![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
A non-encyclopedic topic covering the trivial intersection between once being a leader of some country and living into one's 80's. Lack of sources and lack of RS discussing this topic in depth mean the ranking can not be verified. Even if all the data shown is correct (and we don't know if it is) we don't know who is missing making the assertion that x is the nth longest lived impossible to prove. Even if one argues this should be keep against WP:LISTN the longest living ones are already clearly shown at List_of_longest-living_state_leaders making this page redundant and an additional maintenance hassle. Legacypac ( talk) 23:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover supernovae and other astronomical events. Mr. Grennan's achievements, while laudable, are not notable per WP:NN./ Astro4686 ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: notability not satisfied. Stub article whose GNG results are slim and biased. Quis separabit? 23:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Normally we would redirect this event article to the sponsoring business, given there are no other annual event articles, but the Miss Tourism World article has been deleted 3x already. This is commercial spam essentially. Legacypac ( talk) 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep per
WP:SNOWBALL. (
non-admin closure). Also, the nominator is an obvious sockpuppet of banned
User:The Devil's Advocate.
--
PanchoS (
talk)
02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Only one suitable source is used in the article, Playboy Magazine. The rest are Anarcho Capitalists writing their own thoughts and theories. That is unencyclopedic. A new article can be started using reliable, independent third-party sources. The easiest way to purge this article of unsuitable sources is to delete it and start over.
EoT State (
talk)
22:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
—
EoT State (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Seborga is a self declared Micronation. It's "history" is basically a self invented rationalization about how it has been a sovereign state in the past. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 22:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
non-notable, Fails WP:NACTOR and references used are not reliable JMHamo ( talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Reads like an essay with a lot of WP:OR JMHamo ( talk) 21:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There are academic programs and job & career resources that are developing in this area. Here is one example https://www.onetonline.org/find/quick?s=sustainability+careers The value of this article is that is will provide a first stop for people research this area. Today's additions are moving it along as this kind of article.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This page seems to be an essay on cheese in Canada, and not really a topic. The content is a hodgepodge of information, and the page is WP:OR. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Article is found to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Notability Ueutyi ( talk) 23:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Jayson Gaignard felt like he’d been sucker punched. The credit card statement just didn’t add up. He was reading a massive list of transactions charged to his online ticket company, Tickets Canada, and he didn’t remember any of them.
There was a good reason why: He never authorized them. His business partner fled the country and racked up more than $120,000 in tickets on his credit card, selling them under the table and leaving Gaignard holding the bill.
...
In just over a month, Gaignard went from $5 million a year in sales to a defunct company and $250,000 in debt for which he was personally responsible since he’d been using his own credit cards to fund most of the company’s transactions. To further increase the pressure, he was raising a daughter born just four months earlier and preparing to get married in just over a month. “There were so many moving parts, and I felt like I was just spinning out of control,” he recalls.
...
Fast forward three years later and now 30-year-old Gaignard is no longer broke but debt-free and running sold-out MastermindTalks events, an elite, invitation-only summit for entrepreneurs that is designed to connect and amplify the networks of world-class people while also helping founders work on themselves that connect world-class entrepreneurs with invaluable experts. But to say it was easy would be a joke.
The article notes:
It’s hard not to giggle when you open the door to find a fully liveried butler — especially when he looks like Jayson Gaignard. The founder of VIP Services Inc., a Toronto personal concierge service, Mr. Gaignard is tall, lanky and only 22, and dressed in his company’s uniform he looks like a teenager trick-or-treating on Halloween. But he’s all business and clearly at my service from first greeting. “I’m Jayson. What can we do for you today?”
...
Mr. Gaignard reports that when he started VIP three years ago, there were just two other companies in the Toronto area; as of late summer, there were almost 40.
The article notes:
Jayson Gaignard
Gaignard is the founder of Mastermind Talks, an invite-only conference for entrepreneurs which has attracted some big names, from Four-Hour Workweek author Tim Ferriss (also listed below) to WSJ bestselling author James Altucher.
Gaignard is also the author of the Amazon bestseller Mastermind Dinners: Build Lifelong Relationships by Connecting Experts, Influencers, and Linchpins, which details Gaignard’s process for connecting with influential people you admire by bringing them together in group dinners, a strategy which he credits in part for helping him to recover from a debilitating depression following the failure of a prior business.
Prior to founding Mastermind Talks, Gaignard founded an online event ticketing company in his native Canada. He also hosts the Mastermind Talks podcast, where he shares stories and interviews entrepreneurs about relationship-building and networking.
A recent tweet: “You need to surround yourself with people who are batteries and not black holes.”
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, and coverage doesn't seem significiant enough for WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. The article itself says it all: Rahmer was originally hired to play Belle Black on the daytime soap DOOL but was almost immediately replaced by Martha Madison. IMDb indicates no other "significant" roles. Also, article has been unsourced since 2005. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Sammy1339 ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Solitaire. Never close on one !vote but it does make sense to just redirect it..... (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations. No significant reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor). Created by sock of banned sockmaster Benjiboi, but too many intervening edits to allow for speedy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Very clearly a personal essay which was copied to Wikipedia. Would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic (even then, I imagine much of the content would be added to existing articles and not contained in a new one). Nsteffel ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It maybe deleted! It was written for a project that needed to be submitted in a wiki page. Didn't realise it was t this Wikipedia but another page that the university has. Therefore it maybe deleted as it is written from a personal viewpoint... But other than that, I don't really care. So please let the readers feel better by deleting it :)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable as martial artist or youtube persona. Peter Rehse ( talk) 19:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Non notable physician--unless perhaps for his films, which I am unable to determine DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to McMaster University. (Selective merge) (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
academic center within a department of a university. These are not ordinarily notability DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON at best. Doesn't (yet) meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Prodded it and 2nded by CactusWriter; contested by 45.127.136.69 with no reason given. Boleyn ( talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not think this company meets the notability guideline for companies. A Google search turned up no reliable, independent sources. The in-flight magazine source, upon further review, doesn't actually talk about SixAxis as a whole, just some of their products. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by GB fan, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Article for non-notable book created by the author, with the only citation being a link to the publisher's website. The author has also recreated his own page Rahul khismatrao (using different capitalization) that was previously deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Khismatrao. — TAnthony Talk 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by GB fan, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G4. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Recreation of a page (using different capitalization) that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Khismatrao — TAnthony Talk 17:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Obviously this is going to be a controversial one. There are both good arguments and bad arguments made on both sides of this discussion, as well as some concerns about COI raised. With that said, while there seems to be a numeric total in favour of keeping, there are some good analysis by those on the "delete" side which are not really refuted. It's impossible to fish a consensus out of all of this, and in the absence of a knockout argument from one side or the other a "no consensus" result is the only option. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient indicia of notability, COI editing, and unsourced BLP. Per previous AfD, Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, and the book may meet NBOOK. Individual fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. No evidence that he is a member of any Recognized Indian Tribe, nor that his claims as to the Rainbow gatherings are externally verifiable. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. Montanabw (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Edith Kirby (April 15, 1992), "Wisdom lightened by humor offered by native storytellers", Edmonton Journal.
John F. Kirch (May 9, 1993), "Watershed Fair Promotes Fun, Environment \ Friends Of Wachusett", Telegram & Gazette, p. B4, retrieved January 9, 2016.
Jessie Salisbury (July 6, 2005), "Foundation in Wilton teaching stewardship", The Telegraph (Nashua), retrieved January 9, 2016.
While the Assonet Band is not federally recognized as a tribe, the Wampanoag Nation recognizes the Assonet Band as a Wampanoag state-recognized tribe of their nation and the Wikipedia article now reflects that. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep First, apologies for any irregularity in commencing the DRV. Probably I made the faut pas. I'm new to this process, have never been involved in a DRV / AfD discussion before. However belatedly, I'll try to better familiarize myself about this & mend any error that I can.
I'm posting a screenshot of my edit of Jan 7. Please note some of the citations included, which have since been deleted; (presumably by some zealous editors who here claim that I provided no citations.)
I'd like to hear explained the deletion of these citations:
It would seem that any evidence which documents Manitonquat's tribal affiliation or notability is what some editors think should be deleted.
There is certainly some shrill emotional tone here: largely from those instigating a second AfD which has been acknowledged here as extraordinary and contrary to policy.
It seems appropriate to question what could possibly have motivated "bizarre" deletions of independent, authoritative sources, supporting notability; documenting that this author is an acknowledged authority on Native American culture & spirituality, a close associate of Wampanoag spiritual leadership, a prominent organizer of intentional communities, and of the Rainbow Gatherings since their inception.
It's an object lesson to see how the history of a man so well-known could be confused, obscured, or made to disappear in this context.
Since I have been made the subject of some personal comment here, I might point out that I don't need to ask the ethnicity of anyone who hits the ceiling & screams bloody murder at mention of the word "racism". They're always white. Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I still hear no answer to the admittedly unanswerable independent, authoritative sources on Manitonquat's work (posted above on this page, by me, today's date.) Of course when some can't win an argument, they resort to personal attack. But that's forgetting a worthy axiom, attack the post, not the poster.
