per WP:NTEMP), they don't suddenly become non-notable (or less notable) later. The evidence can be re-evaluated later, of course, but a recent decline in church membership cannot change whether the subject was notable in his time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • REPLY If we followed that logic, Johnpacklambert, then John Calvin should also be deleted. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • John Calvin, an entry that turned fifteen years old last week, has never been deleted. There is no good-faith analogy to be made there. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 23:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • The problem here is the premise that contributions to wp:notability dissipate with time.  As per the WP:N nutshell, notable topics are those that have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  Topics don't "ungain" attention.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • I think the premise is actually that Humphrey was non-notable last year (see the previous deletion discussion) and that nothing has happened to increase his notability since that time. I don't want to speak for other editors, but I am virtually sure that the opinion in question was not intended to strip notability from any subject that had previously shown any actual notability. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 00:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP The life-time notability of Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and other important figures of the past has not decreased. Rather, difficulties in documenting biographical research has increased. This is due, in part, to the inaccessibility of many newspaper archives and inadequate online databases. Many of the "reliable resources" recommended for Wikipedia are of no value to the researcher of past notability. Historical research requires a more scholarly, attentive approach than many editors have the time or inclination to provide. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 18:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lots of references. Looks prominent among Presbyterians. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per MelanieN's !vote in the first AfD. It still seems to cover all the bases. There's nothing to hang the "notability hat" on. I see a great, perhaps even desperate effort to build a resume of a genuinely accomplished person, but that's all it can become. Family connections to a person may color our judgment with respect to following policies, but we're supposed to fight that in ourselves in building this encyclopedia. It may be easier to comply with policies if we write about subjects we have little or no connection to. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  On a Google search for [site:library.in.gov 1901 "Judge Humphrey" OR "E. W. C. Humphrey"], I found the following snippets on the first page of 10 Ghits:
  1. Page 3 Indianapolis News 24 May 1901 "E. W. C. Humphrey, Who Signed the Minority Report, Opens the..."
  2. Page 12 Indianapolis News 18 May 1901 "Dr. William McKibben and E. W. C. Humphrey, Esq., could not approve of the..."
  3. Page 1 Indanapolis Journal 25 May 1901 "of Allegheny, Fa., yielded the floor to Judge E. W. C. Humphrey, of Louisville, who signed...Judge Humphrey urged the elimination from the committee's report of the..."
  4. Page 1 Indianapolis Journal 26 May 1901 "Dr. William McKibben, of Cincinnati, who, with E. W. C. Humphrey..."
  5. Page 4 Indianapolis Journal 4 June 1901 "...Daniel R. Noyes, Synod of Minnesota; E. W. C. Humphrey."
I also reviewed one of the clippings in the article, and added a quote:
  1. "Revision to be discussed to-day. Presbyterians will take up question at morning session in Calvary Church. Admission is by ticket". The Times. Philadelphia. 23 May 1901. p. 7. Retrieved 2016-08-14. The two reports from the majority and minority of the revision committee...find that a plurality of presbyteries which have been interrogated by the committee since its appointment at the last assembly are in favor of some new statement of present doctrines...to prepare amendment to the Confession of Faith... The minority report will be handed in by Elder Humphrey, of Louisville.
Unscintillating ( talk) 23:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a key point you are making about the importance of the minority report submitted by Elder Humphrey, because, as I recall, it was the minority report that determined the final outcome at the meeting of the General Assembly. The final Assembly vote rejected two items in the majority report, the same two items opposed by the minority report. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with option to merge to Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey  A most interesting topic and a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia.  Passes WP:GNG.  I also found it intriguing that Louisville was a site in 1897 for Presbyterian reconcilation after the Civil War.  Louisville in 1845 was a site for the Methodist religious schism that opened the way for the Civil War, and PCUSA still has their headquarters in Louisville.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (changed to keep per discovery of additional sources, see below) Thanks for pinging me, several of you. My opinion has not changed from the previous discussion: This person, while undoubtedly a source of pride to his family, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO which require significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. His legal career and his extensively reported genealogy do not convey notability. The only possible source of notability is his activity in Presbyterian church business, and IMO that does not meet the notability criteria either. He gets a mention (but not significant coverage) in multiple articles about the 1901 creed revision. That revision got coverage at the time, but only one source seems to have even mentioned what the revisions were about (things like infant salvation and whether a man can marry his brother's widow). The creed revision resolved issues which had been hotly contested for a decade or more, but they do not seem terribly significant in the overall history of the Presbyterian church - much less the committee members who worked on them. The article also says he was involved in talks in 1897 to unite the "northern" and "southern" branches of the church, but those talks were apparently not fruitful since reunification did not happen until 1983. He received respectful obituaries from local sources; that was his only "significant" coverage. The author (presumably a descendant) has done a commendable job researching the subject, but I just can't find the notability (per GNG and BIO) to meet our criteria. (For that matter, I don't find his half brother Alexander Pope Humphrey to be notable either.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Especially notable in your post was the statement, "The only possible source of notability is his activity in Presbyterian church business..."  Perhaps you'd do me the favor of linking to the notability page that mentions the "possible source[s] of notability", since I've never seen it.  Every snippet and quote in my comment above is "significantC coverage" (see WT:Notability#The definition of significant coverage for an explanation of the superscript).  Naturally, editors will tend to reach different conclusions when they are reading from different notability criteria.  Even by what I guess to be your criteria (which I'll call mn:notable), though, his involvement in Presbyterian church business I think you should have found to be mn:notable.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, Unscintillating. I see that you have engaged in discussions about the meaning of "significant", although your superscripts totally escape me (and don't bother to explain). At the discussion you linked, I find several quotes which go along with my understanding of "significant": "Significant coverage is a matter of depth, not length." "The key phrase is in depth. Multiple trivial mentions in the media don't add up to notability." " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Now to answer your question: By "only possible source of notability" I mean that his activity in Presbyterian church business is what other discussants here seem to be hanging their notable/keep comments on - that's the only part of his life where notability is being asserted, so that's where I looked for evidence of it. But what I find on that subject is sources with a passing mention, namely, a mention that he was on the committee or that he led the minority report. So that's part of the problem: passing mentions only, which you quite properly describe as "snippets" and "quotes". The other part of the problem is that the committee he was on, the creed revision he helped to produce, does not appear to have had any historical significance, so that even if he was important to the process, it was not a notable process. Yes, it got coverage, but most of the coverage at the time doesn't even report what the changes were - and those changes don't appear to have had a significant impact on the history of the church. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: quote from the Summary of the Deletion Processes: "The best way to help AFD to continue to work is always to check things out for yourself before presenting a rationale. (For example: If the assertion is that the subject is unverifiable, have a look yourself to see if you can find sources that other editors may have missed.)" Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd respectfully submit that most of the comments here come from people who are pretty familiar with deletion processes. When you've just discovered a few days ago - after one AfD has been completed and a second one is in progress on a subject who is a relative of yours - that the subject may not have actually been a judge, I think it rings hollow to caution others about the extent of their research. I know that you probably haven't intended to come across so negatively, but I think it's important to understand that when editors don't care to turn WP into a web space for genealogical research, it doesn't indicate a lack of research, an inclination toward laziness, or anything else. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the delete !voters have an argument, I think redrafting a statement of faith by a major American denomination is sufficient evidence of enduring impact. I also think that, in a borderline case like this, where the person in question is long dead so WP:BLP or promotionalism are never going to become issues, arguing this fervently against a well written but relatively unimportant article isn't a good use of our time and effort. Jclemens ( talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This isn't an absolute strike against notability, but in the Encyclopedia of Louisville, a nearly 1,000-page book which covers a wide variety of Louisville-related subjects, including people, Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (or anyone with the surname Humprhey) is never mentioned. This includes not a word in the two-page coverage of "Presbyterians". With Louisville being a center of this church, that further suggests this subject wasn't that important. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Note that E.W.C.'s mother Catherine Cornelia Prather is mentioned in this book by Kleber, and his grandfather Thomas Prather is mentioned many times. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Also found many references to people with the surname Humphrey. One I noticed was E.W.C.'s half brother Alexander Pope Humphrey listed as one of the original seventeen members of the Salmagundi Club. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 21:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC). Also, in the article "Cave Hill Cemetery" in the Louisville Encyclopedia edited by John Kleber, one finds E.P.Humphrey, E.W.C.'s father. The Cave Hill section of the book, drawn from other good history sources, describes the role of the Reverend Doctor Edward Porter Humphrey as a co-founder of Cave Hill Cemetery, one of the world's great garden cemeteries, and as the person who gave the religious consecration and dedicatory address for the cemetery on July 25, 1848. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • None of the Humphreys mentioned were in the index of the Encyclopedia of Louisville (therefore, not considered notable enough by the author to help readers find them). But as for the main point, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable relatives doesn't make this subject notable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • No, they don't, but that gives me an idea: instead of deletion, this article could be Merged/Redirected (changing to Keep, see below) to the article about his father. Edward Porter Humphrey, who probably is notable - and some information about EWC Humphrey could be added to that article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • In answering the comment by Stevie the Man, I could not let the inaccuracy of the statement about the Kleber book pass unnoticed. I did a bit of research using the search engine that comes with online Google Ebooks, rather than a limited index. MelanieN, Each of the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Porter Humphrey is a discrete and notable subject in his own right. I am the writer of both articles. Merging the two in one encyclopedia article would be clunky and confusing to the reader.-- Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 02:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
            • No mentions in the actual index of the actual book that I have in my possession says something, though. If the index is limited, it may make one ponder why it is limited. Editorial judgment as to the notability of these individuals? Ask Kleber. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
            • I asked myself the same question, Stevie the Man. The answer I think lies in the fact that Kleber was the editor of the Encyclopedia of Kentucky, not the author of all its entries, and probably not the creator of the index, which in many cases is compiled by the publisher (in this case the University of Kentucky Press). Perhaps the index the publisher chose to create was one listing the names of the separate entries, e.g. "Presbyterianism" and "Presbyterian." Or the names of the individual contributing authors, or both . . . but not the names of the people mentioned within the articles.-- Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 16:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC) To be more precise, I should say not the names of the people mentioned within the entries. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 16:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
              • This is nearly going off-topic, but the editor is in charge of overseeing all the content, including the index. Besides speculating, though, again, ask Kleber. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
                • I think we're on-topic, Stevie is the man!. Spurred on by you--for which I thank you--I now have a published copy of the impressive Encyclopedia of Kentucky. I'm trying to convey that the printed index itself without reference to online search engines can be very misleading and unrewarding to a researcher. For example, I looked in the index for Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company, an article about one of the greatest hardware manufacturing companies in the world which, as you know, was based in Louisville. A few Belknap family members and early versions of the company were listed, but nothing in the printed index to indicate that the company had ever become more than just an iron foundry or hardware store. Following at random the index reference to one of the Belknap family members, I found him embedded in the comprehensive article "Architecture" by Elizabeth Fitzpatrick "Penny" Jones. Despite the limited index, as a confirmed bibliophile, I am certain that I will use this book and its index in addition to and as a complement to my online research.-- Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • I think I could get behind this solution, MelanieN. I am increasingly convinced that deletion would just result in a third version of the article with basically the same unconvincing claims to notability and a couple of dozen references that don't cover the subject with significant depth. I would be concerned about how big the Edward Porter Humphrey would get, but I am curious to hear other opinions. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • This solution is within reason, although I would loathe to see ultimately a biography within a biography. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  A merge recommendation from an AfD has been accepted since 2009, but is not binding for multiple good reasons.  One of these is that a merge requires support from the content-contributor element of our community, to do the content work of the merge.  AfD volunteers are not superior editors on all content aspects of the encyclopedia, and this is a decision left to content contributors after the AfD.  Another one of these reasons is that an AfD close does not bind an administrator into administrating subsequent content disputes; and relatedly, non-admins can close an AfD discussion as merge.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  I'm not aware of a policy basis to avoid two bio's in one article.  See Mantell UFO incident, and compare with [41], which has the categories for the biography.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Are there examples outside of events or families? Two bios rolled into one article just because one of the subjects is less than notable on their own is unusual, no matter what guidelines say. Now if there's enough material for a full-fledged family article, then that may seem most reasonable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I don't have ready examples...searches or the help desk might be considered.  I'm saying several things at once here, which are more oriented to gaining consensus, than saying what I'm really thinking.  I don't assume that two bios in one article is a good idea, but I see no reason to avoid the experiment if someone is willing to do the work.  What I really think is that this is the result of pushing the notability inclusion bar higher than intended by WP:GNG and higher than our policy-based content inclusion criteria, resulting in topic starvation for WP:V NPOV material.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  WP:Articles_for_deletion/Barclay_Harding_Warburton_II is a related bio AfD about a prominent century-old American family.  The article was originally speedy deleted as "A7 no indication of importance", and the delete !votes argued "Substantial refs are the obituaries (which indeed seem more concerned with the unusual cause of death than anything else), and very short articles about abandoned plans and failed marriages. Why wuold we want an article on him?"  The result was a Keep, plus resulted in a new article about the family, Warburton family.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Merging a person's article to their parent, spouse, or child is logical and often done, since it is easy to justify putting more information into the article about someone so closely related. Merging to a half-brother is a much harder connection to justify. Mitzi, why do you prefer that target rather than his father? -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Merging E.W.C. with any of the other Humphrey notables would be an awkward thing to do and would detract from the coherence of the article. It would involve spelling out the full name each time of the two individuals and distinguishing them from one another in time and place and relationship--all of which would be difficult to document. I couldn't simply say "Humphrey" did such and such. What would the infobox for merging two individuals look like? This is especially confusing to the reader when family given names and surnames continue through the generations. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did a simple news archives search, and was astonished to eee how prominent old "E.W.C. Humphrey" was back in the day. Note that what seem to us like denominational affairs were covered at length in the national press back then, and that kind of serious coverage of a man's positions in national church council confers notability. But he is also covered in general circulation papers fo his role in the Bar Association, din discussion of legal issues, and eh weighed in heavily in a long forgotton (well, I never knew about it) national debate Remember the Maine ? So, did it sink because of construction flaws? old E.W.C. gave a number of speeches on th etopic, and they were covered rather intensely in the papers. Keep. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Can you show us any of these sources, E.M.Gregory? They could be enough to change my mind. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I ran a simple search on Proquest news archive. Because of the paywall, I will highlight a few of the articles that came up; Here, for example is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "DEFECT IN CONSTRUCTIOIN.: Mr. E. W. C. Humphrey Explains the Trouble With the Maine," 17 Feb 1898, [42] I do not pretend to understand naval architecture, but his argument is that there was a construction flaw so that when the boilers overheated, it ignited the munitions sotre, and that this was true of an entire category of navy ships, several of which had experienced similar , if less disastrous, incidents. Here: is the New-York Tribune covering him as part of a committee revisiting the Westminster Confession of Faith "The Committee to Prepare a Statement of Belief," 07 July 1901: A7 [43], I include it as one of a number of articles about that committee that ran in the major papers of the era; Then there is all the state level bar association/legal profession stuff he was involved in in Kentucky. Here, for example, he is described as the member leading a push at a Bar Association meeting, "ROTATION: Of Judges Opposed By Bar Association OLD QUESTION IS REVIVED TO CONTINUE PROSECUTION OF CHARLES G. RICHTE APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES Judge Seymour's Proposed Act Making Qualification More Difficult Is Approved NEW STANDING COMMITTEE, Courier-Journal (1869-1922) [Louisville, Ky] 19 Jan 1904: 6. [44] A lot of Bar Association stuff like this was covered in The Courier-Journal, for example, he seems to have been a force behind something to do with creating a new law library. I do not pretend to have read, or even scanned The Courier-Journal's coverage of his civic & Bar Association activities in Kentucky, but he obviously was a significant figure in Louisville, Kentucky in his era. And, nationally in Presbyterian affairs, and to at least some degree in the national conversation about the sinking of the Maine. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Munich Forum for Islam

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

Lack of notability. The "Munich Forum for Islam", the name for a planned super-mosque with additional installations, was not realized, remaining a pure 'paper project' which never went beyond an early planning stage. The intended building area, the Munich city council decided two months ago, is going to be used for other purposes and there is no substitute in sight (see sources). With the project's failure, publicly acknowledged by the initiators themselves, the notability of the subject ceases to exist ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY). As an aside, although not relevant to the issue of notability per se, the article is written from a strongly supportive, marketing perspective, both in tone and contents, violating our core policies on neutrality etc.

Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable organization akin to various religio-ethnic associations that happen to own a building, one can find dozens - equally non-notable - in the phone directory of most major cities, a quick perusal of San Francisco, CA one finds: The United Irish Cultural Center, Slovenian Hall, Jewish Community Center, Chinese Culture Center, Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California, Korean Center, Mission Cultural Center For Latino Arts, SGI-USA SF Buddhist Culture Center, Muslim Cultural Center, African American Art & Culture Complex, and no doubt more time will yield more. They no doubt get mentions in the local press, may have a profile or two on them in the local press (like most restaurants, little league team, or whatever needs to be covered to make up sufficient pages to sell a $1 newspaper these days, but they are not notable and that coverage does not make them notable, just like the current item. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, if userfication is requested please post at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Matteo Sommacal

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

Renom due to no consensus, and very little participation. Argument remains the same. A whole lot of WP:COATRACKing that adds up to nothing, on an article that was apparently created by the subject. Has no musical releases cited to anything, has nothing academic that would meet that guideline either. Local play only on specific programs does not denote rotation. No reviews, no other material that would lead to a sense of coverage. MSJapan ( talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lists of Transformers characters. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hosehead

Hosehead (  | 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. Minor Transformers character with no evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn ( talk) 01:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The notions for deletion have been countered with the provision of reliable sources. Only one of the sources is linked, but it does provide significant coverage. Per this, and that this has already been relisted twice, closing as no consensus. I will leave it to another user to perform a name change via a page move. North America 1000 06:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite what the lead says, this is actually a non-notable case. The prod tag that was added by Meatsgains was removed by DGG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Aaron X. Fellmeth, Conception and Misconception in Joint Inventorship, 2 NYU J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 73, 141 (2012)
  2. ^ Eric Ross Cohen, Clear as Mud: An Empirical Analysis of the Developing Law of Joint Inventorship in the Federal Circuit, 28 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 383, 416 (2013)
  3. ^ Sherry L. Murphy, Determining Patent Inventorship: A Practical Approach, 13 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 215, 246 (2012)
  4. ^ Yana Welinder, Falana v. Kent State Univ.: Federal Circuit Clarifies the Level of Contribution Required for Joint Invention of a Chemical Compound, Harv. J.L. & Tech. Jolt Digest (2012)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 participants of the discussion except for the author of the article agree that notability has not been demonstrated-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Lavin

Gabriel Lavin (  | 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 an utterly unremarkable man, fails WP:GNG but the author keeps removing prod and speedy delete templates, so I guess he does not agree. The Banner  talk 00:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand the points you are making. And no, I am not related to Mr. Lavin but I was a previous acquaintance of his. I do not believe the article should be deleted as he is a very well known business man who has and still is a Director (I don't recall using the word 'Own' in the article at all). He may not have much coverage Online but he is known to many people. I am not going to debate his popularity as neither one of you have grown up in Ireland so you really and truly have no stance on it. Thank you for your edit Meatsgains. I can see and understand more clearly. Thank you for taking the time to look over it. I am relativity new to Wikipedia Article writing so it is nice to see someone helping me out. Hopefully The Banner, you can re-think your request for the deletion of my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelav ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I am sorry to say, but after the removal of 2 speedy deletion templates, 1 prod-template and 1 AfD-template you have no credit left with me. So the answer is no. The Banner  talk 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
FYI, an IP removed the AfD tag on the page. I have restored. Meatsgains ( talk) 00:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per nom. The sources cited either mention him trivially or not at all. He fails GNG, as I was unable to find anything besides trivial mentions through searches. Existence =/= notability. GAB gab 03:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I hope this doesn't discourage you, Thelav, from writing more articles in the future. But I also hope you understand that we can't "take your word for it" that someone is notorious. To keep the encyclopedia orderly, we need to have standards - and we have decided, as a community, that the standard is as stated in WP:GNG. Brianga ( talk) 03:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- no indication of notability, or even being associated with notable entities. No significant RS coverage can be found. I hope the creator does not get discouraged, and will try to focus on more notable topics. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Of the page's 9 current references, Levan is only mentioned in four of them, one of which isn't even reliable. Unless additional RS can be dug up detailing Levan and his "notability", this page is headed towards deletion. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_11&oldid=1142623743"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 August 12 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This did not have to be nominated at AFD. A {{ db-band}} tag on the article would have sufficed. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Obliques (Band)

Obliques (Band) (  | 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. Completely unsourced article about a band with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; as written, this amounts to "Topic is a band that exists, the end", and doesn't even attempt to make any actual notability claim at all. In truth I'd ordinarily have speedied this, but there's already a declined speedy in the edit history. Also WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Obliquesmusic. Bearcat ( talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments

Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

As per Wikipedia:Galleries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Taylor Leigh Gordon

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a dancer, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been one member of a dance troupe that competed in, but failed to win, a reality show competition. This is not a claim of notability that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and there's no strong reliable source coverage here to get her over WP:GNG -- with the exception of one piece of coverage on a local radio station in her own hometown, the sourcing here is entirely of the primary and YouTubey varieties. And even the radio piece is about the team, while entirely failing to contain even a glancing mention of Gordon as an individual. This is not the kind of sourcing, or the evidence of notability, that it takes to get a dancer into Wikipedia. Bearcat ( talk) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The Laurier English and Academic Foundation program

The Laurier English and Academic Foundation program (  | 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 academic program. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Every individual program at every individual university does not automatically get its own standalone article. Some such programs certainly can be sourced as independently notable topics in their own right — typically the professional programs like journalism, medicine, architecture, education, law or MBA schools, much more frequently than the "routine" programs like English literature, psychology or academic transition — but no evidence has been shown or reliably sourced here that this one would qualify as one of the special cases. Plus, I'm guessing direct conflict of interest editing by a student in the program. Bearcat ( talk) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; no coverage and the article itself contains no indication that the program is especially notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dwarf deities. North America 1000 01:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Gorm Gulthyn

Gorm Gulthyn (  | 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 character article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above. As we have the article on Dwarf deities, there's no value in deleting outright. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per the above, but I'll note that it's premature, as the content has never been merged. While it's entirely possible that the IP address who turned the redirect into an article would contest this, all the editors in good standing who edit in this area are agreed that deities without non TSR/WotC refs should be appropriately merged, so I'm not sure why we even need an AfD here. Jclemens ( talk) 04:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Zakaria Mssiyah

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

Basketball player who has never played at a professional level, only in youth leagues. H-Hurry ( talk) 20:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Patrick Sinning

Patrick Sinning (  | 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 amateur basketball coach. H-Hurry ( talk) 20:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Webb Schools. I have redirected, text can be merged from the page history. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Webb Canyon Chronicle

Webb Canyon Chronicle (  | 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 student newspaper; fails WP:GNG. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article was deleted by Ymblanter. ( non-admin closure) —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 11:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Indiana Fire Academy

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

Unremarkable youth sports organization, fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH as youth leagues are generally non-notable. SanAnMan ( talk) 19:05, 11 August 2016 (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... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge to Chicago Fire Academy or delete – WP:BRANCH clearly states that "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Based on this sentence alone, the article should be deleted as coverage does not significantly expand beyond the state of Indiana. However, it might fit well into an article about the Chicago Fire academy system, preferably to be created at Chicago Fire Academy (see also Category:American reserve soccer teams for similar articles). – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Chicago Fire Academy, which should be written to cover all teams in the MLS club's academy system. The league may be notable, but youth clubs, as a general rule, are not without meeting WP:GNG. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) In light of SanAnMan's comment below, I am changing my !vote to delete. Youth clubs must meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 21:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- Chicago Fire Academy (not to be confused with Chicago Fire Soccer Club) is a non-existent article, and not even related to this article; this club is not the same club. The league this youth club belongs to is the U.S. Soccer Development Academy which has its own article as it should, although it is full of redlinks to its individual youth clubs and in need of major clean-up itself. Chicago Fire Academy is another youth club that is also a member of the same Development Academy, so merging this article to Chicago Fire Academy doesn't make sense. Also, a youth club is completely separate from and not even in the same level of play as a reserve soccer league, so that comparison doesn't stand up either. The fact that they are sponsored by notable professional clubs does not make the youth clubs notable, as notability is not inherited. Getting off the soapbox now, thanks. - SanAnMan ( talk) 20:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable junior team. Were Chicago Fire Academy created, perhaps some content could be moved there, but that article does not exist. Fenix down ( talk) 07:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Justin Lee Stansfield

Justin Lee Stansfield (  | 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 permanent collections and my searches are not finding better, the best claims of significance here is that he has published a few works, but there's still not the needed substance for an actually convincing article. I frankly would've frankly PRODed but that may simply be drive-by removed with no explanations. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

M19 motorway

M19 motorway (  | 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 was a planned route between the M1 and the A1 motorways that never got past the planning stage. A section of the M62 motorway was upgraded to establish the link Fudpukker ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of professional Magic: The Gathering players. MBisanz talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrew Cuneo

Andrew Cuneo (  | 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 GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron ( talk) 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete is clear, based on arguments and lack of reliable sourcing; statements that sources are available and reliable lack evidence. Drmies ( talk) 04:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

AJ Atencio

AJ Atencio (  | 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 - lots of external links which all seem to be about the "hittingpaydirt" service, the only one to mention the name seems to be unreliable source Reddit. Pam D 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree with the nominator no indication of notability, seems like just a way for person to get his name out. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google search turns up very little, if anything, in the way of reliable, independent sources. The soruces that are provided in the article are either only passing mentions (if that), statistics, or are just plainly unreliable. I should also mention that the article creator has been blocked for disruptive editing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes, Pam, I am newer here. Are you saying my opinion is less valued because of that? Looks like we have an ego problem going around Wiki. ( JamesSPR ( talk) 22:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a minor personality in the sports betting space. I cannot find RS on this subject, and the article appears to be promotional in nature. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note -- the objecting editor has attempted to strike out the "delete" votes: diff. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • These painfully-obvious socks are, as they say, painfully obvious. There's no need to strike their comments, nor to quadruple their height by saying why you struck them. That's just antagonizing, and the closing admin, whoever it turns out to be, is not a dolt.
    New guy: The way to save this article kept is by presenting nontrivial, reliable sources (nothing in the article is both), not by creating new accounts and making the same baseless assertions over and over. You're not fooling anybody and are only hurting your own case. — Cryptic 04:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Indo-Aryan migration theory. Although there's no numerical consensus, the argument that this is a POV fork - an article covering the same topic from a particular point of view - of Indo-Aryan migration theory is a strong one, and has not been addressed by the "keep" side. Our policy is to have one article per topic, and to use consensus to determine what is in it. There is therefore policy-based consensus not to have a separate article, but it's not clear that this requires outright deletion. Editors must discuss whether and to which extent to reintegrate this content into the one article we are going to have about this topic.  Sandstein  05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Indo-Aryan migration debate

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

The article was created as a POV-fork when fringe material was removed from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It currently is not in compliance with NPOV and WP:FRINGE as it presents fringe viewpoints as equally valid to mainstream ones - this problem is inherent in the articles entire structure. If we ever need a separate article on the "debate" separate from the article on the theory, then it would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to our content policies. Meanwhile, I suggest we delete this POV-fork, since it makes little sense to merge it back into the article from which the material was originally cut. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It's clear from your nomination statement that deleting this material would be fundamentally incompatible with maintaining a neutral point of view. There's a basic difference between a neutral point of view and a majority point of view, and you're obviously trying to present one point of view as invalid. Go discover what "neutral" means, and don't impose the majority point of view on an encyclopedia that from its beginning has valued presenting both sides of a story. Perhaps the content isn't neutral (I've never even heard of this theory before, so I can't know if it's ignoring some viewpoints), but that's a matter for subject-matter experts to decide, and it can be resolved through editing, not deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That is utter nonsense, keeping a POVfork is fundamentally at odds with maintaining a neutral point of view and deletion is specifically given as a solution to pov forks in policy. That you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to know whether the material is indeed a fringe pov is not a valid reason to vote keep. Also NPOV specifically mentions that neutrality is not giving equal weight to "both sides" - neutrality is giving weight according to prominence within the relevant field of knowledge. This material was removed form the main article because it gives undue weight to non-notable minority and fringe viewpoints. The viewpoint currently has the appropriate amount of coverage in the main article from which it was split - keeping it in a segregated article like this is NOT in any ways compatible with wikipedia policy. One of these viewpoints ARE invalid according to scientific consensus- and hence it does not deserve or warrant the same degree of coverage that the mainstream viewpoint does. What abou you go and read what neutral actually means before lecturing people about topics about which you havent a clue. The neutrality policy is basic stuff that an administrator is expected to actually understand - advocating for retaining pov forks (the articles creator has stated the fact that it is a pov fork quite sqaurely and has also stated that he would not vote keep) is quite odd for someone who is supposed to enforce our basic policies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This is the only keep vote that's been elaborated on so far, but the argument isn't valid. We're not silencing one side of a debate here. Mainstream scholars unambiguously consider the "Indigenous Aryans" theory to be fringe, nationalistic pseudoscience which @ Nyttend: ought to have been able to learn by just briefly perusing the relevant articles. It is notable enough for us to cover it as a fringe theory, and that coverage exists at Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration theory. This article appears to have begun as an attempt to reduce the size of its parent but unfortunately it has ended up repeating the arguments of fringe theorists without balancing them with the mainstream consensus, as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE would require (apart from an inadequately short "criticism" section). And I agree that it's vaguely worrying to see an admin wade into an AfD in defence of fringe science on a subject they, by their own admission, don't know anything about. Joe Roe ( talk) 00:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It was split-off from Indigenous Aryans, to reduce the size of that article, not from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It's a hopeless article indeed, but that's inherent in it's topic: an overview of fringe-arguments for a fringe-theory. As such, it serves a purpose: mainstream ideas, fringe ideas, rejection of these fringe ideas. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I've renamed the article into "Indigenous Aryans arguments." I hope this helps to make clearer what the article is about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Redirect to Indigenous Aryans. Many editors edited this article and has lots of content. But it is very same to Indigenous Aryans. There are arguments against Indo-Aryan Migration by few other theories, but this article has included arguments only from Indigenous Aryans, that's why it should be redirected to it. If anyone sees any new content on this article, it can be merged to Indigenous Aryans. Lorstaking ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
So, you're suggesting to delete the contents of "Indigenous Aryans arguments", or to merge it to "Indigenous Aryans" (after being pruned for primary sources etc., as Maunus suggests)? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ay Caramba, this set of pages is such a mess. In addition to the page under discussion, there is Indigenous Aryans which as I see it is even more problematic than this page. And then there was Out of India Theory, which was merged into Indigenous Aryans. They are all clearly derivatives of the same fringe theory. What we need is a single page about this theory, treating it as a fringe theory (analogous to Climate change denial). Indigenous Aryan arguments does not fulfill this function. What it is doing is creating false equivalence between the accepted view and the fringe view, partly by using extensive quotations from both sides. I wouldn't even know how to go about salvaging a useful page from this. Delete it, and start over using the small set of sources that are describing the debate as the basis. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see credible references used and the topic passes WP:GNG. It would be a loss to purge the article. Please persuade if it fails notability guidelines. -- Ekvastra ( talk) 10:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Ekvastra: Have you read the nomination? The argument is not that this should be deleted because it isn't notable, it's because it's a POV fork of a notable topic. Joe Roe ( talk) 12:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I have. Have you read policies? First, from the edit history of the article I do not find who edit-warred to create a split, could you get me proof for this assertion, burden to give evidence for your assertion is on you. Second POV Split page does not tell it is a deletion policy. -- Ekvastra ( talk) 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorou regh discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist MBisanz talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Hema would you care to elaborate? Not sure what the rules of play are here, but whether HemaChandra88 [dis]agrees with [whatever] isn't part of the debate. We're not counting a tally we're trying to discuss the merit of the proposal. -- Cornellier ( talk) 02:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Infopark

Infopark (  | 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. I went ahead and left in the rather large list of customers, although that is generally not something we allow. Mentioning in prose, sure, but not lists. This seems to be trying to inherit notability, or dropping names. That isn't how WP:CORP works. I did some basic searching, and I don't find anything that satisfies the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Farmer Brown ( talk) 17:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. A rationale for deletion was not provided in the proposed deletion ( diff, notice how the "concern =" parameter is empty) prior to this nomination ( link). As such, a valid rationale for deletion was never presented in either of these processes. WP:NPASR that provides a valid rationale for deletion. North America 1000 04:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Phyllis Keino

Phyllis Keino (  | 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 and other templates removed with absolutely no explanations at all and I still confirm my removed PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please enough, and stay away from me, you have caused nothing but attacks against me. My confirming of PROD is sufficient in itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Alice Norsworthy

Alice Norsworthy (  | 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 absolutely no explanations despite my saying there's no inherited notability for CFO and there's essentially nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete / Speedy Delete This reads like something that we'd expect to find on her company's website. As mentioned, nothing notable about being a CFO in and of itself if it were re-written, and right now the WP:PROMO language is 100% of this article. Personally I feel G11 & A7 CSD covers it. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 20:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

First of all, this request for deletion seems to be made by someone who has no expertise or knowledge of the business sector being discussed and Norsworthy's contributions to that industry.

Alice Norsworthy is one of the top 100 officers in the world's largest media and entertainment company. She has changed the competitive landscape in the theme park industry. In an article linked to her profile, she is given credit as one of the key architects for significantly changing the multi-billion theme park markets in central Florida [1]. Her recognition as one of the most highly influential female industry executives in a major economic sector is documented on the page. This guy's objection to the entry is she is "just a CMO," which is contradicted by the facts on the page.

Here is the link to a search from this proposed deletion page just for Alice Norsworthy and news. It lists 42 separate entries: Alice Norsworthy News

Is this objector is using uninformed judgment to declare all the other content presented on Alice Norsworthy is unimportant. This is just the judgment of some anonymous individual who does not possess the background, skills, or knowledge to make such an assessment.

Enough please, see WP:NPA, you are making several serious accusations without even knowing the context and depth that is Wikipedia. The fact you only have contributed to this one article and are getting defensive about it, speaks for itself. Sinply being "influential" and a " major person in business" is not enough claims by itself for notability. We need actual substance including to suggest her own independent notability (there's no inherited notability from any companies or people). SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
okay, how is an article such as this so much more "notable?" I disagree that there are any personal attacks included, by the way, but I am trying to focus on the issue at hand: Bill Gurley Seriously, one is on an investor's list, and Ms Norsworthy is on multiple independent travel organization's list of influential individuals. Does a person have to be in a particular career? Obviously, the person doesn't need to be a household name. The distinction is far from clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL789 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Here is another example of a person with notable contributions to an industry that appears to be about the same as Ms Norsworthy's contributions to travel. These are all over Wiki: Max Strang Here is a person ( Lainie Frasier) who has had less exposure in national media than Ms Norsworthy, who has been on national TV three times as a judge on NBC's The Apprentice. What makes these individuals more "notable?"
I'll write one more thing and then you can decide on your own, if you are the one who decides these matters. Ms Norsworthy influences travel policy at the national government level, in the largest theme park market in the world (central Florida), and within her company (obviously). It appears your focus is just on the last role within her company and diminishes the contributions she continues to make to shape a very large industry, including her notoriety as a female role model in a male-dominated environment. Independent sources document this in her article's references and external links. Read them if you would like to see more. She is absolutely "notable" in this realm. Is that broad enough to be included? I guess this process decides such matters, but as a writer to this I assert the article certainly qualifies when compared to numerous other such notable people already included in Wii.
  1. ^ Garcia, Jason. "Theme Park Wizards". Florida Trend.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

2016-2017 Indiana Fire Academy season

2016-2017 Indiana Fire Academy season (  | 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 underlying team for this season article is neither professional nor playing on the top college level. Therefore, its seasons are not meeting the notability criteria for season articles. The article also fails to demonstrate the applicability of the broader general notability criteria. WP:PROD was contested with the following rationale. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 15:50, 11 August 2016 (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... 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment -- I have gone ahead and added the parent article to AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Indiana Fire Academy - SanAnMan ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

UFC Fighter Rankings

UFC Fighter Rankings (  | 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 consists of current UFC rankings and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Article needs constant updating and fails to show significant independent coverage. This would be the same as having an article on the current college football rankings--it needs constant updating and doesn't show why that ranking is notable. I'm sure there are plenty of passing mentions of these rankings, such as "he's currently ranked ninth in the UFC lightweight division" but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. These aren't even world rankings, just rankings of a particular promotion. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I never would have thought of this as a copyright violation. I don't see how an organization's frequently changing rankings confer notability on themselves. As nom pointed out, there will be plenty of passing mentions of where fighters are ranked, but not necessarily significant and independent coverage of the entire list. Papaursa ( talk) 02:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted and salted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Lambert Ofoegbu