By the way, sorry, you guess wrong. If this extraordinary, misguided, & unjust wrangle over the Manitonquat page will ever get over itself, I might get a chance to do anything else around here. There is nothing the least unusual in someone starting an account to work on a particular area (Native American), because they're inspired to do so by a topic they happen to know & care about, which is poorly recorded on Wikipedia, and/or clearly vandalized / libeled.
If you must know, I attended the national Rainbow Gatherings from 1982 through 1995. Manitonquat was present at every one I attended; (for many years unique in being the only person who'd been to every one in history.) He was quite prominently in evidence every year as a facilitator, elder, organizer, who did not first attend in 1982 like myself, but had been there for a decade before I heard of them. He was one of the organizers on the very first in 1972(which was originally planned as a one-off event.) He stood at the welcome gate to greet the first arrivals, and was one of the clean-up crew who decided try to turn it into an annual event.
I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling. In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, including up to a hundred people; all thrashing out together, with total strangers, incredibly emotional, complicated safety issues. Where people sat together and tried to re-invent a new way for society to deal with violent offenders who endanger the community; other than with more violence & punishment. This "Rainbow way" of doing things is the basis of what he now teaches to communities all over the world as the "Circle Way". (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.)
I don't expect my personal testimony to be considered as an authoritative source (although the point is arguable); but you see my interest not merely academic. Nor is it motivated by personal gain. I'm just trying to repair libelous vandalism against a good person, a well-known humanitarian who's spent his whole life trying to help people, never got rich, and isnt' trying to. Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.
Robbing Native American people of their native identity has been a key tactic of cultural genocide since time immemorial. Native children were sent to schools where they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their religion, sing their songs, etc. They were given Anglo names & forbidden to use their native names. Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names.
Targeting Native American writers, erasing all citations about their Native heritage, shrilly denying the basis of their ideas in Native American traditions, is just more of a piece with this sort of anti-Native agenda. Not that I'm accusing anyone in particular here of consciously pursuing such an agenda. I think everyone's contribution to this discussion speaks clearly enough for itself without assistance from me.
Sincerely thankful to all who have taken part so far. Especially those who have researched sources, urged impartiality, and decried extraordinary emotional agendas. Horse Dancing ( talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:GRAPES WP:SVT WP:REPEAT WP:WABBITSEASON User:CorbieVreccan has in recent days been warned by User:Horse Dancing for Vandalism, subtle and otherwise; also concerned in report to Administrator Notice Board:Biographies for vandalism to page in question, and instigating an edit war immediately following a DRV whose outcome was contrary to said user's vote. Also has been notified in /info/en/?search=User_talk:Thparkth that extraordinary emotion demonstrated in this debate suggests advisability that User:CorbieVreccan could, in this case, stand to back off & take a few deep breaths (if I may paraphrase.)
In seeking a balanced view, direct experience of the subject cannot be entirely silenced and disallowed, in favour of ignorant prejudice, or passionate hostility based on complete lack of direct experience. It is certainly significant that the person rushing to shout "COI" is the one who has been previously been named in vandalism allegation. WP:SVT I allege that this COI complaint by User:CorbieVreccan is retaliatory User:Sandstein User:JReferee User:Thparkth
As for COI, my acquaintance with the person who is the topic of the article in question by no means amounts to COI. He is neither family, client, employer, nor any other connection mentioned in COI policy /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the discussion. The direct experience of his work which I detailed in the spirit of complete candour explicitly amounts to no more than what a hundred others also saw, in the course of his public appearances. My account also explicit that this occurred most recently in the 1990s, over twenty years ago. Horse Dancing ( talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse Dancing stated,"Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.", if this relationship occurred over 20 years ago how is it possible for him to retain a current letter from Talbot regarding controversy. It's clear to me that the relationship has been maintained. Rainbow defines themselves as a family so this in itsself creates a familial relationship. User:Horse Dancing neglected to disclose his conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Common sense dictates that User:Horse Dancing has provided security for and participated in ceremony with Talbot and is in close enough contact with Talbot that he is able to provide a statement from Talbot himself. I see his editting as conflicting, from his own statements and content inclusion he is attempting to maintain a positive only entry regarding Talbot. He states he created a wiki ID specifically to edit Native American topics. All of this causes me great concern. Indigenous girl ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Some objections I'd like to respond to, and just able to get round to now: Indigenous girl Re: official genealogy records All I'm saying is that official government records cannot be relied on to accurately record native ancestry.
You are right in decrying racist agendas as you see them, and I support you in that. But please take it easy on demonizing others as the enemy of native people just because they have a different outlook on the issues than yourself. Keeping the public confused on these issues is part of the racist agenda. Many are confused on these issues. Keeping the public poorly informed on these issues is also the racist agenda. Many are poorly informed. So many people make mistakes which further racist agendas, while trying to do their best to be fair. Even people who are quite well-informed.
Regarding your comment that I have COI based on family: Many Native Americans habitually refer to each other as "brother" "sister" "uncle". In fact, in Native American spirituality, everything in the world is referred to as "all my relations". So does that mean that all Native Americans are prohibited from editing this because of a family COI? Let's use common sense.
As for contention that I "wants a positive only article": I want to see deletion of false libelous claims that this man is an unprincipled fraud; for which there is no evidence except a lot of shrill insistence based largely on attack sites. If you consider this an unreasonable, unbalanced "poz only" on my part, I must point out that there are countless articles of notable people that accuse the topic of no fraud.
SusunW Thanks for your comment re "fallacy of secondary sources to prove anything." However erroneously, it's a noble effort in all editors here who mean well, this pursuit of sorting fact from fiction. Which this page proves can be no mean feat. Certainly there is some fallacy in attitude that many interviews, in authoritative sources, are not reliable evidence of notability. [1] (This article referenced above, but perhaps you didn't get a chance to click it.)
re "apparently notable fraud": Denial of his Native American ancestry is pure rumor, emanating largely from attack sites. There is no relevant documentation which believably supports it. It's acquired plausibility in this debate only because a lot of hotheads keep saying it. "We all say it so it must be true" is not relevant.
There is also the principle of considering the risk of harm in case of error. I would like each & every participant here to consider, (especially those so quick to accept a flimsy fraud claim, while very picky about accepting abundant evidence to the contrary): what is the risk of harm if you are wrong? I'd like everyone to imagine just for a moment the fraud claim proving entirely spurious. Wouldn't we feel silly then? How much damage has been done then, wittingly or unwittingly? Horse Dancing ( talk) 12:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse DancingNot all indigenous people believe in the "we are all related" concept that has been co-opted and used extensively out of context. My COI concern is that you have maintained a relationship with the individual in question. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you were forth-coming in this regard. However the facts that you were involved with religious(spiritual) excercises with him for a large block of time, that you supported his position during heated conflict resolution and provided security for him and that you are currently in contact with him in a sense that you offered to provide direct communication from him regarding controversies makes me doubt your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with wanting to support somebody that you hold in esteem though this is not the forum in which to do this.
Regarding the genealogy of this particular individual. I did link to the biography of his great grandfather and I believe the Earle Report and there was no reflection of ties to Wampanoag community. There is also the Pease Report which I don't believe to be available on line and the Mashpee Aquinnah Census [2] as well as documents pertaining to the Guardians of Indian Plantations. If his family is not included in any of these documents they are either not Native or they assimilated so far back in history that no records remain. What most people fail to understand is that when it comes to early reports these were made at a time when familial and community connections were impportant and people regularly included members who may not live within community yet maintained community connection. This is reflected in the early reports where individuals are listed who live outside of the physical community. I am sure you do not want to hear this and that it is also difficult to grasp. I understand if you want to continue to deny this and stand firm on your position. Rather than continue to muddy up this and the subject at hand's talk page I would like to request that we take any further discussion to our own personal talk pages. Indigenous girl ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you to continue this at my talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. However, I must respond here to what you have posted here which concerns my integrity.
I don't know where you got "large block of time". That's nowhere in what I said. I attended a couple of sweat lodges which were public events attended by many others. You say I "supported his position in a heated conflict". If you mean the councils involving a hundred people I mentioned, I don't know how you can conjecture what position I took in relation to him. You misstate also that I "provided security for him." I didn't say I was his bodyguard. I said I was an organizer on event security at a gathering of thousands. You seem to go a long way to twist everything I said into some intimate relationship to him. I don't know if you've been to a Rainbow Gathering, but it's hardly an intimate setting. There are thousands of people there. As to his being a public figure whom anyone can contact thru his website, I hope you took the trouble to read my earlier reply above, on that question.
I will allow that I may be less than entirely objective. But I don't think my objectivity, as demonstrated in my posts here, can be seen to be much more impaired than many others', who've seemed far more emotional & unreasonable than me. Horse Dancing ( talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This article fails WP:GNG. No apparent secondary source coverage of subject, except as tangential coverage of another story, and almost all of the information is self reported ( WP:SPIP), and thus not independent of the subject. Peregrine981 ( talk) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place where every young entrepreneur will publish their biography. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject is of dubious notability, barely passing WP:GNG and article details subject's progress through a game show. Article lacks substance, references and detail. Dkendr ( talk) 16:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Aww, come on guys. You don't like the cute little T-Rex? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Lack any proper content. Mixing error messages. The "unable to connect to Internet" is part of Google Chrome article. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place for every local recording label. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable street art practitioner. CK One he ain't. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete per CSD A10 Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like an entirely ordinary hotel in an entirely ordinary bui;ding, and the references do nothing other than confirm that it exists. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
OR/SYNTH. Weird collection of different online journals, preprint archives, and other websites. None of them are what I would call "platforms", unless any online journal is a platform. No independent sources about this concept, nor any sources that justify inclusion of any of these entries. Randykitty ( talk) 14:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment I originally opposed the PROD because I didn't think the rational held up, or at least that it deserved a bit more debate than a PROD. I agree with RK that this is a weird collection of... something, and that as of now, it's sort of so ill-defined that I don't even known what to think of it. However, I also think that if we could define more clearly what that something is, or at least what the something should be, we could shape this article/list into what it's trying to be. I have no objection to deletion if the community fails to determine what this article is trying to be, but I think the effort at least has to be made before we give up on this one. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address Wikicology's thorough analysis of sources. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material about the so-called novel Forever There For You she authored. I also find one or two interview with local website with no credible editorial control or oversight. To be honest, Wikipedia is not a place for everybody that publish one or more books. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, actually "All Africa" is a rated news website with editorial oversight. It's rated 271 in Nigeria and 11, 766 globally by Alexa. That says a lot. For the university website, I understand your point, but I don't think we expect a school Chioma Nnani didn't attend to publish her story. Reason being that, they can't leave their former students and be talking about someone else. For the fact that her alma mater in the UK found her story worthy and published it, is evidence of her notability, after all, not all former students get their stories published by their alma mater. Otherwise, the school website might crash due to numerous publication of stories. In my opinion, I don't see anything wrong with Chioma Nnani's page. Thank you. Lord Ru 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is suggesting a merge, which is not a valid rationale for deletion. Discussion regarding a merge can occur on an article talk page. North America 1000 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable show, very little reliable sources dealing with the characters. Merge into the main article. Phil A. Fry ( talk) 12:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was deCSDed with the rationale to send to AfD. A search for sources finds non-reliable sources such as IMdB. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 11:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An article about this person has been deleted twice previously; however, this was years ago and all of the claims for notability are newer than the last AfD. However, I could not establish significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I decided to refer this back to AFD. Delete unless independent sources can be found. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is another Rajeshbieee/ Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.
A search for sourcing doesn't bring up anything, although it does bring up plenty of false positives due to Lakshmi being a fairly common name. Like the others, it's possible that foreign language sources exist, but I'm not able to find them because of the language barrier. There's also a film the 70s that appears to be unrelated, created by the same editor, which I've also put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is another Rajeshbieee/ Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.
A search for sourcing doesn't bring up anything, although it does bring up plenty of false positives. Like the others, it's possible that foreign language sources exist, but I'm not able to find them because of the language barrier. There's also a 1982 film that appears to be unrelated, created by the same editor, which will also be put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (confer) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Unreferenced dictionary definition. Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
"has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It sounds like the nominator is citing WP:NOTDIC to support their argument for deletion, but WP:NOTDIC does not apply when a
"word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources"(see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete - blatant vanity. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
No secondary coverage. Fails general notability. Blackguard 07:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not clear whether there's consensus for a redirect; this may need further discussion. Sandstein 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Minor character from a notable film. Article is completely devoid of any citations and barely any outbound links and the only inbound being the Mongo disambig page, the Blazing Saddles page, and alternate title, and the page creator's Talk.
The article content is simply a rehashing of the movie, explanation of the jokes, and descriptions of the film and filmmaking process. In other words, nothing but synthesis and OR.
There is not even any attempt made at establishing notability or impact on the movie or culture at large. Not only are there no references of any kind, but the two external links are both just to IMDb.
This article's "unknown notability" tag has been up for 30 months. Time to go. JesseRafe ( talk) 21:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
While the term 'evolutionary logic' does appear in say google scholar, it does not seem to refer to the notion outlined in the article. Non notable idea. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. A separate discussion may be needed to determine whether to redirect and where to. Sandstein 12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An auditor that blew the whistle on corruption. The three main sources are a 180 page primary document, McGill's resume and McGill's linkedIn page. We also have video of and hour plus long committee hearing and sources that don't mention McGill, but mention the corruption. There was a section on a Wikipedia page being vandalized and how it was unusual it wasn't noticed. There is also a bit of WP:SYNTH going on.
The problem is there are no reliable, independent secondary sources. It's either primary or unreliable. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended comments by User:Hethofpern
|
---|
McGill is mentioned in the 3 December congressional hearing by name as the source of the information that triggered three different congressional hearings (it's in the Chairman's opening statement). That segment of the hearing was also included on Fox News
[1] (McGill is mentioned by name just after the one minute mark) which also had an article and another prime-time tv discussion on the matter
[2] The secondary sources linked to the
National Ecological Observatory Network page demonstrate that NEON, Inc. was fired from running the multibillion-dollar project because at least one of McGill's allegations (the possibility that the project could go over budget without anyone noticing due to the lack of control over the project's contingency reserve) actually happened and the project was at least $80 million over budget. Also included on that page was the letter from the
National Science Foundation to NEON, Inc. terminating them from the project. I think that's more than enough sourcing, especially for an ongoing issue, to meet the standards for inclusion. There are other articles on NEON out there, as well as several NSF Inspector General reports, but none of this contain McGill's name because the media doesn't name whistleblowers without permission (eg Snowden), but McGill has never talked directly to the media (as far as I can tell) so he's never given permission. Outside of the hearing process, even Congress has simply called him 'the whistleblower'. For example, in an article for The Hill
[3] they refer to a "courageous Federal whistleblower", which has to be McGill give the that he's the only whistleblower mentioned by name by Congress, and nothing suggests there was more than one whistleblower involved. Anyway, I welcome the community's thoughts and input on the matter. I can go provide more secondary sources (like news articles) as references in the entries if that would be helpful. There's definitely more out there.
The thing that I think is noteworthy about this guy is I'm like almost every other whistleblower he actually did all of this stuff while still on the job – in other words he never broke the law (unlike Snowden, however justifiable someone may think his actions to be) but still managed to get the information to Congress and the issues dealt with. Also, the fact that he is the first whistleblower in history ( as far as I can tell) to do the whistleblowing as part of his job is definitely worthy of note since that could really change the dynamics of whistleblowing. Right now, whistleblowing is a pain because you have to do it on your own time. If federal employees can whistle blow on the governments time it's a lot liklier that they will do so and that could have a major impact on fighting corruption within the government. Hethofpern ( talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC) References I also note that in McGill's April 27 disclosure he links a lot of sources including emails and letters from Congress so that document (the 180 page one) is both the primary and a secondary source insofar as it contains links to other primary sources. Of particular interest to me when reviewing the Congressional record was the fact that that document has a lot of official documentation copied within it including, for example, a letter from Congress asking that the director of DCAA make McGill available to Congress for briefings. That would seem to substantially back up the primary sources and when combined with the other information discussed in my entry immediately above would seem to give us sufficient sourcing to keep this article in place - albeit, perhaps with better referencing on my part. Hethofpern ( talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on the primary source references and confirmed at the 3 December hearing, McGill's disclosures are the only reason there was a scandal in the first place. That's the point. He triggered the scandal with his whistleblowing and that lead to everything that occurred thereafter. I suppose we could include everything he did under the articles for DCAA and NEON - but there was enough material it felt better placed under a separate page. Not to mention, he allegedly only went to congress because a over up was ordered by senior defense officials. Deleting this information on our part feels like we're perpetuating that cover up. At the very least we need to make sure the information gets preserved and moved to a more 'appropriate' spot if the decision is made to delete this entry.