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

Unremarkable person. Fails WP:BASIC, no sources. Specto73 ( talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Note here that this article has been placed (repeatedly) by a paid editor. AllyD ( talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt: There have been repeated deletions of versions of this article ( [1], [2]) and also a rejected AfC ( [3]). While some of the hyperbole of the first versions has been pruned, at no point has there been evidence presented or found to indicate that the subject (a project manager) is anything more than a person with a job, going about his business. Membership of professional associations and golf clubs, holes in one: while all of these may be gratifying to the subject, the point that these are not evidence of encyclopaedic notability does not seem to be understood: [4]. AllyD ( talk) 15:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt: promotional, no actual notability. ubiquity ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kbach Yuthakun Tvear Prambey Bôran Khmer

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

Poorly written and confusing article about a non-notable martial art. Article starts out talking about a historical martial art and then switches to the discussing the modern form of this art, which apparently is a family style. Either way there's not enough significant independent coverage to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. There's also no evidence the modern version has anything to do with the historical one. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is very confusing and there is no indication what the connection is with the convoluted history section with the titled modern art discussed latter on. The history section is already covered in Bokator where it belongs and there also seems to be some duplication with Kbach kun boran. The unique portion does not demonstrate notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I showered improvement tags on this early in its life hoping against hope that there was something notable or at least noteworthy there. A month has passed and nothing of any substance has been added. I agree with the nominator - this fails WP:GNG and it seems most unlikely that better sources will appear. I couldn't find any.   Velella   Velella Talk   22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. To see if the modern version is notable, I also checked for coverage of the current master of the art. I found no significant independent coverage of him, either--just things like Facebook and youtube. The modern version may exist, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 01:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

SCG Maptaphut Stadium

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

Unremarkable building. Fails WP:GNG. Specto73 ( talk) 15:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The following duplicate article has been added to this AfD. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Maptaphut municipality Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Goran Gatarić

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

Completely non-notable artist. Only reliable link is to hr.wikipedia, wikidata, wikimedia commons. No news result. And simple search is only about facebook links. Marvellous Spider-Man ( talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Mouhamed Abdulla

Mouhamed Abdulla (  | 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:ACADEMICS, no WP:RS. WP:NOTRESUME. Judging by the numerous unsourced personal details, this is likely written by the subject himself as a promotional or vanity article. P 1 9 9   ✉ 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Park Jae-hyun (model)

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

The article may not meet strict WP:A7, but does not qualify on notability as a Model. This user created similar articles. Phyo WP (message) 13:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Privileges of War (Book)

Privileges of War (Book) (  | 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-fiction book with no claim to notability, should be deleted as not meeting any of the notability criteria for books nor the general notability criteria. None of the references mentions the book at all, and I fail to find any reliable secondary sources. That episodes described in the book were the subject of news reports does not make the book itself notable. A small independent film company has apparently picked up an option on the book (but again, this is not actually referenced anywhere) - if a notable film comes out of it, that will be a different matter, but at that point, somebody who is not affiliated with the author of the book will probably create an article about it. The author of the current article appears to have a strong conflict of interest; they are obviously editing in good faith but may not have fully understood Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with everything Bonadea wrote. I ran a Google search on "privileges of war". There were 62 hits, a fair number of them not using the phrase in reference to the book. Of the ones that did, I found one, this, that wasn't involved in sales or promotion of the book, and that had as many as three sentences about it, and even those were in passing. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I disagree completely with Bonadea and Largoplaza and am utterly amazed that deletion would even be suggested. I am sickened that a book which discusses the true and well documented selfless actions of a small team of American soldiers who risked their lives for the freedom of 165 primitive mountain villagers is not . . . "notable" in itself. Yet, a fictional account of made-up accounts of heroism, as described in the book The Green Berets, makes its way to the pages of Wikipedia. The only things that made that book "notable" was how inaccurate it was and how poorly it was received by critics, the public and . . . real soldiers. So, if Wikipedia were to drop Privileges of War and keep The Green Berets . . . what statement does that make about the Wikipedia platform? ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which exists to document that which is notable, per Wikipedia's definition of notability. This is not the place to discuss the notability of any other articles - each article stands and falls on its own merits. The article The Green Berets (book) may not have a particularly strong claim to notability either, but again, that's irrelevant here. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if, and only if, after looking at this and this, and making a good-faith attempt to prove that the book is notable, you find that it isn't. (That's what I did before nominating this article.) As stated above, that a book deals with notable events or concepts does not make the book itself notable. In addition, notability has nothing to do with whether something is worthy or interesting; I have no opinion about that, one way or another, and it wouldn't matter if I did. The fact remains that the article doesn't include a single reference to a source that mentions the book, and that very strongly suggests that the book is not notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The book lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. It fails WP:BKCRIT as well since none of the other criteria are met. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I searched, but the only thing I could find was this local source about the book, so the book looks to fail WP:NBOOK. Now the book's accuracy or the lack of accuracy of other works are not considered arguments that would give or take away notability as far as WP:NBOOK is considered, as notability is decided by the work's coverage in reliable sources or the coverage for any adaptations in RS. Green Berets would pass NBOOK because of the notable film adaptation starring John Wayne. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and if Moore's book is very inaccurate then the way to go about correcting that is to find sourcing that backs this claim up and add it to the article. (Offhand it looks like this might be doable.) It's a shame that we can't have an article on every book that was published through a reputable publisher, but the guidelines on Wikipedia are too strict for this and they're unlikely to ever become more loose. If the film adaptation occurs and becomes notable, then the article can be recreated, but not before that point or before the book gains coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nauseating commentary . . . no wonder this world is in the state it is. Where is inspiration? What do you people do in real life when you aren't hiding behind screen names amd numbers? Please delete the page . . . it would be an honor not to be a part of Wikipedia. If I could delete it myself . . . I would. You should be ashamed of yourselves. ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The author has blanked the article and expressed a wish to delete it, and since the discussion has unanimously pointed towards a delete anyway I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion per author request. @ ThomasARoss: I'm sorry your experience of Wikipedia was unpleasant. It is not unusual that people's expectations of what belongs in Wikipedia are different from what the guidelines say, but please note that civility towards your fellow editors is required. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Drowtales

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. Three hits on google news- one, an article from 2015 where it's mentioned in the comments. One, a completely routine listing of comic books for sale from 2012. The biggest mention is a paragraph long description in Comics Alliance from 2012, alongside many other comics. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, for the same reasons I listed last month(?). I personally believe that the no-consensus of the last AfD was improper, as I've yet to see enough sources to be able to write an article with. ~ Mable ( chat) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and administratively close as too soon following previous discussion. The proper venue for contesting a recent AfD outcome with which one disagrees is WP:DRV. All the arguments from the previous AfD still apply, do they not? Jclemens ( talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion does not specify a time period outside of "to give editors the time to improve the page." In the 42 days since the previous nomination, there have been exactly 2 edits. One was a bot, the other changed 1 character in a reference name. This hardly seems "too soon" to me. As for the previous arguments, they still amount to nothing but WP:other stuff and Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. Argento Surfer ( talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's not a good encyclopedic article I'll agree, I'm somewhat biased as I contributed some to it in early days as a fan. I tend to believe the web-comic is notable, though the article does completely fail to establish this. Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics, though it certainly doesn't have the same level as cultural impact as for example XKCD, so yeah not a lot of 3. party sources. Ultimately I would not be hugely bothered if it was deleted, but maybe just re-writing the first section a bit and deleting everything below that would do the job? Certainly excessive amounts of fancruft in the current form. -- Sherool (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There don't seem to be any proper sources providing critical reviews or commenting on the cultural impact of the topic, so it currently has no need to exist. Examples provided in the previous AfD do not at all appear to be reliable or relevant. TTN ( talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poorly referenced. I can't find any reliable sources that help prove notability. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, re "Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics", please see WP:OLDSUBJECT. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The ultimate reality

The ultimate reality (  | 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:NBOOK. This article is part of a COI effort to promote Kumar and his books. I have not been able to find any additional WP:RS to establish notability. shoy ( reactions) 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Gian Kumar

Gian Kumar (  | 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:NAUTHOR. This article is part of a COI effort to promote Kumar and his books. I have not been able to find any additional WP:RS to establish notability. shoy ( reactions) 12:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Jagadeshanh created the original version of the article which was speedy deleted, and has since been the almost exclusive editor. shoy ( reactions) 17:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
as by SPA am changing to weak keep, if he was paid editor would vote delete Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

That's one of the reasons it's here, plus the promo for the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, just blogs, facebook etc., did find a review of Know Thyself here [7] by the Zordor Times but "Created By Sora Templates and My Blogger Themes" at the bottom of the page and "We are Zordar! Details coming soon" on the About page [8] does not engender confidence. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment notwithstanding the subjects doubtful notability, the style of writing doesn't follow encyclopaedic style WP:MOS, e.g. at length it reflects on the subjects state of mind (He rebelled against every religious idea. Moreover, during his childhood and early years, Gian Kumar struggled with a lack of financial comforts. Being a scientifically inclined person, he questioned every experience happening during his life, more so his struggles.) while providing little noteworthy, verifiable information. This needs to be rewritten accordingly, by someone who is familiar with the subject, or lack thereof, deleted. -- Jôanes ( talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I trimmed out much of the promotional content and editorializing nonetheless, the author lacks significant notability and the page was written as a puff piece. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted G7. (non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 13:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Giovanni boscariol

Giovanni boscariol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Giobosca (
talk) 
11:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Waraich clan

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of ' Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's was a suggestion to redirect to Siege of San Sebastián, which I would normally do, consensus or not, per WP:ATD. But, The siege of San Sebastian (1813) seems like such an unlikely search term, I'm going to pass on that. If somebody else wants to be WP:BOLD and create the redirect, who am I to stand in their way? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The siege of San Sebastian (1813)

The siege of San Sebastian (1813) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion, contested by DGG on the spurious grounds of "addition material in Basque WP" (this is in fact a word-for-word translation of the entire Basque article, which as with this translation devotes only two short sentences to the actual topic, the rest being historical background), so bringing this over to AFD to do it the long way. Per the discussion on the talk page, this is not "a painting by an unknown artist", this is a poor-quality English souvenir etching by Thomas Batchelor of the type that were—literally—two a penny before the first illustrated news magazines were introduced in 1842, when newspaper printing presses couldn't handle illustrations so the printed plates were sold separately. I can find absolutely nothing to suggest that this has ever been the topic of any coverage in any source whatsoever (its entry on the museum's website reads in full Anónimo, The Siege of San Sebastian, siglo XIX, grabado coloreado, 51 x 60,8 cm, and Batchelor wasn't an engraver of any note and only appears as an entry in directories of publishers, not as the subject of any discussion in his own right).  ‑  Iridescent 11:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that we need to establish some sort of significance for this image as we cannot just have an article about some random etching without any kind of sources. I did a google image search to find something better and found this image which is bigger and allows for a reading of the text. It's from this website which does credit Batchelor (as Batchelar). However, a search of Thomas Batchelor of Moorfields tells us that he was known as a printer and publisher, not specifically an engraver himself (one directory tells us "Batchelor, Thomas, printer & publisher, 115, Long Alley, Moorfields, 1817U"). So it's entirely possible that the artist is unknown. A google translation of the Spanish website indicates that the image is being used in the Zumalakarregi Museum (or its website) as an artifact and/or illustration of the battle itself. The engraving itself spells the name Batchelar, not Batchelor, and credits the publication of the image to one T. Batchelar. Searching for Thomas Batchelar gives us nothing -- it appears to be common then and now. Adding "publisher" gives us a book, Napoleon and British Song, 1797-1822 (Oskar Cox Jensen) which mentions Batchelar as a "loyalist printer" and central to "loyalist song culture". According to the Pickering & Chatto Antiquarian Booksellers Bulletin, (I can't link the PDF because of the spam filter), Batchelar was a London "ballad printer". Other than that, his name appears in some directories. In the end, we don't appear to have much. The engraving, probably artist unknown, is most likely not significant other than as an illustration. Batchelar appears to be non-notable himself. The image could be used in the article on the seige, with a redirect for anybody who may be searching for the image and has not tried out google yet. Someone with time on their hands could possibly write a sentence about the image for Siege of San Sebastián, as an indication of contemporary interest in the battle itself, although sources appear to be lacking. This was fun, though. freshacconci talk to me 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. the additional material was an additional reference at least; I can't read Basque to see if there was further content. If a major museum consider a picture significant enough to put on its own website in a prominent position it's notable (as an analog of the accepting criterion fcr WP:CREATIVE.) DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • What "major museum" would that be? San Telmo Museum is a small local history museum so obscure it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and they don't have this "on their website in a prominent position" ( here's the website in question should you want to check); this link, which I suspect is what you're referring to, is the subpage for a temporary exhibition in 2013 in which this print was included (and if you scroll down to the photos of the rest of the exhibits you'll see why this one was chosen). I challenge you to find even one single source other than the one-line entry in the museum's catalog—in any language—which even mentions this print, let alone qualifies as "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". As I've already pointed out, and you're studiously ignoring, the Basque article (complete with the "additional reference") is not about this print; other than the single sentence 1813ko Donostiako setioa margolana Donostiako San Telmo museoan dago. XIX. mendeko egile ezezagun batena da eta 1813an gertatu zen Donostiako setioa deskribatzen du. ("The Siege of San Sebastian is a 19th-century painting by an unknown artist in the San Telmo Museum, San Sebastian, depicting the 1813 siege of San Sebastian"), it's just a description of the aftermath of the siege; the additional reference is for the statement that "over 1000 were killed and women and children were systematically raped", not to anything relating to this print. As Freshacconci correctly says above, a case can be made for including this in Siege of San Sebastian to illustrate that the battle generated interest in Britain (although there are much better quality British depictions of the event which would likely do the job better), but it serves no useful function for Wikipedia to host an article which it's literally impossible to expand beyond two sentences. ‑  Iridescent 17:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship [ eu merits its own article in English, but a major museum, sorry, that it is not. The idea that a picture should become notable in Wikipedia terms because it is displayed on a museum website is fanciful and a disregard for WP:GNG, and the analogue with WP:CREATIVE is obscure. If any analogue applies here it is rather "artistic work where the artist has no article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" ( WP:A9). — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete yes, a local museum whose website states that it's a "Reference center for knowledge and enjoyment of the nineteenth century in the Basque Country" used the illustration on its website for a historical exhibition. This is not the same as being part of a significant exhibition, as is suggested by the biographical guideline for WP:CREATIVE, nor does it confer any notability on this obscure illustration. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Illustrations have never been held in a esteem at a par with formal paintings (compare with comics nowadays and before). However, that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references that elaborate on technique or form or school, but it gathers an attention, and the fact of being anonymous does not detract from both formal and historical context aspects, where the publisher (or printer, above) can be cited. "Local museum", "so obscure"..., yes, runner-up to Best Museum of Europe 2013, no less. Iñaki LL ( talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know what your source is for this museum being runner up or in what category... but I cannot except that any illustration that happens to be featured in a local exhibit on area history therefore automatically becomes notable -- nor do our guidelines allow for this. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
"A local exhibit": Yes, local, any museum is located somewhere, even Tate Modern. San Telmo lies in Donostia. I agree though that when it comes to individual references to the illustration, sources are scarce. Iñaki LL ( talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Right and the museum, now apparently repurposed according to its website as the Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship, does look stunning, esp. with its redesign. It's unfortunate we don't have an article on it. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Nor was the Commons file for the image properly categorized. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course, we also see that the article creator has been prolific in creating this stub across a variety of wikipedia language editions, using different but related usernames. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
By the way, the Wikidata links listed at fr:Musée San Telmo suggest that there was formerly an English article on the museum. Can't find a redlinked deleted file, though. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Can't find a deleted article at any permutation of the name, and San Telmo (disambiguation) doesn't include it in any version. Are you sure you're not actually seeing the link to eu-wikipedia (Basque)? ‑  Iridescent 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Regarding the multiple language versions, see the links on the talkpage; it was created as some kind of mass-stub-creation contest. ‑  Iridescent 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
right and for that "deleted file" thing, when I hover over the grey "English" I now see that it's for a pop-up for "traduit cette page en anglais" so it was just some sort weird setting issue... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment in re "that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references ...", please see WP:INTERESTING. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think prints can be notable, but this one is not. I can't see that there is anything we could say about the print beyond the bare facts that are already in the article. We don't know who the artist is, the publisher isn't notable, the print itself is not unusual in any way, and there doesn't appear to be any more information about it, not even in Basque or Spanish. It's a pity we don't have anything about the museum though; that may very well be notable. Mduvekot ( talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Arguments for deletion have been convincing.Redirect to Siege of San Sebastián and use it there. Otherwise, it's a micro-stub of an article on an otherwise non remarkable art piece. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It meets the standard of being on permanent display in a major museum, and nothing more is needed. Some articles will always be stubs, and there's nthing wrong with that either. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    Do you have a source for "on permanent display in a major museum"? Even if you accept the San Telmo as a major museum (which is itself dubious), nobody is claiming that this is part of the permanent collection let alone on permanent display. The link is to a long-gone temporary exhibition in which this was included, not to the permanent collection. ‑  Iridescent 18:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

    Struck through your second vote; just because you really don't want something deleted doesn't mean you get to be double-counted. ‑  Iridescent 18:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- While the article is primarily about a painting in a gallery, the siege was a notable engagement of the Peninsula War and might conveniently be expanded to encompass the history of the siege. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Peterkingiron, could you clarify the above? You appear to be advocating deleting the existing Siege of San Sebastián article, overwriting it with this, and then re-expanding this to cover the battle, which makes no sense at all. (Incidentally, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated but this is not an article on a painting, but on a penny-etching; the present-day equivalent would be having a Wikipedia page on an individual issue of a newspaper or magazine.) ‑  Iridescent 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The article is about the engraving (not painting), and the notability of the siege has nothing to do with the notability of the subject at hand. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not find anything to support notability. I don't even understand the title: is "1813" supposed to be the date the work was created, as one would normally expect, or does it refer to the date of the actual siege, in which case we don't know when OR by whom this was done? In fact we know almost nothing about this piece. The battle itself was notable, but not every illustration of it is therefore notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Pure prod material, had this been a musical recording, A9 would have applied. Here, in lack of a specific WP:SNG, it is WP:GNG that applies. The best "source" I could find is this .pdf from the museum. And that's just not enough. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect (possibly merge) to Siege of San Sebastián, which uses the picture as an illustration. I doubt that the picture is independently notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the Peninsula Campaign was fought and won by a great many British gentlemen, Britain was the world's wealthiest country, the market for prints of that campaign was enormous because Wellington's army was enormous. Even the families of the foot soldiers could afford a print of the battle where a beloved son fought - or fell. So many of these engravings survive that they decorate the hallways of small hotels, and print shops today have huge stocks of them to choose from. They sell them as upscale tourist souvenirs. Some engravings of this war are notable: The Disasters of War. But I see no evidence that this one is. While there is no reason to redirect this, the image itself would make a nice addition to our article Siege of San Sebastián. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I added this image to the page on the siege. I think we can W:SNOW close this now. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Chaunty spillane

Chaunty spillane (  | 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 came across this as an A7 candidate and while the assertion of notability is wafer thin, it's still there via her having acted in notable films. However that said, these roles are all non-named extra roles, many of which are uncredited. (IE, none of the roles are major, which is required per WP:NACTOR.) For example, it's hard to say that Ghostbusters was her break through role when she was playing "Show Girl Ghost" in an uncredited role. None of the things in the article give notability, as a search brought up nothing to establish how any of it is notable - actors are not automatically notable for existing ( WP:ITEXISTS) nor do they automatically inherit notability from an association with notable persons, films, or organizations - we need sourcing to establish how these roles were major. ( WP:NOTINHERITED) If not for the local coverage for her, I'd have speedied this but I figure that this is just enough to where it'd be safer to send it to AfD and have it as a more firm delete, given that there have been various attempts to create this article in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

–––––

The article is of notability and per guidelines of notability requirements only requires three reliable resources that are in depth about the person of notability. The following are three reliable sources directly from the page article proposed for possible deletion: Spillane, Chaunty. "Chaunty FollowingTheNerd Article". FollowingTheNerd. Spillane, Chaunty. "Local Actress Appears in Ghostbusters". The Westfield News. The Westfield Newspaper. The Westfield Newspaper. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Markham, Brett. Modern Caveman- The Complete Paleo Lifestyle Handbook. Retrieved 8 August 2016. ( WP:ITEXISTS)

If I may so gently correct a statement above regarding Chaunty Spillane's roles and credited or uncredited status: She has six credited roles including the Ghostbusters credit which I'd like to mention next. Chaunty's role in Ghostbusters was significant and a break through because, although not credited properly, she did play the role of Gertrude Aldridge (whom is a major character in the blockbuster film). She also has 8 TV commercials in two years as well as two listed magazine covers and featured articles about her. She is also in a book sold in Barnes and Noble as well as Amazon.com as a yoga model and is mentioned in the book. WP:NACTOR

Chaunty Spillane is notable and the ( WP:NOTINHERITED) does not apply as she is not just the every day actor a lot has accomplished in her career in a short period of time managing to do so while not living in LA or NY. In reference to the text above, the roles actors play is not an easy process, nor is the average local Boston/NY actress gain as much notability and a trending topic as Chaunty has. The actors must work hard and put a lot of effort as well as practice into auditioning first for a role and then waiting to receive a call back if the actor received approval for the role.