In addition, since you're citing the GNG - we seem to have skipped some steps of looking for other information for noteriety beyond the few sources I put in the page when I wrote it. There's other stuff out there - which may or may not be sufficient. Keeping in mind that this is my first stand alone entry I'd think we'd want to go look for sources beyond what I put in initially. That's what I was suggesting above, and that seems to be consistent with the guidelines before we jump straight to deletion. If that's correct (and correct me if its not) then that's the next step I'll take. Hethofpern ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Okay, leaving the deletion issue for a moment (its not going to be my call anyway since I'm 1. the author and 2. brand new to the community) -- I read in McGill's 27 April disclosure the allegation that a Department of Defense official had vandalized McGill's entry on the List of whistleblowers page way back in September 2014 after the first news article broke (in the Washington Post). That seemed like kinda a big deal, so I just managed dug up the original (albeit redacted) investigative report and uploaded it here: [1] Should this concern us? I mean, they basically tried to do a (really juvenile) smear job on the guy, and tried to use Wikipedia to do it... Hethofpern ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Alright, now that I've had some time to think things through, here's my thought process (for what little it may be worth). We've got multiple primary sources (including the 04/27/2015 "Disclosure" summarizing McGill's allegations) to compare against the secondary sources. On 09/18/2014 there was an article in the Washington Post about NEON that includes the statement "Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said the practice came to his attention earlier this year when a whistleblower provided him with a draft audit that showed a climate change group used federal funds to pay $112,000 for lobbying, $25,000 for an office Christmas party, and $11,000 for “premium coffee services” and an unspecific amount on French hotels." [2] That matches up with the primary sources, so the "whistleblower" has to be McGill. That's confirmed in the 12/3/2014 hearing when the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology says: "Auditors discovered several highly questionable expenditures of taxpayer funds by NEON, including hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying, lavish parties, liquor for office happy hours, over $1,000 per month for premium coffee service, and trips to a high-end resmi in France. These suspicious taxpayer-financed activities were not detailed in the audit submitted to the NSF Inspector General, which was limited in scope. But to his credit, the principal auditor, J. Kirk McGill, invoked the Whistleblower Protection Act to make sure that the Inspector General, Congress and ultimately the public was aware of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars being spent on improper activities." [3] So, as of 12/3/2014 we know that the "whistleblower" is McGill. So next I went looking for articles talking about the NEON scandal in which the "whistleblower" played a prominent role. I found quite a few: "Grassley noted that the inappropriate spending came to his attention through a whistleblower. 'Otherwise, it may never have come to light'” Grassley said. 'I appreciate having whistleblowers come forward to correct wrongdoing and look out for taxpayers.' [4] [5] "of the government’s incompetency. Several highly critical financial reviews, two project audits, a courageous federal whistleblower, and three House science committee oversight hearings warned NSF and NEON of big problems." [6] "These figures drew a rebuke in September from Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who were provided a draft of the audit by a whistleblower. In a written response, the NSF called NEON’s use of the funds disconcerting." [7] "Grassley and Paul said they were alerted to the allegations of improper spending by a whistleblower who provided them with a draft audit of NEON performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. The audit showed that from fiscal 2009 until fiscal 2013, NEON received more than $888,000 in government funds for the "management fees" that were used for unallowable costs, they said.The concern raised by the draft audit is "considerable," the senators wrote, "but it is amplified by the possibility this is a widespread practice within the NSF and possibly the federal government." They requested correspondence between NEON and NSF about the so-called management fees and paying for unallowable costs, and a detailed account of all the unallowable costs incurred by NEON." [8] "In his opening comments, Chairman Lamar Smith almost accused the IG and DCAA of an attempted cover-up of these issues. The findings were not reported in the final audit report but were raised by a whistleblower" [9] It sure looks to me like we've got a ton of well-sourced evidence that NEON would not have been caught and this scandal erupted without McGill. Also, if you look at the hearing documentation for all three hearings and McGill's "Disclosure" the "management fee" issue ended up causing major policy changes at NASA and the Office of Management and Budget -- so there's significant impact to McGill's actions beyond NEON. Put that all together and I think we have plenty to support this entry. What the entry needs, I think, is some clean up by someone more experienced than me (it is my first complete entry after all) to make the sourcing more clear and eliminate anywhere where I drift into speculation and/or away from proper neutrality. But that editing stuff. Bottom line, its my (however worthless) opinion that this entry deserves inclusion and should not be deleted. In other words, keep it. Hethofpern ( talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC). |
I moved the substance of the allegation discussion to the Defense Contract Audit Agency article presuming that this one will be deleted. I leave it to others to edit that as needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I will try to add additional materials as the situation develops -- it's tough because this sort of situation is extremely important to have recorded especially to be accessible to future whistleblowers and the public, but by the very nature of government there isn't that much information out there. While I understand (and generally support) Wikipedia's guidelines, in this particular case I'm afraid that they're going to result in a lot of important information that ought to be publicly available not being publicly available. That said, I respect the results of the process and Leavitt others to determine how best to get the information that ought to be on Wikipedia to where it belongs. I appreciate the constructive criticism from the community on this matter. I will try to learn more about the communities guidelines and expectations before I make another attempt at major edits or any standalone content. I appreciate the patients of the community for new members like myself. That being said, I would strongly encourage the committee to keep an eye on this particular issue in case there is an attempted government censorship/vandalism again.
Hethofpern ( talk) 16:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a real person, but drastically embellished (for example, the full name does not appear on any sources). The accesible sources do not appear to actually be about Francesco. The article was created by a user now blocked because they were unwilling or unable to communicate. PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. And merge as appropriate. Sandstein 12:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an unsourced article about a non-notable fictional character, that appears only in a non-notable work (if the article is to be believed, she appears in a non-notable play, and not in the much more famous work of historical fiction that the play was based off of). The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 04:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Martha Finley. Sandstein 12:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no substantial coverage found, just lots of listings and non-reliable reviews, original books are notable, these are not. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Individual display aircraft are fairly common and rarely notable, most large air forces have solo display aircraft which can be dealt with using a one line summary in the air force article although they are mostly not notable enough to even mention there. The proposed deletion was removed with the statement that most display teams are notable but as this article is about three individual display aircraft they are clearly not a display team as most readers would recognise. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G3 - no evidence the subjects of the article exist. The Bushranger One ping only 11:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced essay, apparently completely WP:OR. Neither of the two alleged mixed languages listed, "Khewari" or "Maipali", have any hits on Google; these are apparently either hoaxes or neologisms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cunard's analysis of the sources is definitive. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Promotionally written article about a local plumbing company in Toronto with no claim to notability - having the highest number of positive reviews in 2012 on a regional ratings website does not confer notability. Sources are primary (press release and company website) or trivial mentions of the company's founder. bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Anta Plumbing to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Anta Plumbing's CEO is a guest on the segment. This is not significant independent coverage of the company.
The company only has a passing mention:
Tanya Klein, CEO of Anta Plumbing in Toronto, recommends reverse osmosis water filters for homes and businesses to improve water quality. Reverse osmosis purifies water by forcing it through a semi-impermeable membrane that lead and other contaminants cannot pass though.
This is a press release so is not an independent source that can be used to establish notability.
The Better Business Bureau cannot be used to establish notability.
This article is from the company itself so is not an independent source.
The result was delete. Uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Poorly references BLP Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Thamirabarani River. To be absolutely honest this didn't need to be brought here ... It's an obvious Merge, Be Bold! (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Not an EV article and suits for news Antan O 10:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Full of questionable original research that does not belong in a BLP. No charting, gold, reviews, major awards. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:NARTIST JMHamo ( talk) 14:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Project CARS#Downloadable content. Sandstein 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not necessary to have within Wikipedia. Fails WP:VGSCOPE. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. I've speedied for the third time and salted. Irrespective of notability, it's blatant full-on spamming. Creator and sock indeffed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm somewhat reluctant to send this article to AfD as I found a forum post which suggests that the company has been featured in at least one news article. Unfortunately, I cannot find the said article on the web, and a search failed to find much else other than websites which promote their real estate projects. I'm aware that the company is based in India and coverage on Indian subjects is spotty, which is why I'm reluctant to send this to AfD, but unless someone can find sources which I may have missed, I can't see how this is company is notable. Not nominating it for speedy deletion as there is a credible(?) claim to notability as being the largest land development company in the Himalayan region of India, but I can't find a source which confirms that. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 05:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD. Bennett doesn't appear to meet WP:JOURNALIST notability guidelines, and lacks independent sources. The NYT source is just a wedding announcement, one is an article he wrote, the others are routine listings. Based on history, this was very likely created as paid editing. Grayfell ( talk) 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete, uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Caste does not appear to exist from basic google searches. Ref list given not helpful and no inline citations. ツ Stacey ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. NA1K has proven the BLP is notable enough to warrant an article and that NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply .... (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: -- has not reached threshold of notability for an acadmeician or historian for a standalone article. Just too soon, I reckon. Quis separabit? 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No notability. The "satirical website" is an personal fun blog, no coverage, no serious work within. DMOZ lists it as "blog de humor". The only links point to facebook or other personal non-reliable sources. The account that created the article falls clearly under WP:SPA Mondiad ( talk) 04:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A young actress who had a recurring role in The Tudors. In the five years since there this biography was created there have been no solid reliable references or indications that she meets WP:NACTOR./ Blue Riband► 03:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Advert for subject and his Institute, written by an account in the name of the Institute and/or himself, and primarily sourced to his/the Institute's website Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Article has been tagged as possibly non-notable since September 2008. It was previously brought to AfD over a year ago but closed as no consensus because no one else commented. Of the 7 references in the article, four are from low quality blogs, one is from the band's possibly defunct myspace page, one is a Facebook page, another is a video, and the NY Daily News article barely mentions the band. My searches turned up no reliable sources. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable book series. The only hits I could find online are websites selling the books (such as Amazon), or profiles on websites such as Goodreads or FictionDB. No reliable coverage or reviews could be found. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (cajole) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This does not strike me as fulfilling WP:NGEO nor even WP:N. Even the Romanian version does not seem to include "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". I don't see how this article would ever progress beyond the stub it currently is. Newbiepedian ( Hailing Frequencies) 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any sources to confirm the subject's existence, nor that of the editor. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable movie. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Sorry, but the rationale for deletion is not a valid one. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales for deletion. North America 1000 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The list is trivial. Koala15 ( talk) 00:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
A non-encyclopedic topic covering the trivial intersection between once being a leader of some country and living into one's 80's. Lack of sources and lack of RS discussing this topic in depth mean the ranking can not be verified. Even if all the data shown is correct (and we don't know if it is) we don't know who is missing making the assertion that x is the nth longest lived impossible to prove. Even if one argues this should be keep against WP:LISTN the longest living ones are already clearly shown at List_of_longest-living_state_leaders making this page redundant and an additional maintenance hassle. Legacypac ( talk) 23:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover supernovae and other astronomical events. Mr. Grennan's achievements, while laudable, are not notable per WP:NN./ Astro4686 ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: notability not satisfied. Stub article whose GNG results are slim and biased. Quis separabit? 23:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Normally we would redirect this event article to the sponsoring business, given there are no other annual event articles, but the Miss Tourism World article has been deleted 3x already. This is commercial spam essentially. Legacypac ( talk) 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep per
WP:SNOWBALL. (
non-admin closure). Also, the nominator is an obvious sockpuppet of banned
User:The Devil's Advocate.
--
PanchoS (
talk)
02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Only one suitable source is used in the article, Playboy Magazine. The rest are Anarcho Capitalists writing their own thoughts and theories. That is unencyclopedic. A new article can be started using reliable, independent third-party sources. The easiest way to purge this article of unsuitable sources is to delete it and start over.
EoT State (
talk)
22:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
—
EoT State (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Seborga is a self declared Micronation. It's "history" is basically a self invented rationalization about how it has been a sovereign state in the past. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 22:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
non-notable, Fails WP:NACTOR and references used are not reliable JMHamo ( talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Reads like an essay with a lot of WP:OR JMHamo ( talk) 21:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There are academic programs and job & career resources that are developing in this area. Here is one example https://www.onetonline.org/find/quick?s=sustainability+careers The value of this article is that is will provide a first stop for people research this area. Today's additions are moving it along as this kind of article.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This page seems to be an essay on cheese in Canada, and not really a topic. The content is a hodgepodge of information, and the page is WP:OR. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Article is found to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Notability Ueutyi ( talk) 23:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Jayson Gaignard felt like he’d been sucker punched. The credit card statement just didn’t add up. He was reading a massive list of transactions charged to his online ticket company, Tickets Canada, and he didn’t remember any of them.
There was a good reason why: He never authorized them. His business partner fled the country and racked up more than $120,000 in tickets on his credit card, selling them under the table and leaving Gaignard holding the bill.
...
In just over a month, Gaignard went from $5 million a year in sales to a defunct company and $250,000 in debt for which he was personally responsible since he’d been using his own credit cards to fund most of the company’s transactions. To further increase the pressure, he was raising a daughter born just four months earlier and preparing to get married in just over a month. “There were so many moving parts, and I felt like I was just spinning out of control,” he recalls.
...
Fast forward three years later and now 30-year-old Gaignard is no longer broke but debt-free and running sold-out MastermindTalks events, an elite, invitation-only summit for entrepreneurs that is designed to connect and amplify the networks of world-class people while also helping founders work on themselves that connect world-class entrepreneurs with invaluable experts. But to say it was easy would be a joke.
The article notes:
It’s hard not to giggle when you open the door to find a fully liveried butler — especially when he looks like Jayson Gaignard. The founder of VIP Services Inc., a Toronto personal concierge service, Mr. Gaignard is tall, lanky and only 22, and dressed in his company’s uniform he looks like a teenager trick-or-treating on Halloween. But he’s all business and clearly at my service from first greeting. “I’m Jayson. What can we do for you today?”
...
Mr. Gaignard reports that when he started VIP three years ago, there were just two other companies in the Toronto area; as of late summer, there were almost 40.
The article notes:
Jayson Gaignard
Gaignard is the founder of Mastermind Talks, an invite-only conference for entrepreneurs which has attracted some big names, from Four-Hour Workweek author Tim Ferriss (also listed below) to WSJ bestselling author James Altucher.
Gaignard is also the author of the Amazon bestseller Mastermind Dinners: Build Lifelong Relationships by Connecting Experts, Influencers, and Linchpins, which details Gaignard’s process for connecting with influential people you admire by bringing them together in group dinners, a strategy which he credits in part for helping him to recover from a debilitating depression following the failure of a prior business.
Prior to founding Mastermind Talks, Gaignard founded an online event ticketing company in his native Canada. He also hosts the Mastermind Talks podcast, where he shares stories and interviews entrepreneurs about relationship-building and networking.
A recent tweet: “You need to surround yourself with people who are batteries and not black holes.”
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, and coverage doesn't seem significiant enough for WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. The article itself says it all: Rahmer was originally hired to play Belle Black on the daytime soap DOOL but was almost immediately replaced by Martha Madison. IMDb indicates no other "significant" roles. Also, article has been unsourced since 2005. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Sammy1339 ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Solitaire. Never close on one !vote but it does make sense to just redirect it..... (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations. No significant reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor). Created by sock of banned sockmaster Benjiboi, but too many intervening edits to allow for speedy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Very clearly a personal essay which was copied to Wikipedia. Would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic (even then, I imagine much of the content would be added to existing articles and not contained in a new one). Nsteffel ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It maybe deleted! It was written for a project that needed to be submitted in a wiki page. Didn't realise it was t this Wikipedia but another page that the university has. Therefore it maybe deleted as it is written from a personal viewpoint... But other than that, I don't really care. So please let the readers feel better by deleting it :)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable as martial artist or youtube persona. Peter Rehse ( talk) 19:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Non notable physician--unless perhaps for his films, which I am unable to determine DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to McMaster University. (Selective merge) (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
academic center within a department of a university. These are not ordinarily notability DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON at best. Doesn't (yet) meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Prodded it and 2nded by CactusWriter; contested by 45.127.136.69 with no reason given. Boleyn ( talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not think this company meets the notability guideline for companies. A Google search turned up no reliable, independent sources. The in-flight magazine source, upon further review, doesn't actually talk about SixAxis as a whole, just some of their products. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by GB fan, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Article for non-notable book created by the author, with the only citation being a link to the publisher's website. The author has also recreated his own page Rahul khismatrao (using different capitalization) that was previously deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Khismatrao. — TAnthony Talk 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by GB fan, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G4. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Recreation of a page (using different capitalization) that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Khismatrao — TAnthony Talk 17:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Obviously this is going to be a controversial one. There are both good arguments and bad arguments made on both sides of this discussion, as well as some concerns about COI raised. With that said, while there seems to be a numeric total in favour of keeping, there are some good analysis by those on the "delete" side which are not really refuted. It's impossible to fish a consensus out of all of this, and in the absence of a knockout argument from one side or the other a "no consensus" result is the only option. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient indicia of notability, COI editing, and unsourced BLP. Per previous AfD, Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, and the book may meet NBOOK. Individual fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. No evidence that he is a member of any Recognized Indian Tribe, nor that his claims as to the Rainbow gatherings are externally verifiable. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. Montanabw (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Edith Kirby (April 15, 1992), "Wisdom lightened by humor offered by native storytellers", Edmonton Journal.
John F. Kirch (May 9, 1993), "Watershed Fair Promotes Fun, Environment \ Friends Of Wachusett", Telegram & Gazette, p. B4, retrieved January 9, 2016.
Jessie Salisbury (July 6, 2005), "Foundation in Wilton teaching stewardship", The Telegraph (Nashua), retrieved January 9, 2016.
While the Assonet Band is not federally recognized as a tribe, the Wampanoag Nation recognizes the Assonet Band as a Wampanoag state-recognized tribe of their nation and the Wikipedia article now reflects that. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep First, apologies for any irregularity in commencing the DRV. Probably I made the faut pas. I'm new to this process, have never been involved in a DRV / AfD discussion before. However belatedly, I'll try to better familiarize myself about this & mend any error that I can.
I'm posting a screenshot of my edit of Jan 7. Please note some of the citations included, which have since been deleted; (presumably by some zealous editors who here claim that I provided no citations.)
I'd like to hear explained the deletion of these citations:
It would seem that any evidence which documents Manitonquat's tribal affiliation or notability is what some editors think should be deleted.
There is certainly some shrill emotional tone here: largely from those instigating a second AfD which has been acknowledged here as extraordinary and contrary to policy.
It seems appropriate to question what could possibly have motivated "bizarre" deletions of independent, authoritative sources, supporting notability; documenting that this author is an acknowledged authority on Native American culture & spirituality, a close associate of Wampanoag spiritual leadership, a prominent organizer of intentional communities, and of the Rainbow Gatherings since their inception.
It's an object lesson to see how the history of a man so well-known could be confused, obscured, or made to disappear in this context.
Since I have been made the subject of some personal comment here, I might point out that I don't need to ask the ethnicity of anyone who hits the ceiling & screams bloody murder at mention of the word "racism". They're always white. Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I still hear no answer to the admittedly unanswerable independent, authoritative sources on Manitonquat's work (posted above on this page, by me, today's date.) Of course when some can't win an argument, they resort to personal attack. But that's forgetting a worthy axiom, attack the post, not the poster.