I find the idea of scheming to give this article a "firm delete" rather than a "speedy deletion" as stated above is malicious. That kind of behavior is not accepted on Wikipedia as stated in its own guidelines. Various attempts were made to create the article, but there were also a lot of Wikipedia authors who were in favor of and helped by slightly editin the previous attempts mentioned above to create this article to help it remain "live". All in all, the local coverage plus the above "corrected information" regarding crediting of the actress rather than focusing on a few uncredited roles is enough evidence to establish notability. 2601:19B:4300:DF35:451D:A615:71F1:F493 ( talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • IMBd has an entirely different actress listed as Gertrude Aldridge, Bess Rous. Rous is also listed as the performer in this USA Today article, this Mercury News article, and this one by the New Yorker. (There are also people selling photographs signed by Rous at the Ghostbusters premiere.) In other words, there's nothing to substantiate that she plays Aldridge at all - and if she was Aldridge then she desperately needs to get her agent to contact a lot of media outlets. Wikipedia is not a place to make corrections of this nature and until there are massive corrections about the performer in the media, Wikipedia has to assume that she is not Aldridge and that she was only a show girl ghost. I also have to say that I found this link that shows a Facebook post of Spillane's, where she's holding a photograph of herself with the credit "show girl ghost". In other words, there's more evidence to show that she isn't Aldridge and is instead a non-notable background character. If she is, then it's up to Spillane and her agent to correct these errors, not Wikipedia. (And I also need to caution you that it's not a good idea to go about trying to put this on Wikipedia or other outlets before the agent corrects this because if she isn't Aldridge then this can backfire badly on Spillane.) I do also need to point out that if this was her, then that would be her only substantial role to date and odds are this would just redirect to the cast page for the film. As far as her appearing in a book goes, this by itself does not give notability. The book itself would have to have been the subject of RS that mention Spillane's contribution to the work. If her appearance in the book was not substantial (ie, she would not have received an in-depth mention about her participation in any given RS about the work) then that would not give notability. In the end notability must be established via coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is lacking here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I also found this YouTube video of the movie's end credits, which list Bess Rous as Aldridge. All legality of the person recording the end credits aside, I think that this is quite definitive proof that Spillane was not Aldridge - it's possible that news outlets might credit the wrong person, but the movie credits will most certainly bill the proper person, at least in a film such as this and in a role as visible as that one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether he meets WP:PROF, originating from different expectations, and the article has been here for almost a month, so it is time to take a break-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Daniel Romanovsky

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this person does not seem notable per WP:ACADEMIC. It is not clear at which university he taught or currently teaches. Also, the books mentioned in footnotes 3–5 do not include anything written by a "Daniel Romanovsky". Actually, those three books each include a single reference to the book in footnote 2 (to which Romanovsky contributed a chapter). The only "source" even mentioning his name is a dodgy interview on an Angelfire website, apparently written up by his wife. bender235 ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows several articles cited by numerous others, and Google Books shows him quoted in quite a few books. This just needs someone to cull more information from these sources. Yoninah ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't think having a handful of citations is enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC requirements. One of the articles listed on Google Scholar lists "Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism" as his affiliation, where he is listed as "Editorial and Abstracting Staff". I'm not sure that is enough. -- bender235 ( talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
What relevant notability standard? He has only got 15 cites on GS. Several hundred would be the norm for this field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC). reply
It might be useful to look him up in Russian, where he did his early work. Yoninah ( talk) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
GS covers Russian citations as well. They are just not there. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Neutral Keep Neutral I started this article since I was using some of his writings as a source for another article. I think he deserves an article (yes I do know that's not part of WP policy ;)) but understand that the sources I provided were not enough by the strict rules here. The one that gives the most information was an interview by an Israeli website. The others were his own articles published in books on the Holocaust and some mentions of his research in other books, all found by Google books. I did purchase one book from Amazon with his article on Belarus under the Germans based on interviews with eyewitnesses. Some of my references are no longer in the article and I did not make the claim that he is a professor -- which I don't think makes any difference one way or the other. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
PS Thanks to bender235 for notifying me of this AFD. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I restored the original references to the article, which should help a little. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 15:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I changed my vote to keep after more references were found. Delete still has a case however since the sources talked mainly about his work, not about he himself. However with everything, keep. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
After some more consideration I withdrew my keep vote. My understanding of strict WP policy will not allow me to vote to keep without substantial secondary coverage. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The main GS citation contributor (123 citations) is a book by V Rudich...is this mistakenly included in Romanovsky's entry? Some of the other entries are by other authors, as well. Seems to be only a handful of citations to his own work. WoS shows consistent results: his 1999 paper in Holocaust and genocide studies has 6 citations. This is really far below even the borderline of a few hundred citations (where there's legitimate back-and-forth on PROF c1). Majority of refs are pamphlets and web pages. Agricola44 ( talk) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Did you also check out Google Books? It shows 325. I only looked at the first two pages but they all seem to be about him. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 03:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's very different from what I see regarding books. When I search the Romanovsky's full name within Google Books, I see around 30 citations, and under WorldCat I don't see any primary-authored books. It appears he's written chapters, but no books. Can you furnish link that shows >300 citations? Agricola44 ( talk) 05:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
I guess I don't understand how Google Books works. Here's a link to a search for his name: [9]. Most of them seem to be saying that his interviews of Holocaust eyewitnesses are important. I agree with you that he himself is not noted as an author. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC) https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=10&q=daniel+romanovsky+holocaust+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 reply
That analysis does show a few more than the one I looked at, but only around 50...The succeeding pages seem to contain "Dan" and "Romanovsky", but not "Dan Romanovsky". Agricola44 ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Keep The opening sentence could be changed to "Daniel Romanovsky is an Israeli historian and researcher who has contributed to works analysing the Holocaust.." I think we have enough sources to back that up. Irondome ( talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Have you found more than what are being discussed above? Agricola44 ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Thanks Irondome. I changed the intro by your suggestion. To me 50 mentions of his contributions, many in books published by universities etc., should be enough to establish his notability as an historian and researcher. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
take a look at this I am coming up with considerable material. Irondome ( talk) 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's part of what we've already been discussing. The statistics are pretty far below the conventional requirements for PROF c1. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
However, we do appear to over-relying on Google Scholar "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability". Irondome ( talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Clearly he has done significant research work, which is referred to above. I first came across him in the reference in the Stone book referred to. He is notable for his pioneering work on the consequences of the Holocaust in the USSR, which was noted in peer review publications and done in very difficult conditions before he left for Israel. The entry certainly needs to be filled out which I might try and do when I get back to my library next month. Joel Mc ( talk) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The burden of proof is on "keep" here and the fact that all the standard databases (WoS, GS, WorldCat, Google Books, etc), which we routinely use for academics' AfDs, show mediocre results is very telling. BTW: Science is indeed online all the way back to Volume 1, Number 1 (July 1880) on JSTOR. The salient question is whether there is anything else that would decide the matter conclusively. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism has it's own article. Daniel Romanovsky has been involved as an abstractor in the Posen papers aspect of the project, which has been reliably cited as "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" [ [10]]. I think his [ involvement] in this project confers notability. Irondome ( talk) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
He's listed as a "technical editor", among many others, on that volume. Would you kindly have a quick look at WP:PROF for the kinds things that would count toward notability? "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" is a platitude that can be applied to almost any academic activity. Agricola44 ( talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
He is actually listed as an abstractor. He is or was working on a major academic endeavour. C1 of WP:PROF seems to be satisfied here. "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others." I also note that the subject has given lectures under the auspices of Yad Vashem in various countries. The above quote is hardly a "platitude". I really would suggest we apply common sense here. This is becoming increasingly desperate stuff. Irondome ( talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree it's becoming more desperate. You're trying everything to see what sticks, for example invoking association with Yad Vashem is pleading WP:INHERITED. If an "abstractor" is a person who writes abstracts of other people's work (probably what your link saying he's a "technical editor" means), then that is likewise routine academic work. Agricola44 ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Have you actually read any of the links I have given above? Yad Vashem was merely an afterthought, as I would have expected that more than enough evidence has been deployed to justify a provisional keep, allowing for further work on the article. Irondome ( talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I think it's clear by my comments that I have indeed been looking at the evidence/links you've offered. I will try to sum-up the evidence in a new thread and maybe you could add whatever you feel I've left out. Would that be good? Agricola44 ( talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • I appreciate the offer of your time and energy. However I have argued as well as I could for a provisional keep, being a relative newcomer to the stimulating area of the project that is AfD. Regards, Simon. Irondome ( talk) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Re, the burden of proof etc...I believe that in order to delete, you need a consensus and I would not go along with that: I have already indicated above why his work is notable. Joel Mc ( talk) 22:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I remember you had some vague remarks about difficult working conditions and unspecified number of citations. Agricola44 ( talk) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a historian, I suggest that those who doubt that Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research read "Soviet Jews under Nazi Occupation in Northeastern Belarus and Western Russia" and/or “The Soviet Person as a Bystander”. Joel Mc ( talk) 08:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The level of citations he has are not enough for him to pass point 1 for academics. I have seen historians who have a single paper that has twice as many citations as his total body of work have their articles deleted. Romanovsky does not pass any notability criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Way too little demonstrated academic impact (such as citations, response-papers, etc) for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. Clearly he exists and has published but that's not enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research. I am not sure why there is all the discussion whether or not he meets “notability criteria for academics”. There are plenty of historians who are not notable academics and who do notable and significant research. When I came across his name in a scholarly article, I found it useful to be able to get more info about him in WP even if the WP article is a bit of a stub. (I noted that it would be interesting to dig a little and add more info when I have time) I guess that I don’t really understand the need to delete articles which have useful info unless they are libellous or are misinformative. Joel Mc ( talk) 19:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closer: This is Joel Mc's second !vote. Yoninah ( talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Sorry. Didn't mean to cast two votes, but rather to clarify my earlier comments. Joel Mc ( talk) 07:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Joel Mc: so strike your second vote and just indent your responses to other editors' !votes. Yoninah ( talk) 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep -- He appears to have done original work on an important, but this seems to consist of about three academic articles, which is not normally enough for us to keep. Nevertheless, his work seems to be much cited, which might just push him over the edge into keep. Note that the citation indices are not good on arts subjects, such as history. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Much cited. Can you quantify that? Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Weak keep. On the basis of the google scholar results, the google books results, and the source provided by [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman] above, it seems to me that this individual just about meets WP:PROF #!1: namely, having had a significant impact on their field. In this case, Romanovsky seems to have had a significant impact as a researcher of the holocaust; impact cannot be measured solely by the number of GS citations. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The google scholar cites are tiny-far less than normally required for notability. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete" but is relisted per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3.  Sandstein  08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Repost: Since this has been reopened I am reposting my comment which I posted on the Holocaust Talk page after jujutacular had decided to delete.

"In commenting on Jujutacular’s puzzling decision (to me) to delete the Romanovsky piece, I said that I would drop the issue and move on. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Jujutacular#top But I am going back on that decision to support Thoughtmonkey and Poeticbent as they are reiterating the points I made on Jujutacular’s talk page. I might add that as a member of a society which makes its decisions by consensus, I do not recognise Jujutacular’s idea of consensus which overrides a majority of votes. Furthermore, maybe the notability guidelines have a role (but even here not the only role) in deciding to create an article, but as I have already said, I am uncomfortable deleting a referenced article which contains useful info. Heavens know that I have come across many a WP article which seems to me trivial, but I have never thought that they should be deleted. Joel Mc ( talk) 16:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His work has been reported in serious secondary sources. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 19:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (re prior Keep) -- With the recent work by Poeticbend and ThoughtMonkey, the article has been much improved. I’m not sure if “usefulness” is a criterion in AfD discussions, but there are articles that use the subject as a source. I’ve always found it helpful to be able to click on “author links” in bibliographies to learn more about the author. The article is non trivial and “useful”.
That aside, the subject had an interesting life as a Soviet dissident and made a contribution to Holocaust research. Each of these would have probably been insufficient to establish notability by itself, but taken together, I come to the conclusion that there’s enough notability to sustain an entry. This is also born out by secondary sources that cover the subject’s career and research. I thus reiterate my keep vote. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (re WP:DRV Keep). Meets WP:N, with now added WP:RS expansion. Poeticbent talk 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • At most, Weak Keep (as above) -- His subject is certainly an important one, but his scholarly output seems to be three articles or chapters in collections of essays. That is hardly enough to make him a notable historian. However the importance of the subject takes it beyond the weak delete, that those comments would imply. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I believe it should be noted that, as a researcher, Romanovski was significantly disadvantaged; that is why his output is lower than what's expected of a historian. Studying Holocaust in the Soviet Union in the 1980s was not exactly prohibited, but it was definitely a career limiting move. Moving to a new country mid-career did not confer the same advantages as pursuing it uninterrupted. The research has has done is fairly unique -- the oral histories he collected are irreplaceable as the people he interview most likely have died by now. So on the balance of things, I believe that the article should be kept.
In addition, this source: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II by Leonid Rein, was not considered during the original AfD. It was brought up during deletion review, and has now been added to the article. Rein discusses Romanovski's views and incorporates it into his work. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article has now been discussed in AfD/DRV for an entire month and it is now very clear that the conventional notability guidelines (works that are widely cited, held, reviewed, etc) are not satisfied. Peterkingiron's observation is accurate: Romanovsky's scholarly corpus consists of a small number articles and chapters in collections, none of which have shown significant impact. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. This would seem to explain why the relisting simply continues to push earlier canards: web pages and PDF pamphlets have been added and are now referred to as WP:RS, his work EXISTS (Kitfoxxethe), and the strained pleading from K.e.coffman that asserts special consideration because Romanovsky's work was suppressed under the Soviet system. (K.e.coffman concedes that Romanovsky's "output is lower than what's expected of a historian", but does not seem to recognize the contradiction in his/her position posed by the fact that Romanovsky emigrated to Israel in the 80's and has been a "free scholar" there for almost 30 years.) If this article is ultimately kept, it will represent a significant low-end outlier of WP historian bios. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Reply. Yes, I think we've discussed all this already. The Google Books page and individual works you've quoted each represent a single citation to his work...there are around 40 of these by my count of the GB link you furnished (some GB entries do not seem to list his name). At any rate, I absolutely agree that his works are "discussed", but must emphasize that they are simply not discussed at a level that is commensurate with long-established notability guidelines. Moreover, these low numbers are not explained by the "suppresion" that you've claimed. Rather, Romanovsky's corpus of work is simply average in this sense (which is not to say that it isn't interesting, or lacks any other subjective quality that one might consider). Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I think that the academic conclusions he reached are interesting, and especially combined with the fact that other Soviet historians shied away from such conclusions, it is worth having this information. My reason is not so much policy based, but bending the rules a bit for a worthy case is also part of Wikipedia policy. Debresser ( talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per most of the above, and notably we have another case of "googleism," and holding liberal arts scholars to the identical (and inappropriate) standard for scientists... peer review isn't the only indicia of notability, and this individual has multiple other reasons for notability beyond NPROF. Montanabw (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me, but that comment misrepresents the above discussion. We have examined him in the context of being a historian, e.g. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. Most areas of science bios carry much higher notability requirements. We have wagon loads of WP historian bios and, if you start looking through some of them, like Will Durant, you'll find more objective examples of what qualifies as a bio. Even folks whom the mainstream historian community considers to be cranks, like Howard Zinn, have articles here because their works are discussed/critiqued, i.e. noted by others. You assert that Romanovsky has "multiple other reasons for notability": what are they? In the end, it seems like the "keeps" are again hoping for a simply tally-based evaluation of this case, because policy-based reasons for keeping this article are simply not there. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC). reply
  • There is also WP:BASIC, where an individual who meets GNG does not have to meet a specialty SNG. Here, he has multiple sources of notability, WP:PROF alone is not the sole criterion. The political dissident angle is also significant. Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I started the article, as I explained above, but I don't have any connection to Mr. Romanovsky. Just in case that was the issue. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep adding a couple of sources to the article now: an old news article describing his pre-immigration career, and a scholarly article mentioning him in a list of "leading scholars" in his field. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Regardless of the merits of his argument, he does not meet WP:PROF./The standards for academic notability are those applied in the academic field, and Historians normally become notable by publishing books, not journal articles. He has not published a single one. He has published 3 journal articles. They do not lead to recognition as an influential historian. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Phelps Number