By the way, sorry, you guess wrong. If this extraordinary, misguided, & unjust wrangle over the Manitonquat page will ever get over itself, I might get a chance to do anything else around here. There is nothing the least unusual in someone starting an account to work on a particular area (Native American), because they're inspired to do so by a topic they happen to know & care about, which is poorly recorded on Wikipedia, and/or clearly vandalized / libeled.
If you must know, I attended the national Rainbow Gatherings from 1982 through 1995. Manitonquat was present at every one I attended; (for many years unique in being the only person who'd been to every one in history.) He was quite prominently in evidence every year as a facilitator, elder, organizer, who did not first attend in 1982 like myself, but had been there for a decade before I heard of them. He was one of the organizers on the very first in 1972(which was originally planned as a one-off event.) He stood at the welcome gate to greet the first arrivals, and was one of the clean-up crew who decided try to turn it into an annual event.
I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling. In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, including up to a hundred people; all thrashing out together, with total strangers, incredibly emotional, complicated safety issues. Where people sat together and tried to re-invent a new way for society to deal with violent offenders who endanger the community; other than with more violence & punishment. This "Rainbow way" of doing things is the basis of what he now teaches to communities all over the world as the "Circle Way". (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.)
I don't expect my personal testimony to be considered as an authoritative source (although the point is arguable); but you see my interest not merely academic. Nor is it motivated by personal gain. I'm just trying to repair libelous vandalism against a good person, a well-known humanitarian who's spent his whole life trying to help people, never got rich, and isnt' trying to. Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.
Robbing Native American people of their native identity has been a key tactic of cultural genocide since time immemorial. Native children were sent to schools where they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their religion, sing their songs, etc. They were given Anglo names & forbidden to use their native names. Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names.
Targeting Native American writers, erasing all citations about their Native heritage, shrilly denying the basis of their ideas in Native American traditions, is just more of a piece with this sort of anti-Native agenda. Not that I'm accusing anyone in particular here of consciously pursuing such an agenda. I think everyone's contribution to this discussion speaks clearly enough for itself without assistance from me.
Sincerely thankful to all who have taken part so far. Especially those who have researched sources, urged impartiality, and decried extraordinary emotional agendas. Horse Dancing ( talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:GRAPES WP:SVT WP:REPEAT WP:WABBITSEASON User:CorbieVreccan has in recent days been warned by User:Horse Dancing for Vandalism, subtle and otherwise; also concerned in report to Administrator Notice Board:Biographies for vandalism to page in question, and instigating an edit war immediately following a DRV whose outcome was contrary to said user's vote. Also has been notified in /info/en/?search=User_talk:Thparkth that extraordinary emotion demonstrated in this debate suggests advisability that User:CorbieVreccan could, in this case, stand to back off & take a few deep breaths (if I may paraphrase.)
In seeking a balanced view, direct experience of the subject cannot be entirely silenced and disallowed, in favour of ignorant prejudice, or passionate hostility based on complete lack of direct experience. It is certainly significant that the person rushing to shout "COI" is the one who has been previously been named in vandalism allegation. WP:SVT I allege that this COI complaint by User:CorbieVreccan is retaliatory User:Sandstein User:JReferee User:Thparkth
As for COI, my acquaintance with the person who is the topic of the article in question by no means amounts to COI. He is neither family, client, employer, nor any other connection mentioned in COI policy /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the discussion. The direct experience of his work which I detailed in the spirit of complete candour explicitly amounts to no more than what a hundred others also saw, in the course of his public appearances. My account also explicit that this occurred most recently in the 1990s, over twenty years ago. Horse Dancing ( talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse Dancing stated,"Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.", if this relationship occurred over 20 years ago how is it possible for him to retain a current letter from Talbot regarding controversy. It's clear to me that the relationship has been maintained. Rainbow defines themselves as a family so this in itsself creates a familial relationship. User:Horse Dancing neglected to disclose his conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Common sense dictates that User:Horse Dancing has provided security for and participated in ceremony with Talbot and is in close enough contact with Talbot that he is able to provide a statement from Talbot himself. I see his editting as conflicting, from his own statements and content inclusion he is attempting to maintain a positive only entry regarding Talbot. He states he created a wiki ID specifically to edit Native American topics. All of this causes me great concern. Indigenous girl ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Some objections I'd like to respond to, and just able to get round to now: Indigenous girl Re: official genealogy records All I'm saying is that official government records cannot be relied on to accurately record native ancestry.
You are right in decrying racist agendas as you see them, and I support you in that. But please take it easy on demonizing others as the enemy of native people just because they have a different outlook on the issues than yourself. Keeping the public confused on these issues is part of the racist agenda. Many are confused on these issues. Keeping the public poorly informed on these issues is also the racist agenda. Many are poorly informed. So many people make mistakes which further racist agendas, while trying to do their best to be fair. Even people who are quite well-informed.
Regarding your comment that I have COI based on family: Many Native Americans habitually refer to each other as "brother" "sister" "uncle". In fact, in Native American spirituality, everything in the world is referred to as "all my relations". So does that mean that all Native Americans are prohibited from editing this because of a family COI? Let's use common sense.
As for contention that I "wants a positive only article": I want to see deletion of false libelous claims that this man is an unprincipled fraud; for which there is no evidence except a lot of shrill insistence based largely on attack sites. If you consider this an unreasonable, unbalanced "poz only" on my part, I must point out that there are countless articles of notable people that accuse the topic of no fraud.
SusunW Thanks for your comment re "fallacy of secondary sources to prove anything." However erroneously, it's a noble effort in all editors here who mean well, this pursuit of sorting fact from fiction. Which this page proves can be no mean feat. Certainly there is some fallacy in attitude that many interviews, in authoritative sources, are not reliable evidence of notability. [1] (This article referenced above, but perhaps you didn't get a chance to click it.)
re "apparently notable fraud": Denial of his Native American ancestry is pure rumor, emanating largely from attack sites. There is no relevant documentation which believably supports it. It's acquired plausibility in this debate only because a lot of hotheads keep saying it. "We all say it so it must be true" is not relevant.
There is also the principle of considering the risk of harm in case of error. I would like each & every participant here to consider, (especially those so quick to accept a flimsy fraud claim, while very picky about accepting abundant evidence to the contrary): what is the risk of harm if you are wrong? I'd like everyone to imagine just for a moment the fraud claim proving entirely spurious. Wouldn't we feel silly then? How much damage has been done then, wittingly or unwittingly? Horse Dancing ( talk) 12:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse DancingNot all indigenous people believe in the "we are all related" concept that has been co-opted and used extensively out of context. My COI concern is that you have maintained a relationship with the individual in question. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you were forth-coming in this regard. However the facts that you were involved with religious(spiritual) excercises with him for a large block of time, that you supported his position during heated conflict resolution and provided security for him and that you are currently in contact with him in a sense that you offered to provide direct communication from him regarding controversies makes me doubt your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with wanting to support somebody that you hold in esteem though this is not the forum in which to do this.
Regarding the genealogy of this particular individual. I did link to the biography of his great grandfather and I believe the Earle Report and there was no reflection of ties to Wampanoag community. There is also the Pease Report which I don't believe to be available on line and the Mashpee Aquinnah Census [2] as well as documents pertaining to the Guardians of Indian Plantations. If his family is not included in any of these documents they are either not Native or they assimilated so far back in history that no records remain. What most people fail to understand is that when it comes to early reports these were made at a time when familial and community connections were impportant and people regularly included members who may not live within community yet maintained community connection. This is reflected in the early reports where individuals are listed who live outside of the physical community. I am sure you do not want to hear this and that it is also difficult to grasp. I understand if you want to continue to deny this and stand firm on your position. Rather than continue to muddy up this and the subject at hand's talk page I would like to request that we take any further discussion to our own personal talk pages. Indigenous girl ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you to continue this at my talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. However, I must respond here to what you have posted here which concerns my integrity.
I don't know where you got "large block of time". That's nowhere in what I said. I attended a couple of sweat lodges which were public events attended by many others. You say I "supported his position in a heated conflict". If you mean the councils involving a hundred people I mentioned, I don't know how you can conjecture what position I took in relation to him. You misstate also that I "provided security for him." I didn't say I was his bodyguard. I said I was an organizer on event security at a gathering of thousands. You seem to go a long way to twist everything I said into some intimate relationship to him. I don't know if you've been to a Rainbow Gathering, but it's hardly an intimate setting. There are thousands of people there. As to his being a public figure whom anyone can contact thru his website, I hope you took the trouble to read my earlier reply above, on that question.
I will allow that I may be less than entirely objective. But I don't think my objectivity, as demonstrated in my posts here, can be seen to be much more impaired than many others', who've seemed far more emotional & unreasonable than me. Horse Dancing ( talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This article fails WP:GNG. No apparent secondary source coverage of subject, except as tangential coverage of another story, and almost all of the information is self reported ( WP:SPIP), and thus not independent of the subject. Peregrine981 ( talk) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place where every young entrepreneur will publish their biography. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject is of dubious notability, barely passing WP:GNG and article details subject's progress through a game show. Article lacks substance, references and detail. Dkendr ( talk) 16:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Aww, come on guys. You don't like the cute little T-Rex? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Lack any proper content. Mixing error messages. The "unable to connect to Internet" is part of Google Chrome article. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place for every local recording label. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable street art practitioner. CK One he ain't. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete per CSD A10 Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like an entirely ordinary hotel in an entirely ordinary bui;ding, and the references do nothing other than confirm that it exists. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
OR/SYNTH. Weird collection of different online journals, preprint archives, and other websites. None of them are what I would call "platforms", unless any online journal is a platform. No independent sources about this concept, nor any sources that justify inclusion of any of these entries. Randykitty ( talk) 14:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment I originally opposed the PROD because I didn't think the rational held up, or at least that it deserved a bit more debate than a PROD. I agree with RK that this is a weird collection of... something, and that as of now, it's sort of so ill-defined that I don't even known what to think of it. However, I also think that if we could define more clearly what that something is, or at least what the something should be, we could shape this article/list into what it's trying to be. I have no objection to deletion if the community fails to determine what this article is trying to be, but I think the effort at least has to be made before we give up on this one. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address Wikicology's thorough analysis of sources. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material about the so-called novel Forever There For You she authored. I also find one or two interview with local website with no credible editorial control or oversight. To be honest, Wikipedia is not a place for everybody that publish one or more books. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, actually "All Africa" is a rated news website with editorial oversight. It's rated 271 in Nigeria and 11, 766 globally by Alexa. That says a lot. For the university website, I understand your point, but I don't think we expect a school Chioma Nnani didn't attend to publish her story. Reason being that, they can't leave their former students and be talking about someone else. For the fact that her alma mater in the UK found her story worthy and published it, is evidence of her notability, after all, not all former students get their stories published by their alma mater. Otherwise, the school website might crash due to numerous publication of stories. In my opinion, I don't see anything wrong with Chioma Nnani's page. Thank you. Lord Ru 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is suggesting a merge, which is not a valid rationale for deletion. Discussion regarding a merge can occur on an article talk page. North America 1000 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable show, very little reliable sources dealing with the characters. Merge into the main article. Phil A. Fry ( talk) 12:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was deCSDed with the rationale to send to AfD. A search for sources finds non-reliable sources such as IMdB. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 11:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An article about this person has been deleted twice previously; however, this was years ago and all of the claims for notability are newer than the last AfD. However, I could not establish significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I decided to refer this back to AFD. Delete unless independent sources can be found. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is another Rajeshbieee/ Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.
A search for sourcing doesn't bring up anything, although it does bring up plenty of false positives due to Lakshmi being a fairly common name. Like the others, it's possible that foreign language sources exist, but I'm not able to find them because of the language barrier. There's also a film the 70s that appears to be unrelated, created by the same editor, which I've also put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is another Rajeshbieee/ Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.
A search for sourcing doesn't bring up anything, although it does bring up plenty of false positives. Like the others, it's possible that foreign language sources exist, but I'm not able to find them because of the language barrier. There's also a 1982 film that appears to be unrelated, created by the same editor, which will also be put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (confer) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Unreferenced dictionary definition. Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
"has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It sounds like the nominator is citing WP:NOTDIC to support their argument for deletion, but WP:NOTDIC does not apply when a
"word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources"(see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete - blatant vanity. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
No secondary coverage. Fails general notability. Blackguard 07:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not clear whether there's consensus for a redirect; this may need further discussion. Sandstein 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Minor character from a notable film. Article is completely devoid of any citations and barely any outbound links and the only inbound being the Mongo disambig page, the Blazing Saddles page, and alternate title, and the page creator's Talk.
The article content is simply a rehashing of the movie, explanation of the jokes, and descriptions of the film and filmmaking process. In other words, nothing but synthesis and OR.
There is not even any attempt made at establishing notability or impact on the movie or culture at large. Not only are there no references of any kind, but the two external links are both just to IMDb.
This article's "unknown notability" tag has been up for 30 months. Time to go. JesseRafe ( talk) 21:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
While the term 'evolutionary logic' does appear in say google scholar, it does not seem to refer to the notion outlined in the article. Non notable idea. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. A separate discussion may be needed to determine whether to redirect and where to. Sandstein 12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An auditor that blew the whistle on corruption. The three main sources are a 180 page primary document, McGill's resume and McGill's linkedIn page. We also have video of and hour plus long committee hearing and sources that don't mention McGill, but mention the corruption. There was a section on a Wikipedia page being vandalized and how it was unusual it wasn't noticed. There is also a bit of WP:SYNTH going on.
The problem is there are no reliable, independent secondary sources. It's either primary or unreliable. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended comments by User:Hethofpern
|
---|
McGill is mentioned in the 3 December congressional hearing by name as the source of the information that triggered three different congressional hearings (it's in the Chairman's opening statement). That segment of the hearing was also included on Fox News
[1] (McGill is mentioned by name just after the one minute mark) which also had an article and another prime-time tv discussion on the matter
[2] The secondary sources linked to the
National Ecological Observatory Network page demonstrate that NEON, Inc. was fired from running the multibillion-dollar project because at least one of McGill's allegations (the possibility that the project could go over budget without anyone noticing due to the lack of control over the project's contingency reserve) actually happened and the project was at least $80 million over budget. Also included on that page was the letter from the
National Science Foundation to NEON, Inc. terminating them from the project. I think that's more than enough sourcing, especially for an ongoing issue, to meet the standards for inclusion. There are other articles on NEON out there, as well as several NSF Inspector General reports, but none of this contain McGill's name because the media doesn't name whistleblowers without permission (eg Snowden), but McGill has never talked directly to the media (as far as I can tell) so he's never given permission. Outside of the hearing process, even Congress has simply called him 'the whistleblower'. For example, in an article for The Hill
[3] they refer to a "courageous Federal whistleblower", which has to be McGill give the that he's the only whistleblower mentioned by name by Congress, and nothing suggests there was more than one whistleblower involved. Anyway, I welcome the community's thoughts and input on the matter. I can go provide more secondary sources (like news articles) as references in the entries if that would be helpful. There's definitely more out there.
The thing that I think is noteworthy about this guy is I'm like almost every other whistleblower he actually did all of this stuff while still on the job – in other words he never broke the law (unlike Snowden, however justifiable someone may think his actions to be) but still managed to get the information to Congress and the issues dealt with. Also, the fact that he is the first whistleblower in history ( as far as I can tell) to do the whistleblowing as part of his job is definitely worthy of note since that could really change the dynamics of whistleblowing. Right now, whistleblowing is a pain because you have to do it on your own time. If federal employees can whistle blow on the governments time it's a lot liklier that they will do so and that could have a major impact on fighting corruption within the government. Hethofpern ( talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC) References I also note that in McGill's April 27 disclosure he links a lot of sources including emails and letters from Congress so that document (the 180 page one) is both the primary and a secondary source insofar as it contains links to other primary sources. Of particular interest to me when reviewing the Congressional record was the fact that that document has a lot of official documentation copied within it including, for example, a letter from Congress asking that the director of DCAA make McGill available to Congress for briefings. That would seem to substantially back up the primary sources and when combined with the other information discussed in my entry immediately above would seem to give us sufficient sourcing to keep this article in place - albeit, perhaps with better referencing on my part. Hethofpern ( talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on the primary source references and confirmed at the 3 December hearing, McGill's disclosures are the only reason there was a scandal in the first place. That's the point. He triggered the scandal with his whistleblowing and that lead to everything that occurred thereafter. I suppose we could include everything he did under the articles for DCAA and NEON - but there was enough material it felt better placed under a separate page. Not to mention, he allegedly only went to congress because a over up was ordered by senior defense officials. Deleting this information on our part feels like we're perpetuating that cover up. At the very least we need to make sure the information gets preserved and moved to a more 'appropriate' spot if the decision is made to delete this entry.