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

Cannot find mention of this in anything. No sources listed except the medal table from the current games. WP:NEO or WP:OR possible WP:A11. Savonneux ( talk) 07:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Cinque Ports Light Railway

Cinque Ports Light Railway (  | 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 speculative article ("it is likely", "it is possible") about a light railway that never was built, where half of the short article is not about this scheme but about other railways. Suorced to a blog, an unrelated source, and primary sources. Prod removed without explanation or improvements. Among the 49 Google results [11] one can mostly find either primary sources or unrelaible ones. The best independent source I could find about it was this passing mention where it gets one sentence in a paragraph about the 48 light railway schemes proposed in 1899 and 1900. The remainder of the book sources (well, mostly magazine sources) are the announcement that the company had been formed. perhaps a redirect to Light Railways Act 1896 with a short mention there may be a good solution. As at the moment that article doesn't even mention this scheme, deletion seems to be the most logical way forward though. Fram ( talk) 07:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seems clear the railway was authorised by parliament, a company was formed and extensive planning was done. There's plenty of detail, if we want it but if the current stub doesn't get much further that's fine too. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • "It seems"... is your !keep based on anything substantial or is this the same kind of drive-by action as your prod removal? Fram ( talk) 07:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • (edit conflict) When I do prod patrol, I pick out topics whose titles seem promising. I then skim possible sources for the topics to check my initial impression. If I then go on to remove the prod, I don't start discussion because that's not part of the prod process – prods are supposed to be indisputable. In this case, the topic is a railway and, in my experience, railways are very well documented. Last night, for example, I watched a good TV show about the history of railway development which maintained that railways were more important than the internet in changing UK society. With this general understanding, I checked the sources again and find plenty of detail about the proposed route in the London Gazette and there seem to be detailed plans in the National Archives. I'm not sufficiently interested to work on the topic myself but am fairly sure that it should be left in main space for others to improve, as they see fit. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The railway was authorised discussed by Parliament, which means that there will be record of it in Hansard. It should also have received coverage in the railway press over the years. Just a question of finding the sources and expanding the stub. Mjroots ( talk) 07:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Both mention the scheme and application for authorisation. Mjroots ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Well, like you say, there was an application. That's still far removed from being "authorised by parliament", which you both claimed as keep reason and for which I still have no evidence to support it. Fram ( talk) 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Private Bill Schemes". Glasgow Herald. No. 287. Glasgow. 1 December 1899. p. 3.
  2. ^ "London Correspondence". Birmingham Daily Post. No. 12995. Birmingham. 5 February 1900. p. 4.
  • Keep - there are multiple RS in a this google book search, and I suspect a less constrained search might find more. Contemporary sources probably react to the 1899 Railway Order, whereas the 1999 The Tramway Review demonstrates it to be of sufficient note a century later to justify column inches - not least, that article notes it to be the most ambitious light railway proposal of the period. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep " that never was built," So GNG et al is now over-ridden by commercial success?
I also fail to see why not having obtained an Act of Parliament is any sort of problem here. As a Light Railway, it didn't need one. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • "Of course, "that never was built" was the only thing I wrote, silly of me that I didn't realise that. The fact that there are no significant reliable sources unearthed yet (the one source added to the article is the one I presented in my nomination, and which has all of two short lines about the railway) has obviously no relation to the GNG whatsoever. And "I also fail to see why not having obtained an Act of Parliament is any sort of problem here": I never claimed that this is is a problem. The problem is that two people are basing their "keep"s on the claim that the railway had obtained an Act of Parliament, which is false. Pointing out errors in other people's statements is still encouraged, I hope? Fram ( talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Keep per the ample sources demonstrated to exist by others. I very strongly suspect that there will be additional off-line sources available in various local archives for a scheme of this date, nature and extent. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Which reliable, secondary sources would that be? Which of the sources provided by the other people in this discussion are secondary sources with significant, indepth coverage of this? So far, they are either announcements by the promoters of the railway, or a two-sentence passing mention in a railway magazine I provided at the very start. Fram ( talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plans were filled and are held at the National Library as part of the Ministry of Transport Archive Records. see: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakcat ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I know that this is headed for a keep, but your argument for keep has nothing to do with notability. That a company files plans with a ministry, and that these plans are kept, is routine dealing with a primary source. That's not the required significant attention in secondary sources. Fram ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Asyraf khalid

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

Majority of sources are user-generated content; not enough reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Drm310 ( talk) 06:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric van Siede

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

Almost certainly a hoax and not a particularly convincing one. Even if such a forgotten Swedish poet (of Dutch descent?) had existed, the fact that the book isn't found in LIBRIS shows that he wouldn't be notable enough for an article. Hegvald ( talk) 05:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hegvald ( talk) 05:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hegvald ( talk) 05:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a single source found, and bears many hallmarks of a hoax: the unlikely first name change from Peder to Eric, the Dutch-sounding last name and the spelling of "Eric" (the spelling of "Erik" with a c existed, rarely, in the 19th century but mostly in the nobility), the purported title of his book (in Swedish that's one word, not two)... If he was recently discovered there would have been something written about him, but there isn't. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Was speedily deleted. ( non-admin closure) Savonneux ( talk) 07:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Swastik Garg

Swastik Garg (  | 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 basic notability guidelines. Marvellous Spider-Man ( talk) 04:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. The issue, in terms of policy and practice, is whether this is merely a news event or significant enough for an article. That's a matter of editorial judgment, and numerically, the outcome is a tie. If one discounts opinions that are not based on the topic's coverage in reliable sources, but consist of conspiracy-theorizing (PeacePeace, DestroyerofDreams, JGabbard) blocked low-editcount accounts (TradingJihadist) or mere votes (184.90.237.3), then one gets a slight majority to delete, but nothing approaching consensus. So this topic is probably best revisited a few months later when the election is over and the story's importance can be assessed at more of a distance.  Sandstein  18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Murder of Seth Rich

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

There is no tangible connection asserted in reliable sources between this event and the DNC leaks. It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder. St Anselm ( talk) 04:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The murder of a DNC worker at the time it happened is obviously a notable murder. Moreover, the implications of the actions of WikiLeak in this matter with the posting of a reward for information in the context of danger to whistle-blowers who give information to WikiLeaks, certainly raises the notability of the killing of Seth Rich. I can see no benefit to censoring the article. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
  • @ PeacePeace: Actually your statement is contrary to the most fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Notability is a test that relates to verification in Reliable independent sources. No event in the real world is inherently notable. The Wikileak nonsense is orthogonal to the topic of this article. Put it in the article about Assange or an article about conspiracy theories if you wish. Your view on this is contrary to policy and as such it will be disregarded by whoever closes this AfD. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Explain how: you are the article creator, this is your "first" article, first edit actually (second was to nominate it for DYK), and how I'm supposed to read and respond to things that weren't even posted when I made my comments. Since we're all demanding things here...-- Savonneux ( talk) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Change the name of the article to Seth Rich Based on the reliable sources available specifically discussing the individual and the circumstances surrounding his death, I think Mr. Rich meets the guidelines for a WP:BLP. Additional information and editing to the page as it stands, coupled with a change in the title of the page would be sufficient to keep the article. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. Coverage mainly about self-serving Wikileaks statements irrelevant to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This crime has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. If you disagree, please find RS that link the crime to the campaign. The question has nothing to do with editors' opinions, it is about RS references. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note this account, although created in 2007, has only 25 edits prior to this comment. I'm sorry but this looks like a sleeper sock account. The !vote should be discounted accordingly. (Also in this case that is NOT a reliable sources).
Assange is not a reliable source for this and neither is Fox, and we don't publish "implied" facts per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Assange is not a reliable source regarding the identity of his own organization's sources?
As for Fox News, that was just an example; many reputable news organizations covered the same story, as listed in comments below. DestroyerofDreams ( talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This Fox News segment also reported that the police have reported there is no known connection between Seth Rich's death and his job at the DNC. Even the interviewer takes the position that this was a botched robbery. Assange in this segment did not present any evidence, was obviously speculating, and using innuendo to imply that Rich was one of his sources. Even if Rich really was one of his sources, no connection has been established between his death and that he was some sort of whistle-blower. Instead, police evidence points to a botched mugging or botched robbery. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph [13], The Independent [14], The Washington Post [15], Sky News [16], ABC News [17], Washington Times [18], CBS News [19], and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death [20]. It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. TradingJihadist ( talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Even if these references were to establish notability, they would be establishing notability of a conspiracy theory not about a crime or a real world individual. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't understand what you mean. The sources cover a range of topics, from the killing, facts about Rich and his work, the theories and speculation, WikiLeaks' involvement, etc. TradingJihadist ( talk) 22:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP articles are about a topic -- they don't "cover a range of topics" That's the whole point. It's WP:SYNTH and for this and other reasons it violates WP:BLP. Please review the pages at those links. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note that the above editor who is the creator of the article was indefed for WP:NOTHERE Nil Einne ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
"even if it does later turn out " - this is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. We do not know what will "later turn out" and since this is an article about a recently deceased person (so BLP still applies. It also applies since this has repercussions for the guy's family) we err on the side of caution. IF "it later turns out" that there was a significant link between WikiLeaks and Rich THEN this article can be created etc. For now, BLP says "be cautious". So it should be deleted. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't see how WP:CRYSTALBALLING applies. The event has happened, the media coverage has happened, the WikiLeaks reward offer has happened. I think that all of this combined is notable already, and the possible future developments that I was speculating about are developments that might make murder itself seem less notable, even if it is now at the center of a larger set of events. -- Joel7687 ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Joel7687, what you say is certainly true about those things happening. But to use language like "even if it does later turn out" opens yourself up to attack by unprincipled editors who will latch on to anything in order to unleash a torrent of acronyms - even though anyone can read your comment and interpret what it means and know that it has nothing to do with "CRYSTALBALLING". TradingJihadist ( talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NCRIME. Also see WP:BLP1E. IF there was substantial indication of a link to the Wikileaks nonsense then maybe. But there isn't and this article's purpose seems to be just to fan the flames of conspiracy theories. (Also, I'll repeat my earlier comment, that a brand new account with the username "TradingJihadist", knows precisely how to create a brand new article, nominate it for DYK and then navigate DYK criteria and process. Obviously not a brand new user.) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lots of coverage in reliable sources. Interesting mystery about what the role of Wikileaks is all about. In any event, Hillary Clinton has specifically and publicly referred to Rich's murder in connection with her support of tighter gun control regulations. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I wonder how many murders Clinton has referred to in talking about gun control. Surely that doesn't make them notable. It's a trivial, passing mention, not significant coverage. St Anselm ( talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Perhaps reliable sources should have treated it that way, but they didn't. For example, the Washington Post devoted an entire article to it: Hermann, Peter. "Hillary Clinton invokes name of slain DNC aide Seth Rich in calling for gun control", Washington Post (July 12, 2016). When these things hit home, politicians react more forcefully. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
It seems the conspiracy theories are the main topic not Mr. Rich's tragic outcome. Clear heads must prevail on Wikipedia. This means avoiding getting caught up in the drama contained in a relatively short news cycle. This will probably fade in a couple of days anyway WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Regarding WP:BLP1E, it's true that the recently-deceased are sometimes covered if the article includes "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime". I'm not sure that applies here given lack of gruesomeness and lack of suicide (he was shot in the back). Even if BLP1E does apply, Seth Rich is gone so he will not remain a low-profile person, and in any event the sources indicate the murder and Hillary Clinton's speech about it are significant, and Rich's role in his own death was of course substantial and is well-documented. As for WP:NCRIME, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, and there's lots of media coverage here. Chandra Levy seems analogous. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Since the family has been begging people to stop spreading conspiracy theories and publicizing his death [21], [22], [23]... yeah, BLP1E applies. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Absolutely, as I said at BLPN, let's keep the conspiracy theories out. That doesn't require article deletion. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If you keep the conspiracy theories out he is a one time victim of a crime and per WP:BLP1E If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. So it actually does require article deletion.-- Savonneux ( talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Even without mentioning conspiracy speculation, there is wide coverage in reliable sources because Hillary Clinton spoke about Rich in a speech, because of the very unusual bounty offered by Wikileaks, because of the political nature of Rich's employment, because of his young age, et cetera. What about Chandra Levy? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF The prolific number of questionable biographies is actually something of a perennial thing at AfD.-- Savonneux ( talk) 00:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Seth Rich is gone so he will not remain a low-profile person Logic, how does it work? That's less a crystal ball argument than it it is a non sequitur. In any case, this is a single event of no proven impact, your Wikilawyering aside, and Wikipedia has no obligation to help conspiracy theorists and political partisans in their propaganda efforts. ----
Again, making arguments like "Keep until more details are known" is WP:CRYSTALBALL and it's just not sufficient reason to keep, especially for a BLP. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Rich was an alleged source of some leaks, that is not enough to make him notable. It also involves lots of speculation, and nothing can be reliably sourced. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per arguments articulated by Volunteer Marek. Can always add it later when sources have more to say. Lipsquid ( talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is absurd to say that it is not notable, being a member of the DNC murdered when he was murdered. The reward money offered from different sources makes it notable. Notability is obvious from the Google & YouTube hits, also from the demands to delete it here -- why would anyone care about a non-notable topic? Every demand for deletion is a notability. And an outcry of "Strong Delete" indicates even more notability. And keep the name, for it is the murder (in life context) that especially makes it more notable. "“If someone is gunned down in our national capital, we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why,” said [Newt] Gingrich. “And if it clearly wasn’t a mugging and it wasn’t for money, what was it for?”( PeacePeace ( talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
A request or suggestion for deletion is one thing, emotional or insistent demand for deletion with lots of spilled ink, is a different matter. As in this case, evidence of notability. For something allegedly unnotable, there is a lot of noting going on. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 23:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
I had no idea what you're talking about, until I looked at your contributions, and noticed that this is your very first AfD. This is understandable. Geogene ( talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
LOL Well, Geogene, indeed this is my first; I had no idea that the way you persuaded other editors was to call the other POV "horseshit" (as above) and to throw around straw-man talking-point arguments like "conspiracy theory." ( PeacePeace ( talk) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
WP:♠ WP:QUACK this isnt kindergarten, also that was Calton. You've analysed everyone's motives have you? Quite a feat.-- Savonneux ( talk) 01:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Quite right, it is impossible to know the secret motives of any particular person. But motives aside, whoever makes a decision on this article should consider 1) whether or not any proof has been given of "non-notability" as opposed to evidence for notability and 2) whether the "conspiracy theory" mantra/talking-point is not actually a straw-man argument. For does the article state that the death was the result of a conspiracy? I don't recall anyone claiming that; and if not, one may well ask whether or not the repetition of the expression "conspiracy theory" be a straw-man argument and off topic; as the question is supposed to be that of notability, not of conspiracy theory. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Calton called the article horseshit, he didn't call an editor or a viewpoint horseshit. Nothing wrong with that. PeacePeace, if you want to have a long life on WP, I suggest you bone up on policy and seek guidance at WP:TEAHOUSE. It gets better. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Just a reminder WP:BLP1E would not apply to this article because the article is about THE event (murder) not a biography. Why we have articles on the events of Murder of JonBenét Ramsey and Suicide of Amanda Todd but not on the person, they would most certainly not pass the one event rule but the event passes GNG. Right wingers are using this as a conspiracy theory but that alone is not a case for deletion either infact all their coverage adds on to passing GNG which is the ONLY criteria for a event. GuzzyG ( talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:BDP The only exception would be for people who have recently died...has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime You could attribute any specific event tangentially related to the US Presidential Election as notable because they are all covered by every news outlet in the US until the "next big thing" happens. That's why it's called the "news cycle." Go to the Al Jazeera website and look for articles on this (I already did [24] ), that should give you an idea of just how notable this is in terms of Life, the universe, and everything-- Savonneux ( talk) 02:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Interesting point about going to the Al Jazeera site - showing that this event has no significant impact; it is merely fodder for the news cycle because it is a presidential election year, and because now WikiLeaks has offered a reward (oh my!). To further demonstrate the lack of significance, I cannot find a New York Times article covering this event. The only thing all this drama in the press demonstrates is Julian Assange is as famous as a rock star -- not that he or anyone else can give credibility to anything other than the police strongly believe this was mugging (robbery) gone bad. And this was the fourth of such recent muggings in the area. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Is there something about Al Jazeera that makes it particularly accurate as a barometer of notability? There are zillions of news outlets and sources other than Al Jazeera. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Good job on seeming to miss the point--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC). reply
You need to provide a rationale for your !vote, not just make an assertion. WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Volunteer Marek: A simple assertion of notability is indeed a rationale. Not a particularly good rationale, but it's not WP:ILIKEIT. He's asserting that it meets the policy requirements for inclusion, which is valid grounds to keep. He should provide an explanation for why he feels that way, but he doesn't need to. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree with all that has been said above. I see no reason to repeat the same arguments. I see no reason to keep re-inventing the wheel. In my estimation, it's notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The murder has received ongoing mainstream news coverage, particularly since Wikileaks provided a reward and criticism of them has been reported. Furthermore, mainstream media have also covered the "conspiracy theories" that Rich leaked the DNC emails. Certainly allegations of a conspiracy involving the DNC have come from fringe sources, but the guideline says, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It has. There is no requirement that mainstream sources take the allegations seriously, just that they report them. TFD ( talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
TFD - the conspiracy theories are one topic and the shooting of Mr. Rich is another topic. It is the conspiracy theories that have received significant coverage and Mr. Rich's tragic outcome is a side event - that the police believe is merely a robbery gone bad. It is apples and oranges and conflating these is WP:SYN. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
That would justify an article, it's just that the topic would be "alleged conspiracy theories about the murder" rather than the murder itself. BTW the police have not ruled anything out in their investigation. TFD ( talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
TFD - I'm not sure what you mean about the police not ruling anything out. They have been strongly backing the "mugging (robbery) gone bad" theory because of their experience (they know what one looks like), and they have reported what appears to be defensive wounds on Seth's knuckles. They also reported this is the fourth such mugging in the area. They have not given credibility to theories that Julian Assange and internet chatter are speculating about. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If anyone wants to look at Google Trends it's following the news cycle perfectly [25] first there's a blip when it initially happened in July, then wikileaks offered a reward a few days ago and it went through the roof, then they ran the stories about people reacting to the news that wikileaks had offered a reward, and now it's plummeting again. Paper thin information hashed and rehashed because until the next thing breaks they have to play something on all those 24 hour news channels-- Savonneux ( talk) 09:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
collapse misstatements of fact falsely attributed to newspaper article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, and no. In fact I have no idea why you thought it necessary to bring 1) up. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. While I believe in assuming good faith, as it were, I am at a loss to know why my comment was hidden above, since the NY Daily News certainly did refer to the Shot-Spotter technology used to find the location of the shooting. And that is notable. Moreover, the NY Daily News appears to consider the murder itself as notable. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 20:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-dnc-staffer-seth-conrad-rich-shot-killed-article-1.2707538 ( PeacePeace ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

I have no idea why your comment was hidden but your claim does appear to be incorrect. You claimed "this is the first (probably) instance of police locating a man shot with the (Washington DC) Shot-Spotter acoustic technology" but the source [26] just says "responded to the gun shots around 4:20 a.m. using the ShotSpotter system to find the location of the shooting". Considering our Gunfire locator#Public safety says "ShotSpotter system installed in Washington, DC has been successfully relied upon to locate gunfire in the area of coverage. The Washington, DC Police Department reported in 2008 that it had helped locate 62 victims of violent crime and aided in 9 arrests. In addition to assaults, the system detected a large amount of "random" gunfire, all totaling 50 gunshots a week in 2007." (emphasis added), your claim of it probably being the first is extremely dubious. I know you're new here, but actually it doesn't matter whether you're on wikipedia or elsewhere. You really need to read sources carefully and not read too much in to them. Frankly NY Daily News isn't a great source anyway so if they make claims which sound dubious you probably should check other sources before repeating them. But even they don't appear to have made such an extreme claim as the one you made (something being the first in 2016 for a system which was actually first trialled in 2007 with multiple use in 2007-2008 leading to expansion), not even close. BTW, I have no idea why you keep mentioning the what the NY Daily News regard as notable. We have our own notability standards which have little to do with what the NY Daily News regard as notable Nil Einne ( talk) 13:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
You make some good point Einne, but did you notice that I began by asking a question, "Do you agree that . . . ," rather than making an indicative statement of fact? Also I used "probably." So you are evidently correct that this technology was not an innovation for this case and thanks for that information. But attention to a story by a newspaper does indicate notability. No doubt we all have no monolithic standard, but different standards of notability, and also possibly what we hope is not noted by the public. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 23:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
I have no idea what you mean by your last point. Our standard of notability is covered at WP:Notability. The ultimate requirement is GNG. We do have the subject specific guidelines, but these are really intended to just be a simply test to establish an article meets GNG without having to go through the work. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you probably shouldn't be participating in a deletion discussion. As for you earlier points, it's misleading to bring up the question. You weren't asking "is this true" but rather were saying "since this is a (probably) true fact, doesn't it mean..." so you were in fact stating a probable fact rather than simply asking a question. Also you seem to be missing a key point. This AFD is already messy enough. You shouldn't be writing random stuff, especially when that stuff is extremely wrong. And yes, saying something is the first in 2016, when the actually first happened in 2007/8 then repeated many times in that year, and this very basic detail is covered in our article on the subject; is something that's very wrong. If you can't be bothered doing basic research before commenting, then you could simply not say anything. You should also phrase your comments carefully since your wording strongly implied what you were saying was supported by the source when it was not. Perhaps most importantly, when what you say is so majorly wrong, it's not unresonably to simply hide your irrelevant comments. Again, if you don't want this to happen, either do basic research before talking or just don't say anything if you have no real idea what you're talking about. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The fact that the death is notable for stupid reasons (viz. conspiracy theories) does not somehow negate its notability. It has received extensive media coverage, and I don't see how BLP1E/BDP comes into play here, since the article's about his death, not about him, and there's nothing in the article which reflects negatively on Rich or his family and friends. Now, obviously this article should not be kept so that it can be used as an incubator for WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories coming from SPAs and POV-pushers. But I see no problem with it being kept as an article that neutrally describes the detail of the investigation, as well as the conspiracy theories regarding it. (If POV-pushing remains an issue, ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions can certainly be imposed.) If it comes to pass that the conspiracy theories become far more notable than the murder itself, then I can see the case for moving to Conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich or such, per TFD's quite insightful comments here. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:NOTNEWS portion of the argument, i.e. that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Now it uses routine or timely coverage as an example to the rule but not an element of the rule. It's an election year. Every time someone passes gas loudly you get 400 articles on the event. We could write an entire article on Clinton's facial expressions if you sourced it to the US Media (I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFF here I'm just pointing out something). When the book comes out I'll be convinced (per Chandra Levy), until then this is just a media circus that is even now dying down.-- Savonneux ( talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and change name to Seth Rich. Clearly notable: tens-to-hundreds of thousands of results on google news / google search for "seth rich murder" and variants thereof. Plenty of reliable sources on the details of the murder; the existence of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories does not take away from the verifiable information out there. The real question is whether or not this article gets disqualified under section 2 of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" subpolicy of WP:NOT. I don't see this article as merely a "timely" incident analogous to celebrity gossip, and am thus firmly on the side of keeping the article. I suggest that the article be renamed to simply Seth Rich, as it really covers both (a) biographical information and (b) details of his murder. // Cachedio ( talk) 21:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Whether or not Wikipedia has been tabloid in the past and when that began (if it ever did), is irrelevant. There is nothing tabloid about the article on an event which is reported in major news outlets (non-tabloid). ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete WP:NCRIME, WP:EVENTCRIT this appears to be an unremarkable robbery gone bad (botched robbery). It is so unremarkable that the police reported this is the fourth such type of mugging-robbery - and of course the police have much experience.
Also for comparison - for 2014 (the latest year I could find) there were about 1,165,000 violent crimes in the United States [27] (source: FBI). In 2012 there were 354,000 robberies nationwide [28] (source: FBI). In Washington DC, as of August 15, 2016, there have been 1900 robberies, and 85 homicides in 2016 [29] (source: DC Police).
Also, per WP:EVENTCRIT (above) this appears to have no historic value and it is not of lasting importance - its already fading away, having fallen off the the News Cycle - no coverage in Google news since August 10th - and that was focused on the WikiLeaks reward. The only thing the news covered significantly was other people - such as Julian Assange, the bereaved, the police, Hilary's comments, (Newt Gingrich) and so on. Furthermore, using the news cycle chart - coverage related to this robbery peaked on August 10th according to the aforementioned News cycle indicator - and went into a steep dive thereafter [30].
And as stated above WP:BLP1E applies because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this person only became known due to this one event - which has no long lasting effect and therefore should not be an article. And most certainly WP:BDP applies with all the speculation and conspiracy theories swirling around the individual at the center of this event --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This murder is notable as a fascinating mystery and as having rewards offered both by the police and by WikiLeaks, right after Assange gave an interview in which he strongly suggests that Seth Rich was a leak source for Wikileaks. The mysterious noise heard by his girlfriend to which he responded not to worry with the bruises on face and body are also a riddle. The fact of the suspicion of being the leak source is very notable. But thus far there is not a good case for this being a hit job, as the bruises do not seem consistent with that. But suspicion of hit job, is not essential to the notability. Isn't the BDP concerned with people dead over 115 years? If so what is that relevance? As to one event, Seth Rich had a significant project with the DNC, was shot with viral results on the internet which recur day after day (1000's of events?), was posthumously involved in a dramatic TV interview and in a dramatic and intriguing offer of reward money from Wikileaks. However, BLP1E states, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when . . . ." The article is "Murder of Seth Rich," not "Seth Rich." So the articles is "an article on a person" or a "biography" (term mentioned in BLP1E). It is about a notable murder, notable for the viral response it got on the internet, notable for getting a reward offered by Wikileaks, notable for being the murder of a man who was practically identified as a Wikileak source by Assange, though he stopped short of a direct assertion. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Let me say again you really need to read stuff properly before commenting. There is nothing in:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

which says it only applies to people "dead over 115 years". And to be honest I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Did you mean people who died recently and were over 115 years of age, or people who died over 115 years ago? If you meant the later, your comment is even more wrong. Anyway the quoted statement is clearly saying it applies to people who recently died regardless of their age. The only relevance of 115 years is, as the guideline says, people who are over 115 years are assumed dead and people under 115 years are assumed alive; unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since Seth Rich was not even close to 115 years, but his death is very well established and disputed I think by no one here, the 115 years bit is irrelevant to this particular discussion. He is however recently deceased, again something accepted by everyone in this discussion (or should be), therefore BLP arguably could still apply, as BDP says. :: Nil Einne ( talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
No, my comment is not wrong. It was a question. Kindly cease making false attributions as to my statements. If I ask a question, that is not an assertion. And it is not wrong to ask a question. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
PeacePeace wrote: "This murder is notable as a fascinating mystery and as having rewards offered"...the mysterious noise heard by his girlfriend to which he responded not to worry with the bruises on face and body are also a riddle... Comment: Wikipedia is not a mystery novel or a serial mystery magazine or suspense novel. Wikipedia does not promote speculation. And saying Seth "had a significant project with the DNC" is a POV statement - media coverage did not say his job was significant - and this is really not related to any ONE EVENT criteria. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I have to agree that such an article would not pass WP:PROFRINGE and would run counter to WP:BDP which is concerned with fringe and conspiracy theories that have been shown to be needlessly "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" - as demonstrated above by User:FourViola and noted by others in the above. Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Question RE: "per above" -- there's an awful lot of discussion up thar. Could you please specify the reason you believe this subject is notable, citing WP policy and RS citations? How would you respond to the concerns stated above that virtually all of the media coverage relates to Wikileaks' coy attempt to insinuate itself and its agenda into this matter rather than to the crime which is the subject of this article and this AfD? SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG applies. There are many reliable, independent sources covering this event, as demonstrated by TradingJihadist and Anythingyouwant. As for the WikiLeaks thing, this still shows that this event is notable, at least in some way because of all that coverage. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind merging this into another article(s), but either way, this is too notable to simply delete. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 16:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and change name to Seth Rich. The clear and reasonable consensus is for keep. This deletion push is irrational, resembling shill tactics. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. DNC may seek to repress the collection and dissemination of this information because (Redacted). Retaliation is an obvious possible motive because of Rich's info leak to Assange. If even partly true, notability is huge; but either way, it should no longer be disputed. - JGabbard ( talk) 15:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
For those who would decry the logic of criminal minds as conspiracy theory in order to dismiss the larger picture surrounding this event, I just wanted to be 'Captain Obvious' and connect a couple dots pointing to the elephant in the room. 'Nuff said. - JGabbard ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't create the article. I do support keeping it, partly for its value in teaching conspiracy theorists that it may well be a garden variety mugging. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I mistook you for the article creator at the bottom of the first page, sorry. But two shots to the back of the head is NOT the typical M.O. of muggers, more of assassins.- JGabbard ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
collapse misstatement of fact contradicted by virtually every RS and insinuating BLP violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, The Telegraph says 2 shots in the head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/ . But now the Daily Mail Online (which looks rather tabloid to me, says shot were in the torso). ( PeacePeace ( talk) 02:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Is this egregious breach of BLP sanctionable? Geogene ( talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:BLPTALK-- Savonneux ( talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ JGabbard: per Geogene and Savonneux' comments, I have redacted what appears to be the most major BLP breach in your comments. I'm leaving the "assassins" comment stand for now, since I'm not sure if I see a BLP issue when the implied villain is a collective entity rather than a particular individual or individuals. That said, if others see fit to strike that and similar comments of yours, I won't be objecting to that by any means. Furthermore, even if your conspiracy-theorizing here does not violate BLP, it is inappropriate in an AFD or anywhere on Wikipedia; additionally, they may be sanctionable under ARBAP2. I would strongly encourage you to remove your comments here. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (see trend line [34]) --- I know there are quite a few people that love conspiracy theories but as of today there are no reliable sources stating that this was anything other than a DC murder (he was walking home around 4 in the morning). If something comes to light over the next few months it's not hard to recreate an article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the creator of this article had less than 100 edits and was blocked indefinitely less than a week ago [35] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the blocking of that editor is notable, as are the 2 or 3 (by police, Wikileaks, & possible 1 other) offers of reward money for information about this murder. The passion this murder has raised is also notable, as methinks the attempts to censor the article. It is notable that immediately after a few objective facts about Rich's family, were added to the article, the addition was speedily reverted. The continuation of the derogatory talking point "conspiracy theory," while the article has no conspiracy theory, is notable. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 21:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
  • Clearly the level of interest on both sides, with such an inordinate amount of agitation by the minority side over the article's very existence, more than justifies its indefinite continuation.- JGabbard ( talk) 21:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
FYI Gabbard, Peace, et al. [36]. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Controversy or not, the murder was covered extensively in reliable sources. The fact that Wikileaks issued a reward for information leading to a conviction for the killing makes the subject of this page even more notable. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Being covered does not mean notable. Road closures are covered, food fights are covered, rescued dogs are covered, but all very soon forgotten. When there are sourced claims to some notability, then we can create an article about that notability. Until then, there's simply nothing to put in this article, unless we just ramble and speculate. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 15:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Specifically, it's a WP:SENSATION case: there is material we could put in the article to indicate notability beyond WP:ROUTINE, but that material is prohibited under WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BDP. FourViolas ( talk) 15:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for saying it better. It's not an article we can support at this time. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comatmebro, your creation of the article doesn't impact my view that the subject of this article is not-notable, and therefore it follows that this article should be deleted. I understand that you think he is notable. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Somedifferentstuff I never asked if my creation of the article impacted your view of the subject's notability. I said your argument was irrelevant. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Comatmebro, then your mention of "user with less than 100 edits" was meaningless. Here is my current view: Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (see trend line [37]) --- The subject of this article is not-notable nor has he been proven to be. This will be my final comment here. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Removed duplicate bolding of "Delete". FourViolas ( talk) 11:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Somedifferentstuff Again, YOU mentioned the "user with 100 edits," and made it seem as though that had some sort of weight as to whether or not the article should be kept. You are right, it is meaningless. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - consensus indicates a lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Pay accounts office DSC

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

Regional Pay Accounts office is not notable. WP:BRANCH Uncletomwood ( talk) 03:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Why cant it be notable? The pay accounts office dsc is managing the pay and other finance functions of the 61000 Defence security corps(dsc) located through out the military installations of govt of india and selected embassies. and it is a govt office of importance in kannur kerala. roshyf2 04:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 ( talk • contribs)
Defence Security Corps may also be gone through roshyf2 04:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 ( talk • contribs)


  • Delete and Comment: Mr Roshan, The minute regional, administrative and functionality differences in "military Pay Account offices" should not be counted for separate articles. You could create a page for CGDA and create a separate para for all the regional offices and clubbed together. It would be really unusual to have articles on each of the regional/zonal office of Military pay office, as it won't have much content to add on after a certain time. There seems to be no rationale for having many articles, on pay account offices which are anyway not notable organisations. You may add this information to a page you can create on the CGDA or in the IDAS page itself. See this /info/en/?search=Defense_Finance_and_Accounting_Service. Also Mr. Roshan you seem to have a very high Conflict of Interest with regard to this matter and COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Uncletomwood ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RETAIN and comment :Mr Uncle tom your advice is highly appreciated,i am on creating a CGDA wiki article which will have links to the 44 military pay accounts offices ( that cares for diverse regiments, and corps).That does not undermine the significance of the wiki articles of Military pay accounts offices because links have to be connected to a link article.The office of the CGDA historically had different names and a span of around 270 yrs. Unlike US defence finance which is a recent one and located in same country , the Indian defense finance and accounting offices have suffered relocation due the infamous partition of Indian sub continent and the creation and location of troops and regiments have changed. The Wiki article Defense_Finance_and_Accounting_Service which you have given for my understanding also have links to regional military depots , reserve centers , closed military installations of US which is seldom updated with contents or just updated to change the name of the head of the office .The wikipage for PAO DSC or any military pay accounts office becomes distinct because of different purpose,origin, clientele and procedures it follow. If the entire details get infused in a single CGDA wiki , the page becomes gigantic. More over these offices have regional importance too (say important govt offices/ military offices of Kannur). There is no Conflict of interest from my side. The right to information in India gives the right to each and every person of functioning of offices in a location. There are two sets of people who would like to know about these offices the direct clientele(DSC SOLDIERS and related) , other sister Ministry of defence organisations and Common man who may like to know about the offices.roshyf2 06:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 ( talk • contribs)


Need your expert help @ DGG, Lemongirl942, and SwisterTwister: Uncletomwood ( talk) 08:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. routine government offices of this sort maintain their own web sites, and the necessary detailed information should be there. Everyone knows to look for there if they need info. we're an encyclopedia , not a self help resource or a directory--see WP:NOT. When we do have an article on an organisation we do not link to its local offices--again, that is expected to be on the main website. In fact, we have a rule against doing so, WP:ELNO. The right to information about government functions in India is expected to be met by the activities of the government. It is not a right to have articles about them on a private website dedicated to another purpose entirely. We cannot be expected to fulfill the functions of every possible information need, worldwide, just those that one would expect to find in a modern encyclopedia. WP articles are addressed to the general public, and this is met by articles on the general organization . Material addressed to the clients is considered promotional, no matter who writes it. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the the reasoning by DGG above. I am generally supportive of keeping article about government offices, but this one is a sub-branch if I am not wrong? Accordingly, WP:NOTDIR applies here. We don't create individual articles on every sub-branch of a government office. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, the notability concerns raised prior to the relist appear to have been addressed by the post-relist argument, which is supported by sources. If these are not adequate, please open another AfD - the suitability of sources typically should be decided by a community discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Petr Torak

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

Member OBE is not notable by itself, and that what he was awarded. Part of a series on non notable police officers. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as think he is borderline notable for co-founding two organisations: one to help the Czech and Slovak community and another one to support Romany ,gypsy and traveller police officers, the reliable sources newspaper coverage cited in the article confirm the iinformation in the article. Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there is still nothing actually convincing and there's also no convincing substance for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Roman are a heavily discriminated against racial minority, so much so that they are badmouthed at Holocaust memorials that should be recognizing the fact that they were the other full victims of the holocaust besides the Jews. People who would not dream of stereotyping other racial groups will stereotype Roman as a bunch of theives, cheaters and people unwilling to do real work. We have reliable sources mentioning Torak as the first Roman police officer in the United Kingdom. He has received recognition and notability for his work, and the article should be kept. It is bad enough the Roman are the most maligned ethnic group, when one has recieved real recognition for doing good, we should not delete it since he clearly is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep As well as the sources already added to the article, there's more to show he's notable. Profiles in the Daily Mail and on the Radio Prague website. Also other Czech news sites some of which may be RS though I'm not familiar with them. He's had all this attention because he's playing a unique role in British policing during a period of much public discussion about East European migrants, with Roma people in particular getting bad publicity. He's been invited to consult with the OSCE [38]and other organisations, like this. Czechs are interested in comparing with their own issues re Roma people. Also, lesser coverage in RS like a paragraph in a BBC article and the Telegraph - also several pieces in local papers [39] and Roma/Romani/traveller coverage including this big Roma news site. Lelijg ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The Bloodline (professional wrestling)