In addition, since you're citing the GNG - we seem to have skipped some steps of looking for other information for noteriety beyond the few sources I put in the page when I wrote it. There's other stuff out there - which may or may not be sufficient. Keeping in mind that this is my first stand alone entry I'd think we'd want to go look for sources beyond what I put in initially. That's what I was suggesting above, and that seems to be consistent with the guidelines before we jump straight to deletion. If that's correct (and correct me if its not) then that's the next step I'll take. Hethofpern ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Okay, leaving the deletion issue for a moment (its not going to be my call anyway since I'm 1. the author and 2. brand new to the community) -- I read in McGill's 27 April disclosure the allegation that a Department of Defense official had vandalized McGill's entry on the List of whistleblowers page way back in September 2014 after the first news article broke (in the Washington Post). That seemed like kinda a big deal, so I just managed dug up the original (albeit redacted) investigative report and uploaded it here: [1] Should this concern us? I mean, they basically tried to do a (really juvenile) smear job on the guy, and tried to use Wikipedia to do it... Hethofpern ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Alright, now that I've had some time to think things through, here's my thought process (for what little it may be worth). We've got multiple primary sources (including the 04/27/2015 "Disclosure" summarizing McGill's allegations) to compare against the secondary sources. On 09/18/2014 there was an article in the Washington Post about NEON that includes the statement "Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said the practice came to his attention earlier this year when a whistleblower provided him with a draft audit that showed a climate change group used federal funds to pay $112,000 for lobbying, $25,000 for an office Christmas party, and $11,000 for “premium coffee services” and an unspecific amount on French hotels." [2] That matches up with the primary sources, so the "whistleblower" has to be McGill. That's confirmed in the 12/3/2014 hearing when the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology says: "Auditors discovered several highly questionable expenditures of taxpayer funds by NEON, including hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying, lavish parties, liquor for office happy hours, over $1,000 per month for premium coffee service, and trips to a high-end resmi in France. These suspicious taxpayer-financed activities were not detailed in the audit submitted to the NSF Inspector General, which was limited in scope. But to his credit, the principal auditor, J. Kirk McGill, invoked the Whistleblower Protection Act to make sure that the Inspector General, Congress and ultimately the public was aware of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars being spent on improper activities." [3] So, as of 12/3/2014 we know that the "whistleblower" is McGill. So next I went looking for articles talking about the NEON scandal in which the "whistleblower" played a prominent role. I found quite a few: "Grassley noted that the inappropriate spending came to his attention through a whistleblower. 'Otherwise, it may never have come to light'” Grassley said. 'I appreciate having whistleblowers come forward to correct wrongdoing and look out for taxpayers.' [4] [5] "of the government’s incompetency. Several highly critical financial reviews, two project audits, a courageous federal whistleblower, and three House science committee oversight hearings warned NSF and NEON of big problems." [6] "These figures drew a rebuke in September from Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who were provided a draft of the audit by a whistleblower. In a written response, the NSF called NEON’s use of the funds disconcerting." [7] "Grassley and Paul said they were alerted to the allegations of improper spending by a whistleblower who provided them with a draft audit of NEON performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. The audit showed that from fiscal 2009 until fiscal 2013, NEON received more than $888,000 in government funds for the "management fees" that were used for unallowable costs, they said.The concern raised by the draft audit is "considerable," the senators wrote, "but it is amplified by the possibility this is a widespread practice within the NSF and possibly the federal government." They requested correspondence between NEON and NSF about the so-called management fees and paying for unallowable costs, and a detailed account of all the unallowable costs incurred by NEON." [8] "In his opening comments, Chairman Lamar Smith almost accused the IG and DCAA of an attempted cover-up of these issues. The findings were not reported in the final audit report but were raised by a whistleblower" [9] It sure looks to me like we've got a ton of well-sourced evidence that NEON would not have been caught and this scandal erupted without McGill. Also, if you look at the hearing documentation for all three hearings and McGill's "Disclosure" the "management fee" issue ended up causing major policy changes at NASA and the Office of Management and Budget -- so there's significant impact to McGill's actions beyond NEON. Put that all together and I think we have plenty to support this entry. What the entry needs, I think, is some clean up by someone more experienced than me (it is my first complete entry after all) to make the sourcing more clear and eliminate anywhere where I drift into speculation and/or away from proper neutrality. But that editing stuff. Bottom line, its my (however worthless) opinion that this entry deserves inclusion and should not be deleted. In other words, keep it. Hethofpern ( talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC). |
I moved the substance of the allegation discussion to the Defense Contract Audit Agency article presuming that this one will be deleted. I leave it to others to edit that as needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I will try to add additional materials as the situation develops -- it's tough because this sort of situation is extremely important to have recorded especially to be accessible to future whistleblowers and the public, but by the very nature of government there isn't that much information out there. While I understand (and generally support) Wikipedia's guidelines, in this particular case I'm afraid that they're going to result in a lot of important information that ought to be publicly available not being publicly available. That said, I respect the results of the process and Leavitt others to determine how best to get the information that ought to be on Wikipedia to where it belongs. I appreciate the constructive criticism from the community on this matter. I will try to learn more about the communities guidelines and expectations before I make another attempt at major edits or any standalone content. I appreciate the patients of the community for new members like myself. That being said, I would strongly encourage the committee to keep an eye on this particular issue in case there is an attempted government censorship/vandalism again.
Hethofpern ( talk) 16:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a real person, but drastically embellished (for example, the full name does not appear on any sources). The accesible sources do not appear to actually be about Francesco. The article was created by a user now blocked because they were unwilling or unable to communicate. PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. And merge as appropriate. Sandstein 12:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an unsourced article about a non-notable fictional character, that appears only in a non-notable work (if the article is to be believed, she appears in a non-notable play, and not in the much more famous work of historical fiction that the play was based off of). The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 04:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Martha Finley. Sandstein 12:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no substantial coverage found, just lots of listings and non-reliable reviews, original books are notable, these are not. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Individual display aircraft are fairly common and rarely notable, most large air forces have solo display aircraft which can be dealt with using a one line summary in the air force article although they are mostly not notable enough to even mention there. The proposed deletion was removed with the statement that most display teams are notable but as this article is about three individual display aircraft they are clearly not a display team as most readers would recognise. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G3 - no evidence the subjects of the article exist. The Bushranger One ping only 11:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced essay, apparently completely WP:OR. Neither of the two alleged mixed languages listed, "Khewari" or "Maipali", have any hits on Google; these are apparently either hoaxes or neologisms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cunard's analysis of the sources is definitive. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Promotionally written article about a local plumbing company in Toronto with no claim to notability - having the highest number of positive reviews in 2012 on a regional ratings website does not confer notability. Sources are primary (press release and company website) or trivial mentions of the company's founder. bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Anta Plumbing to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Anta Plumbing's CEO is a guest on the segment. This is not significant independent coverage of the company.
The company only has a passing mention:
Tanya Klein, CEO of Anta Plumbing in Toronto, recommends reverse osmosis water filters for homes and businesses to improve water quality. Reverse osmosis purifies water by forcing it through a semi-impermeable membrane that lead and other contaminants cannot pass though.
This is a press release so is not an independent source that can be used to establish notability.
The Better Business Bureau cannot be used to establish notability.
This article is from the company itself so is not an independent source.
The result was delete. Uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Poorly references BLP Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Thamirabarani River. To be absolutely honest this didn't need to be brought here ... It's an obvious Merge, Be Bold! (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Not an EV article and suits for news Antan O 10:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Full of questionable original research that does not belong in a BLP. No charting, gold, reviews, major awards. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:NARTIST JMHamo ( talk) 14:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Project CARS#Downloadable content. Sandstein 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not necessary to have within Wikipedia. Fails WP:VGSCOPE. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. I've speedied for the third time and salted. Irrespective of notability, it's blatant full-on spamming. Creator and sock indeffed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm somewhat reluctant to send this article to AfD as I found a forum post which suggests that the company has been featured in at least one news article. Unfortunately, I cannot find the said article on the web, and a search failed to find much else other than websites which promote their real estate projects. I'm aware that the company is based in India and coverage on Indian subjects is spotty, which is why I'm reluctant to send this to AfD, but unless someone can find sources which I may have missed, I can't see how this is company is notable. Not nominating it for speedy deletion as there is a credible(?) claim to notability as being the largest land development company in the Himalayan region of India, but I can't find a source which confirms that. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 05:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD. Bennett doesn't appear to meet WP:JOURNALIST notability guidelines, and lacks independent sources. The NYT source is just a wedding announcement, one is an article he wrote, the others are routine listings. Based on history, this was very likely created as paid editing. Grayfell ( talk) 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete, uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Caste does not appear to exist from basic google searches. Ref list given not helpful and no inline citations. ツ Stacey ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. NA1K has proven the BLP is notable enough to warrant an article and that NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply .... (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: -- has not reached threshold of notability for an acadmeician or historian for a standalone article. Just too soon, I reckon. Quis separabit? 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No notability. The "satirical website" is an personal fun blog, no coverage, no serious work within. DMOZ lists it as "blog de humor". The only links point to facebook or other personal non-reliable sources. The account that created the article falls clearly under WP:SPA Mondiad ( talk) 04:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A young actress who had a recurring role in The Tudors. In the five years since there this biography was created there have been no solid reliable references or indications that she meets WP:NACTOR./ Blue Riband► 03:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Advert for subject and his Institute, written by an account in the name of the Institute and/or himself, and primarily sourced to his/the Institute's website Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Article has been tagged as possibly non-notable since September 2008. It was previously brought to AfD over a year ago but closed as no consensus because no one else commented. Of the 7 references in the article, four are from low quality blogs, one is from the band's possibly defunct myspace page, one is a Facebook page, another is a video, and the NY Daily News article barely mentions the band. My searches turned up no reliable sources. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable book series. The only hits I could find online are websites selling the books (such as Amazon), or profiles on websites such as Goodreads or FictionDB. No reliable coverage or reviews could be found. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (cajole) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This does not strike me as fulfilling WP:NGEO nor even WP:N. Even the Romanian version does not seem to include "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". I don't see how this article would ever progress beyond the stub it currently is. Newbiepedian ( Hailing Frequencies) 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any sources to confirm the subject's existence, nor that of the editor. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable movie. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Sorry, but the rationale for deletion is not a valid one. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales for deletion. North America 1000 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The list is trivial. Koala15 ( talk) 00:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)