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

GNG tag since May and concerns never addressed. This group was a brief pairing for a storyline which lasted roughly a month. LM2000 ( talk) 03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 ( talk) 03:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Brahmakayastha Rajanayas

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

Unsourced article aimed at caste glorification. Unable to find any independent reliable sources, ignoring Wikipedia mirrors and social media pages. utcursch | talk 03:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MelanieN ( talk) 21:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Afrana Islam Prity

Afrana Islam Prity (  | 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 is a non-notable player who does not pass muster of NSPORTS or Tennis Project Guidelines. No WTA entries, no minor league titles, no jr titles at the Grand Slam level, no top 3 jr ranking, no Fed Cup that I can find. One of a million young players. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There's a to me surprising level of coverage of this player in the local English-language press; I suspect if I knew how her name is written in the local alphabet, I'd find still more. She clearly doesn't meet the specific notability guideline for her sport, but I suspect she may meet the second form of the GNG: a great volume of RS coverage over time. And GNG trumps the specialised notability guidelines. That's why I removed the PROD. Yngvadottir ( talk) 13:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
In Bengali script, the name is written আফরানা ইসলাম প্রিতী . A Google search returns a single passing mention. [40] -- Worldbruce ( talk) 17:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah this one is ridiculously non-notable. She is ranked 1647 and has played in 9 ITF jr events in her life and is 1-8 in her matches. Those sources almost entirely consist of scores. And she hasn't played in almost a year... maybe washed up at 16. This entry seems almost humorous. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" has no basis in Wikipedia policy or practice.  Sandstein  05:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Neopaganism in Mexico

Neopaganism in Mexico (  | 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 sites absolutely no sources and is not factual in any way. Until I edited it, it was claiming that Neopganism is a New Age sect, and that pagans worship Satan. Sbrianhicks ( talk) 01:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
It is against Wikipedia policy to have an article written that is completely unsourced and original research. Sbrianhicks ( talk) 02:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Neiltonks. Deletion here does not constitute "bias"--I'm sure an article on this subject would be welcomed if it were properly sourced and if any of the listed sects were actually found to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the article in its current state. -- Finngall talk 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Love Ambition

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

bare tracklist. No references or indication of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Caitlin Crosby

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

Examining everything here such as the current article and my searches (News and browsers), the 1st AfD and everything else, shows there's simply been no substantially better sourcing since 2011, all I managed to find, at best, were a few links since then. At best, this is still borderline as the longest works she's had as an actress was 5 and 8 TV episodes. She's only had 1 apparent album since that time, but there's also no substantial attention for that so the questionability still is noticeable. There's no inherited notability from working with other people and looking at the article's history essentially also suggests there's simply not a lot better. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America 1000 05:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Mahasadhvi Mallamma

Mahasadhvi Mallamma (  | 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 by IP. Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains ( talk) 16:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
weak keep : since its a movie based ona true story or autobiography , it would be better to develop the both real biography article as well as this one Maximpoudje ( talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. apparent consensus ; I doubt relisting will clarify matters further DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Uday Sahay

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

Earlier nominations failed on lower participation. Non-Notable mid-level police official who has left service to start a non-notable company. Uncletomwood ( talk) 06:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 09:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 09:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Don't know - his notability is at best marginal and the article has a terrible problem with COI editors coming in to write about how marvellous he is.
That said, after one AFD goes a month with one Keep, one Don't Know, and the lister's Delete, I dunno how you expect more discussion starting another one four days later... Pinkbeast ( talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If you see he's just EDITED the book. Was not a signoficant author. Book is also not notable. Uncletomwood ( talk) 03:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't see it quite that way, but unless we're strictly using the test of the notability guideline for Authors, does that even matter? I'm not at all passionate about this and think his notability is minimal. If notability exists at all, it is proven by the General Notability Guideline. The claim is weak, but the article I cited, although ostensibly ABOUT the book does seem to include significant biographical information on the subject's larger life, (Career, spouse, views on govenment etc...) not just his credentials as an author. BoyRD ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- the subject appears to have served in a communications capacity in the police -- sort of like a PIO (public information officer). He then retired and started a branding consultancy / PR agency as described here:
"A contract has been awarded to a Delhi-based organisation headed by former IPS officer Uday Sahay for brand building in Bihar, especially through social media and to keep in touch with non resident Biharis. Nitish has also outsourced the task of marketing the key initiatives of his government to maximise support."
The subject appears to do a lot of self-promotion, as I'm seeing a number of trivial mentions (one per article), such as:
  • "Former IPS officer Uday Sahay, who has served as the liaison officer for the government of India for the Kailash-Mansarovar pilgrimage said this is the best thing that could have happened for the benefit of the yatris. "The other route is extremely treacherous. The vehicles can go only till Pitthoragarh district in Uttarakhand, and from there it is a trek of about seven days through Lipu pass, into Taklakot, a Chinese cantonment town. Major mishaps have happened during the last leg," Sahay told ET". link
  • "The state government has given a contract to a Delhi-based organisation headed by former IPS officer Uday Sahay for branding Bihar, especially via social media. This initiative was undertaken by Bihar Foundation that keeps in touch with NRBs. The agency will also market the key initiatives of the present government." link
Because of the problem of COI editing and expected persistent use of the article for self-promotion, I believe it would be helpful to delete this article. The notability is marginal at best. Yes, he edited several books, but at least one of them appears to be PR related: "This book is a collection of articles based on first-hand experiences in news media by eminent Indian media personalities. It is a comprehensive collection, exploring different kinds of news reporting across TV, print, and radio as also across different genres like sports, business, entertainment, war. Each essay is written as a primer yet with important tips from the foremost practitioners, which makes the business of reporting and news both a science and an art." ( Making News).
So overall, suggest deleting. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. His job as a police chief is not grounds for automatic notability. The GNG isn't met, given the meager coverage, and editing a book (or two) does not make one notable. Writing a book is different, since the moment that book gets reviewed, the author basically gets reviewed; with editors, that is not the case--plus we would need serious secondary sourcing to establish that the book helped create notability, etc. Drmies ( talk) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being a Chief of Police, even a chief of a large city, doesn't make one notable. But, being seen as someone whose opinion is important enough Indian journalists cite it, would make him notable. It would make him notable, even if those of us weighing in here all had strong feelings he just wasn't significant enough to be notable. Our policies are clear. Our opinions, our personal opinions, on what is notable, are trumped by what verifiable, reliable, authoritative sources have had to say. Wouldn't anyone who did their own web search, and saw that Indian journalists cited his opinions, on a variety of subjects, recognize he measured up to our notability criteria? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: @ Drmies and Geo Swan: I don't think that the subject was Chief of Police. From what I could gather, he was a police officer and a government official in a communications capacity, not head of the agency. Hence he went on to launch a PR agency. "A voluntarily retired officer of the Indian Police Service from Union Territory cadre, he headed the Directorate of Information and Publicity of Delhi Government and the communication vertical of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 Delhi before founding SAUV Communications Private Limited. A five-year stint in Prasar Bharati converted a baton wielding police officer to a pen holding communicator." (from bio at agency's web site). K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • K.e.coffman, I meant "police chief" in a loose sense. I'm looking at the article again, cleaning it up and teasing out the references. It is possible that he sort of squeaks by because of the coffee table book (and a few other little things), but I have not yet found enough evidence to call him notable as an author. Geo Swan's "keep" is, as usual, completely devoid of evidence. Drmies ( talk) 03:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- this is one of the few things which appear not to be puff pieces: From Sheila govt to team Arvind, The Indian Express. But this sounds like rumors and innuendos. The subject may be somewhat notable as a political consultant. It's just difficult to tease anything out among all the PR / puffery. In any case, this coverage is trivial and I still advocated deletion. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His police career sounds undistinguished and non-notable. Since then he has been a media consultant and has edited some non-notable books. Being quoted in news stories counts as a passing mention and also does not make a person notable. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity page and clear case of WP:ADMASK. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Following are the claims of notability and my comments are marked.
  • Police career: Absolutely not notable. This fails GNG.
  • Subsequent career:
  1. Chairman and Managing Director of SAUV Communications Private Limited: Organization and position held, both not notable.
  2. MD and CEO of Bodhi Tree Life Learning Private Limited: Organization and position held, both not notable.
  3. Secretary General of the Society for Social and Economic Development: Organization and position held, both not notable.
  4. Pro-Chancellor at Indira Gandhi Technological and Medical Sciences University: Fails WP:NACADEMIC.
  5. Key media consultant for Sheila Dikshit’s campaign: Not notable.
  6. Chief Communication Adviser to the Global Bihar Summit: Not notable.
  7. Communication Advisor to the Unique Identification Authority of India: Not notable.
  8. Communication Consultant to Delhi integrated Multi-Modal Transport Systems Limited: Not notable.
  9. Communication Consultant to Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management: Not notable.
  10. Communication consultant, the task of digitally branding Bihar: Not notable.
  11. Regent of the INLEAD Federation by Indian Institute of Learning and Advanced Development: Not notable.
  • Publications:
  1. Edited book - Making News: Handbook of the Media in Contemporary India: Not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR.
  2. Contributed 20 photos to a photography book: Seriously??
  3. Co-authored Media aur Jansamvad: Not notable and fails WP:AUTHOR.
  4. Edited a coffee table book, Raj Bhavan of the Rising Arunachal Pradesh: Not notable and fails WP:AUTHOR.
There is nothing encyclopedic about the subject Uday Sahay. The subject appears to be a real world equivalent of hat collector and keeps on collecting some or the other title. Page is purely promotional and appears to be the case of paid editing. The article creator had also created Vartika Nanda which also needs attention for varifiability. Sorry for the long vote and comments, but this article has been nominated four times and every-time it manages to slip through the crack. The 1st non-admin closure performed by Czar (who was not an admin then) on 6 July 2013 was not proper and this nomination should have been handled by an admin. In any-case, lets correct this problem now. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I concur with the above comments. I also believe that the "keep" votes were made under the faulty assumption that the subject was "chief of police". He was not, and these votes should be discounted. This is a non notable, publicity-seeking individual. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli#Notable alumni. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

List of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli alumni

List of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli alumni (  | 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 institute's main article at National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli previously had about 50 people listed as alumni, plus a link to the subject of this AFD. After going through the people named in the main article, I reduced it down to 8 people who currently have their own article, plus commented out two more who have an article which doesn't mention this institute as an alma mater. The list article actually has less people than what was previously at the institute's article, but it boils down to it being the same handful of notable people. There are not enough notable alumni to warrant a separate list, so I think this can be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You could have dealt with this just by redirecting the list back to National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli#Notable alumni. The validity of individual entries is a matter for normal editing and discussion, as is whether there are enough notable entries to merit a separate list based on WP:SIZE concerns. So this shouldn't have been brought to AFD at all, and certainly not before such alternatives had been attempted/discussed per policy at WP:ATD. Redirection has never been attempted, the list's talk page has never even been used, and the issue has also not been raised on the parent article's talk page. postdlf ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I could have redirected it, and have done so for other articles in the past. But on this occasion I considered that the title is not a "useful search" term as mentioned at WP:ATD; the average reader is surely going to look for the school's article first. The parent article's talk page hasn't been used in about 5 1/2 years, so I couldn't see the point in starting a discussion there when it is unlikely to garner any attention. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Chandrashekhar Naringrekar

Chandrashekhar Naringrekar (  | 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 didn't find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, disptuted PROD by author. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 06:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage in news as well. No sources found. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

If you find nothing on news, that is because there is nothing in the news. Use Google Books for a change. In any case, I am not gonna defend if you guys are hell bent on deleting it :-) Also, see here: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=naringrekar+chandrashekhar and see here: http://oriental-traditional-music.blogspot.com/2011/06/chandrashekhar-naringrekar-surbahar.html- Sribharathmk ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 07:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete : obviously not worth enough to keep , due lack of notable events in the life Maximpoudje ( talk) 03:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Tea Jazz

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

Delete. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Only claim to fame is "He got his first shot at doing music on a biggest level in 2010 when he got admitted into the university". Has never featured on any chart of any country. All the sources quoted cannot be taken as WP:RS. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ AKS.9955: Why do you not consider Vanguard (Nigeria) (founded 1983) and The Nation (Nigeria) (founded 2006) to be reliable sources? They're both well-established news outlets, per WP:NEWSORG. Qwfp ( talk) 15:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, the interviews are not promotional, there was a press conference in which several news outlets were present, including The Nation and Vanguard. He also topped City FM 105.1 charts as well as Raypower Radio Charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzy anslem ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tea Jazz was on the performing list for One Lagos last year december. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzy anslem ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 13:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Diffusion of innovations. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Eco-innovation diffusion

Eco-innovation diffusion (  | 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 poorly written article (term paper?) covers material that is a hyper-specialized form of Diffusion of innovations and the topic is relatively well covered in that article already. A redirect there would be good. Toddst1 ( talk) 18:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti Talk 15:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 15:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, and actually almost a keep. I am not sure why some voters instead of discussing whether the article complies with WP:GNG decided to discuss some details which do not seem to be relevant according to our policies, but all in all, more voters believe he passes GNG. The opposition is not insignificant and has some good arguments, this is why I am closing this as no consensus.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey

AfDs for this article:
Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (  | 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 was recreated after being deleted a little over a year ago. There is no significant coverage that would meet a specific notability guideline or WP:GNG. He served on a creed revision committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly; he issued a minority report for the committee (almost identical to the majority report) one year, and he was mentioned attending another meeting the next year (the Fort Wayne Sentinel said "nothing of importance transpired"). He attended some notable schools and has notable relatives, but the article's sources don't establish anything more than that. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 02:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Please do not minimize the importance of being the only non-cleric, a lawyer and judge chosen to draft the proposal for creed revision at the highest governing body of the Presbyterian Church, the national General Assembly. The proposed changes had been the subject of extensive debate and disagreement for several years prior to the actual vote. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 05:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The bigger mistake would be to overemphasize the importance of his role; see WP:UNDUE. Unless I am missing something, none of the sources even pointed out that Humphrey was the only non-cleric, lawyer or judge on this small committee (I don't think the sources mention the ordination status of the people referred to as Reverend - or whether any of them also had law degrees); we should not go out of our way to make a point of this detail if the sources do not. The sources only make single-sentence or paragraph mentions of Humphrey, so we would not be faithful to those sources if we came to our own conclusion that he had a large and important role. See also WP:BIO1E. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 05:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
You are probably right, EricEnfermero that I have made some incorrect assumptions. Yesterday I received from one of his descendants some .pdf images she scanned from a scrapbook. One is a Louisville newspaper article "Death's Summons Came in Sleep to Mr. Humphrey" dated March 22, 1917. It tells me more than I knew before, and one thing I am assuming after reading this notice is that he was not an actual judge of any court, but rather a super-active influential lawyer called "judge" by his peers. More from that newspaper will be added. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
There is confusion in the handling of deletion of articles. I am calling attention to this here because other Wikipedia Help venues have not led to a resolution of the problem, and the answer may add some light to the deletion proposed here. I have written 26 Wikipedia articles. One of them is about Edward William Cornelius Humphrey, an article which is accurately noted here as having been previously deleted after a long discussion. The other is Edward Cornelius Humphrey, a physician and former chief medical director of the Tennessee Valley Authority who shows on my list of 26 articles as "deleted" in red. I do not recall any discussion relevant to the latter's deletion and believe that the reason given for the deletion may have been the appearance that the article had previously been deleted. I think this is an error made by editors assuming that Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Cornelius Humphrey were the same person. I continue to work on both articles. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC) I have today determined which editor made the deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey and have requested that he/she confirm that an error of confusion of identity was made in deleting the article. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 21:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article was deleted just about a year ago, nothing about the notability of this long dead person has changed in the ensuing year. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As best I can tell Humphrey was connected with a predecessor of the PCUSA. Since the PCUSA has had 5% annual membership decline every year from 2010-2015, and no reason to suppose this has changed in the last year, the only possible change in the last year is that Humphrey is less notable today than he was a year ago. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Not to comment on the notability of this subject, but I'm surprised to read this stance. I thought that if someone was notable at one time (per WP:NTEMP), they don't suddenly become non-notable (or less notable) later. The evidence can be re-evaluated later, of course, but a recent decline in church membership cannot change whether the subject was notable in his time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • REPLY If we followed that logic, Johnpacklambert, then John Calvin should also be deleted. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • John Calvin, an entry that turned fifteen years old last week, has never been deleted. There is no good-faith analogy to be made there. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 23:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • The problem here is the premise that contributions to wp:notability dissipate with time.  As per the WP:N nutshell, notable topics are those that have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  Topics don't "ungain" attention.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • I think the premise is actually that Humphrey was non-notable last year (see the previous deletion discussion) and that nothing has happened to increase his notability since that time. I don't want to speak for other editors, but I am virtually sure that the opinion in question was not intended to strip notability from any subject that had previously shown any actual notability. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 00:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP The life-time notability of Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and other important figures of the past has not decreased. Rather, difficulties in documenting biographical research has increased. This is due, in part, to the inaccessibility of many newspaper archives and inadequate online databases. Many of the "reliable resources" recommended for Wikipedia are of no value to the researcher of past notability. Historical research requires a more scholarly, attentive approach than many editors have the time or inclination to provide. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 18:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lots of references. Looks prominent among Presbyterians. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per MelanieN's !vote in the first AfD. It still seems to cover all the bases. There's nothing to hang the "notability hat" on. I see a great, perhaps even desperate effort to build a resume of a genuinely accomplished person, but that's all it can become. Family connections to a person may color our judgment with respect to following policies, but we're supposed to fight that in ourselves in building this encyclopedia. It may be easier to comply with policies if we write about subjects we have little or no connection to. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  On a Google search for [site:library.in.gov 1901 "Judge Humphrey" OR "E. W. C. Humphrey"], I found the following snippets on the first page of 10 Ghits:
  1. Page 3 Indianapolis News 24 May 1901 "E. W. C. Humphrey, Who Signed the Minority Report, Opens the..."
  2. Page 12 Indianapolis News 18 May 1901 "Dr. William McKibben and E. W. C. Humphrey, Esq., could not approve of the..."
  3. Page 1 Indanapolis Journal 25 May 1901 "of Allegheny, Fa., yielded the floor to Judge E. W. C. Humphrey, of Louisville, who signed...Judge Humphrey urged the elimination from the committee's report of the..."
  4. Page 1 Indianapolis Journal 26 May 1901 "Dr. William McKibben, of Cincinnati, who, with E. W. C. Humphrey..."
  5. Page 4 Indianapolis Journal 4 June 1901 "...Daniel R. Noyes, Synod of Minnesota; E. W. C. Humphrey."
I also reviewed one of the clippings in the article, and added a quote:
  1. "Revision to be discussed to-day. Presbyterians will take up question at morning session in Calvary Church. Admission is by ticket". The Times. Philadelphia. 23 May 1901. p. 7. Retrieved 2016-08-14. The two reports from the majority and minority of the revision committee...find that a plurality of presbyteries which have been interrogated by the committee since its appointment at the last assembly are in favor of some new statement of present doctrines...to prepare amendment to the Confession of Faith... The minority report will be handed in by Elder Humphrey, of Louisville.
Unscintillating ( talk) 23:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a key point you are making about the importance of the minority report submitted by Elder Humphrey, because, as I recall, it was the minority report that determined the final outcome at the meeting of the General Assembly. The final Assembly vote rejected two items in the majority report, the same two items opposed by the minority report. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with option to merge to Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey  A most interesting topic and a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia.  Passes WP:GNG.  I also found it intriguing that Louisville was a site in 1897 for Presbyterian reconcilation after the Civil War.  Louisville in 1845 was a site for the Methodist religious schism that opened the way for the Civil War, and PCUSA still has their headquarters in Louisville.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (changed to keep per discovery of additional sources, see below) Thanks for pinging me, several of you. My opinion has not changed from the previous discussion: This person, while undoubtedly a source of pride to his family, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO which require significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. His legal career and his extensively reported genealogy do not convey notability. The only possible source of notability is his activity in Presbyterian church business, and IMO that does not meet the notability criteria either. He gets a mention (but not significant coverage) in multiple articles about the 1901 creed revision. That revision got coverage at the time, but only one source seems to have even mentioned what the revisions were about (things like infant salvation and whether a man can marry his brother's widow). The creed revision resolved issues which had been hotly contested for a decade or more, but they do not seem terribly significant in the overall history of the Presbyterian church - much less the committee members who worked on them. The article also says he was involved in talks in 1897 to unite the "northern" and "southern" branches of the church, but those talks were apparently not fruitful since reunification did not happen until 1983. He received respectful obituaries from local sources; that was his only "significant" coverage. The author (presumably a descendant) has done a commendable job researching the subject, but I just can't find the notability (per GNG and BIO) to meet our criteria. (For that matter, I don't find his half brother Alexander Pope Humphrey to be notable either.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Especially notable in your post was the statement, "The only possible source of notability is his activity in Presbyterian church business..."  Perhaps you'd do me the favor of linking to the notability page that mentions the "possible source[s] of notability", since I've never seen it.  Every snippet and quote in my comment above is "significantC coverage" (see WT:Notability#The definition of significant coverage for an explanation of the superscript).  Naturally, editors will tend to reach different conclusions when they are reading from different notability criteria.  Even by what I guess to be your criteria (which I'll call mn:notable), though, his involvement in Presbyterian church business I think you should have found to be mn:notable.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, Unscintillating. I see that you have engaged in discussions about the meaning of "significant", although your superscripts totally escape me (and don't bother to explain). At the discussion you linked, I find several quotes which go along with my understanding of "significant": "Significant coverage is a matter of depth, not length." "The key phrase is in depth. Multiple trivial mentions in the media don't add up to notability." " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Now to answer your question: By "only possible source of notability" I mean that his activity in Presbyterian church business is what other discussants here seem to be hanging their notable/keep comments on - that's the only part of his life where notability is being asserted, so that's where I looked for evidence of it. But what I find on that subject is sources with a passing mention, namely, a mention that he was on the committee or that he led the minority report. So that's part of the problem: passing mentions only, which you quite properly describe as "snippets" and "quotes". The other part of the problem is that the committee he was on, the creed revision he helped to produce, does not appear to have had any historical significance, so that even if he was important to the process, it was not a notable process. Yes, it got coverage, but most of the coverage at the time doesn't even report what the changes were - and those changes don't appear to have had a significant impact on the history of the church. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: quote from the Summary of the Deletion Processes: "The best way to help AFD to continue to work is always to check things out for yourself before presenting a rationale. (For example: If the assertion is that the subject is unverifiable, have a look yourself to see if you can find sources that other editors may have missed.)" Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd respectfully submit that most of the comments here come from people who are pretty familiar with deletion processes. When you've just discovered a few days ago - after one AfD has been completed and a second one is in progress on a subject who is a relative of yours - that the subject may not have actually been a judge, I think it rings hollow to caution others about the extent of their research. I know that you probably haven't intended to come across so negatively, but I think it's important to understand that when editors don't care to turn WP into a web space for genealogical research, it doesn't indicate a lack of research, an inclination toward laziness, or anything else. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the delete !voters have an argument, I think redrafting a statement of faith by a major American denomination is sufficient evidence of enduring impact. I also think that, in a borderline case like this, where the person in question is long dead so WP:BLP or promotionalism are never going to become issues, arguing this fervently against a well written but relatively unimportant article isn't a good use of our time and effort. Jclemens ( talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This isn't an absolute strike against notability, but in the Encyclopedia of Louisville, a nearly 1,000-page book which covers a wide variety of Louisville-related subjects, including people, Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (or anyone with the surname Humprhey) is never mentioned. This includes not a word in the two-page coverage of "Presbyterians". With Louisville being a center of this church, that further suggests this subject wasn't that important. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Note that E.W.C.'s mother Catherine Cornelia Prather is mentioned in this book by Kleber, and his grandfather Thomas Prather is mentioned many times. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Also found many references to people with the surname Humphrey. One I noticed was E.W.C.'s half brother Alexander Pope Humphrey listed as one of the original seventeen members of the Salmagundi Club. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 21:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC). Also, in the article "Cave Hill Cemetery" in the Louisville Encyclopedia edited by John Kleber, one finds E.P.Humphrey, E.W.C.'s father. The Cave Hill section of the book, drawn from other good history sources, describes the role of the Reverend Doctor Edward Porter Humphrey as a co-founder of Cave Hill Cemetery, one of the world's great garden cemeteries, and as the person who gave the religious consecration and dedicatory address for the cemetery on July 25, 1848. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • None of the Humphreys mentioned were in the index of the Encyclopedia of Louisville (therefore, not considered notable enough by the author to help readers find them). But as for the main point, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable relatives doesn't make this subject notable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • No, they don't, but that gives me an idea: instead of deletion, this article could be Merged/Redirected (changing to Keep, see below) to the article about his father. Edward Porter Humphrey, who probably is notable - and some information about EWC Humphrey could be added to that article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • In answering the comment by Stevie the Man, I could not let the inaccuracy of the statement about the Kleber book pass unnoticed. I did a bit of research using the search engine that comes with online Google Ebooks, rather than a limited index. MelanieN, Each of the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Porter Humphrey is a discrete and notable subject in his own right. I am the writer of both articles. Merging the two in one encyclopedia article would be clunky and confusing to the reader.-- Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 02:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
            • No mentions in the actual index of the actual book that I have in my possession says something, though. If the index is limited, it may make one ponder why it is limited. Editorial judgment as to the notability of these individuals? Ask Kleber. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
            • I asked myself the same question, Stevie the Man. The answer I think lies in the fact that Kleber was the editor of the Encyclopedia of Kentucky, not the author of all its entries, and probably not the creator of the index, which in many cases is compiled by the publisher (in this case the University of Kentucky Press). Perhaps the index the publisher chose to create was one listing the names of the separate entries, e.g. "Presbyterianism" and "Presbyterian." Or the names of the individual contributing authors, or both . . . but not the names of the people mentioned within the articles.-- Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 16:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC) To be more precise, I should say not the names of the people mentioned within the entries. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 16:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
              • This is nearly going off-topic, but the editor is in charge of overseeing all the content, including the index. Besides speculating, though, again, ask Kleber. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
                • I think we're on-topic, Stevie is the man!. Spurred on by you--for which I thank you--I now have a published copy of the impressive Encyclopedia of Kentucky. I'm trying to convey that the printed index itself without reference to online search engines can be very misleading and unrewarding to a researcher. For example, I looked in the index for Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company, an article about one of the greatest hardware manufacturing companies in the world which, as you know, was based in Louisville. A few Belknap family members and early versions of the company were listed, but nothing in the printed index to indicate that the company had ever become more than just an iron foundry or hardware store. Following at random the index reference to one of the Belknap family members, I found him embedded in the comprehensive article "Architecture" by Elizabeth Fitzpatrick "Penny" Jones. Despite the limited index, as a confirmed bibliophile, I am certain that I will use this book and its index in addition to and as a complement to my online research.-- Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • I think I could get behind this solution, MelanieN. I am increasingly convinced that deletion would just result in a third version of the article with basically the same unconvincing claims to notability and a couple of dozen references that don't cover the subject with significant depth. I would be concerned about how big the Edward Porter Humphrey would get, but I am curious to hear other opinions. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • This solution is within reason, although I would loathe to see ultimately a biography within a biography. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  A merge recommendation from an AfD has been accepted since 2009, but is not binding for multiple good reasons.  One of these is that a merge requires support from the content-contributor element of our community, to do the content work of the merge.  AfD volunteers are not superior editors on all content aspects of the encyclopedia, and this is a decision left to content contributors after the AfD.  Another one of these reasons is that an AfD close does not bind an administrator into administrating subsequent content disputes; and relatedly, non-admins can close an AfD discussion as merge.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  I'm not aware of a policy basis to avoid two bio's in one article.  See Mantell UFO incident, and compare with [41], which has the categories for the biography.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Are there examples outside of events or families? Two bios rolled into one article just because one of the subjects is less than notable on their own is unusual, no matter what guidelines say. Now if there's enough material for a full-fledged family article, then that may seem most reasonable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I don't have ready examples...searches or the help desk might be considered.  I'm saying several things at once here, which are more oriented to gaining consensus, than saying what I'm really thinking.  I don't assume that two bios in one article is a good idea, but I see no reason to avoid the experiment if someone is willing to do the work.  What I really think is that this is the result of pushing the notability inclusion bar higher than intended by WP:GNG and higher than our policy-based content inclusion criteria, resulting in topic starvation for WP:V NPOV material.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  WP:Articles_for_deletion/Barclay_Harding_Warburton_II is a related bio AfD about a prominent century-old American family.  The article was originally speedy deleted as "A7 no indication of importance", and the delete !votes argued "Substantial refs are the obituaries (which indeed seem more concerned with the unusual cause of death than anything else), and very short articles about abandoned plans and failed marriages. Why wuold we want an article on him?"  The result was a Keep, plus resulted in a new article about the family, Warburton family.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Merging a person's article to their parent, spouse, or child is logical and often done, since it is easy to justify putting more information into the article about someone so closely related. Merging to a half-brother is a much harder connection to justify. Mitzi, why do you prefer that target rather than his father? -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Merging E.W.C. with any of the other Humphrey notables would be an awkward thing to do and would detract from the coherence of the article. It would involve spelling out the full name each time of the two individuals and distinguishing them from one another in time and place and relationship--all of which would be difficult to document. I couldn't simply say "Humphrey" did such and such. What would the infobox for merging two individuals look like? This is especially confusing to the reader when family given names and surnames continue through the generations. Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did a simple news archives search, and was astonished to eee how prominent old "E.W.C. Humphrey" was back in the day. Note that what seem to us like denominational affairs were covered at length in the national press back then, and that kind of serious coverage of a man's positions in national church council confers notability. But he is also covered in general circulation papers fo his role in the Bar Association, din discussion of legal issues, and eh weighed in heavily in a long forgotton (well, I never knew about it) national debate Remember the Maine ? So, did it sink because of construction flaws? old E.W.C. gave a number of speeches on th etopic, and they were covered rather intensely in the papers. Keep. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Can you show us any of these sources, E.M.Gregory? They could be enough to change my mind. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I ran a simple search on Proquest news archive. Because of the paywall, I will highlight a few of the articles that came up; Here, for example is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "DEFECT IN CONSTRUCTIOIN.: Mr. E. W. C. Humphrey Explains the Trouble With the Maine," 17 Feb 1898, [42] I do not pretend to understand naval architecture, but his argument is that there was a construction flaw so that when the boilers overheated, it ignited the munitions sotre, and that this was true of an entire category of navy ships, several of which had experienced similar , if less disastrous, incidents. Here: is the New-York Tribune covering him as part of a committee revisiting the Westminster Confession of Faith "The Committee to Prepare a Statement of Belief," 07 July 1901: A7 [43], I include it as one of a number of articles about that committee that ran in the major papers of the era; Then there is all the state level bar association/legal profession stuff he was involved in in Kentucky. Here, for example, he is described as the member leading a push at a Bar Association meeting, "ROTATION: Of Judges Opposed By Bar Association OLD QUESTION IS REVIVED TO CONTINUE PROSECUTION OF CHARLES G. RICHTE APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES Judge Seymour's Proposed Act Making Qualification More Difficult Is Approved NEW STANDING COMMITTEE, Courier-Journal (1869-1922) [Louisville, Ky] 19 Jan 1904: 6. [44] A lot of Bar Association stuff like this was covered in The Courier-Journal, for example, he seems to have been a force behind something to do with creating a new law library. I do not pretend to have read, or even scanned The Courier-Journal's coverage of his civic & Bar Association activities in Kentucky, but he obviously was a significant figure in Louisville, Kentucky in his era. And, nationally in Presbyterian affairs, and to at least some degree in the national conversation about the sinking of the Maine. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Munich Forum for Islam

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

Lack of notability. The "Munich Forum for Islam", the name for a planned super-mosque with additional installations, was not realized, remaining a pure 'paper project' which never went beyond an early planning stage. The intended building area, the Munich city council decided two months ago, is going to be used for other purposes and there is no substitute in sight (see sources). With the project's failure, publicly acknowledged by the initiators themselves, the notability of the subject ceases to exist ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY). As an aside, although not relevant to the issue of notability per se, the article is written from a strongly supportive, marketing perspective, both in tone and contents, violating our core policies on neutrality etc.

Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable organization akin to various religio-ethnic associations that happen to own a building, one can find dozens - equally non-notable - in the phone directory of most major cities, a quick perusal of San Francisco, CA one finds: The United Irish Cultural Center, Slovenian Hall, Jewish Community Center, Chinese Culture Center, Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California, Korean Center, Mission Cultural Center For Latino Arts, SGI-USA SF Buddhist Culture Center, Muslim Cultural Center, African American Art & Culture Complex, and no doubt more time will yield more. They no doubt get mentions in the local press, may have a profile or two on them in the local press (like most restaurants, little league team, or whatever needs to be covered to make up sufficient pages to sell a $1 newspaper these days, but they are not notable and that coverage does not make them notable, just like the current item. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, if userfication is requested please post at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Matteo Sommacal

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

Renom due to no consensus, and very little participation. Argument remains the same. A whole lot of WP:COATRACKing that adds up to nothing, on an article that was apparently created by the subject. Has no musical releases cited to anything, has nothing academic that would meet that guideline either. Local play only on specific programs does not denote rotation. No reviews, no other material that would lead to a sense of coverage. MSJapan ( talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lists of Transformers characters. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hosehead

Hosehead (  | 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. Minor Transformers character with no evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn ( talk) 01:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The notions for deletion have been countered with the provision of reliable sources. Only one of the sources is linked, but it does provide significant coverage. Per this, and that this has already been relisted twice, closing as no consensus. I will leave it to another user to perform a name change via a page move. North America 1000 06:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite what the lead says, this is actually a non-notable case. The prod tag that was added by Meatsgains was removed by DGG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Aaron X. Fellmeth, Conception and Misconception in Joint Inventorship, 2 NYU J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 73, 141 (2012)
  2. ^ Eric Ross Cohen, Clear as Mud: An Empirical Analysis of the Developing Law of Joint Inventorship in the Federal Circuit, 28 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 383, 416 (2013)
  3. ^ Sherry L. Murphy, Determining Patent Inventorship: A Practical Approach, 13 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 215, 246 (2012)
  4. ^ Yana Welinder, Falana v. Kent State Univ.: Federal Circuit Clarifies the Level of Contribution Required for Joint Invention of a Chemical Compound, Harv. J.L. & Tech. Jolt Digest (2012)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 participants of the discussion except for the author of the article agree that notability has not been demonstrated-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Lavin

Gabriel Lavin (  | 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 an utterly unremarkable man, fails WP:GNG but the author keeps removing prod and speedy delete templates, so I guess he does not agree. The Banner  talk 00:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand the points you are making. And no, I am not related to Mr. Lavin but I was a previous acquaintance of his. I do not believe the article should be deleted as he is a very well known business man who has and still is a Director (I don't recall using the word 'Own' in the article at all). He may not have much coverage Online but he is known to many people. I am not going to debate his popularity as neither one of you have grown up in Ireland so you really and truly have no stance on it. Thank you for your edit Meatsgains. I can see and understand more clearly. Thank you for taking the time to look over it. I am relativity new to Wikipedia Article writing so it is nice to see someone helping me out. Hopefully The Banner, you can re-think your request for the deletion of my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelav ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I am sorry to say, but after the removal of 2 speedy deletion templates, 1 prod-template and 1 AfD-template you have no credit left with me. So the answer is no. The Banner  talk 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
FYI, an IP removed the AfD tag on the page. I have restored. Meatsgains ( talk) 00:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per nom. The sources cited either mention him trivially or not at all. He fails GNG, as I was unable to find anything besides trivial mentions through searches. Existence =/= notability. GAB gab 03:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I hope this doesn't discourage you, Thelav, from writing more articles in the future. But I also hope you understand that we can't "take your word for it" that someone is notorious. To keep the encyclopedia orderly, we need to have standards - and we have decided, as a community, that the standard is as stated in WP:GNG. Brianga ( talk) 03:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- no indication of notability, or even being associated with notable entities. No significant RS coverage can be found. I hope the creator does not get discouraged, and will try to focus on more notable topics. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Of the page's 9 current references, Levan is only mentioned in four of them, one of which isn't even reliable. Unless additional RS can be dug up detailing Levan and his "notability", this page is headed towards deletion. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_11&oldid=1142623743"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE